Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1994

Vol. 438 No. 3

Financial Resolutions, 1994. - Financial Resolution No. 8: 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.)

I propose to share my time with Deputy Foley. It is understandable that Deputy John Bruton does not want the budget to be debated. There is so much good news in it that he does not want people to be aware of it. I assure him that we intend to debate it here and convey the information to the public who very much welcome the budget proposals.

It is important to reflect on the situation as it existed last year, and the contrast between now and then. This time last year we had extremely high interest rates, speculation against the punt and a general lack of confidence in the economy. In contrast, we now have historically low interest rates, the lowest rate of inflation for 30 years, confidence in the Government and in the economy, and a general mood of prosperity. This is due to the measures being adopted by the Government. This budget should not be assessed in isolation, but taken as part of an overall plan by the Government to set the economy on a sound footing. The primary focus of the budget is undoubtedly job creation, and in particular to help the less well off in our society, social welfare recipients or low-paid workers. The Minister has attempted to tackle the problem of low pay and has succeeded in his objective.

The move to provide funds for small businesses is welcome. If we are serious about creating jobs in future, we must look to our own and provide the resources necessary to allow the small businesses of the present to be the big employers of the future. Too often the banks have charged such businesses penal interest rates. I welcome the move by the Government to assist such industries in their endeavours to expand, and I have no doubt it will lead to the creation of many jobs in the coming years. The provisions for such businesses of a fund of £100 million pounds at special rates and with less restrictive credit terms than in the past is welcome. In addition, subsidised loans from the European Union will be provided to entrepreneurs in this country. There is no doubt that our economy has the capacity to grow at an enormous rate, provided the fundamentals are right.

This Government has again shown its commitment to the underprivileged in society by the manner in which it is addressing social welfare issues. I welcome the 3 per cent increase in social welfare payments which, as inflation in the past year was only 1.5 per cent, was a significant increase. I am also glad that the Minister paid particular attention to people with families and increased the children's allowance for people with three and more children. The family income supplement is an excellent benefit for people who are low paid, and I am glad that the Minister has again maintained the incentive for people to work by increasing the benefit payable under this scheme.

I am particularly pleased the Government decided to extend the CEDP to all areas of the country. I am aware of the excellent work being done under this programme in the north side of Cork city. The programme has many advantages, not least that it gets unemployed people out to work and gives them a sense of belonging and pride because they are working for the money they receive. It has also helped to clean up many neglected areas of the city.

I welcome the provision in respect of survivors' contributory pensions. I am glad the Minister for Social Welfare, in particular, finally recognises the position of widowers. There have been many campaigns to highlight the fact that widowers were not entitled to a pension from the State. I am glad that anomaly has been corrected in the budget and pay tribute to the Minister for Finance and, in particular, the Minister for Social Welfare for recognising an important need in the community. All Members should welcome that positive step.

The changes in personal taxation are significant and have been widely welcomed. Most people regardless of their level of income, will benefit from the changes announced in the budget. I welcome the fact that the 1 per cent levy has been removed, and that all employed people will benefit from the widening of the tax band. The Minister has taken an important step in reducing the marginal relief rate of tax to 40 per cent. This is a reduction of 8 per cent and will improve considerably the take home pay of low income employees and, indeed, improve the incentive to work, for people who heretofore would have been taxed to the hilt later in the year. Low paid workers will benefit further from the removal of the health levy and the employment and training levy to the tune of 2.25 per cent. This is a significant boost for people earning less than £9,000 per annum. Employers will save a significant amount of money also with the PRSI contribution being reduced from 12.2 per cent to 8 per cent.

Those are significant changes in regard to tax for the low paid and will no doubt lead to the creation of more employment and make it easier for people in business at present to sustain existing levels of employment.

Concern has been expressed about the reduction in mortgage interest relief. However, it is important to point out a number of facts in this regard. Everyone, regardless of the amount of the mortgage, is in a better position now than one year ago, due to the fact that interest rates have decreased substantially. For most people the saving will be in the order of 30 per cent on what they were paying last year.

Another important point is that fixed rate products are now available under which people can tie in at a fixed rate of interest for anything from one to ten years, depending on their circumstances. They will not have to worry about increases in interest rates for a number of years. The changes proposed by the Minister in personal taxation are a step in the right direction. He has protected the low paid in our society while at the same time ensuring that most people benefit. It is a step in the right direction towards providing a more equitable tax system for all. Surely at the end of the day this is what we all want.

I am particularly pleased the Minister decided to replace the existing urban renewal scheme which is due to expire on 31 July. There is no doubt the present urban renewal scheme which has been in existence since October 1985 was very successful in achieving what it set out to do, that is, stimulate construction activity and revitalise the areas of our cities that had become run down and dilapidated.

I have a particular interest in this since my time in the Department of the Environment as Minister of State with responsibility for urban renewal. During that time I visited most of the areas that qualified under the designated area scheme and saw at first hand the excellent work that has been done in reviltalising those areas. There is no doubt the scheme has great merit. It achieved its objective and it is essential that such a scheme is continued in some form.

I note that the Government decided to replace it with a more targeted scheme and this will no doubt promote employment in inner city areas. I am glad the Minister also decided to extend this scheme outside of the cities to towns around the country. Those towns will benefit greatly from the schemes when the details become available.

There is much merit in the proposal to launch a pilot scheme to encourage people to live on the upper portions of business premises in city centre areas which are at present vacant. It is essential that people move back to city centres to live if we are to create a vibrant atmosphere. One need only look to cities on the Continent where people live over business premises to see the effect and benefit that such an initiative can have for a city. If we can get people to live in our city centres it will be to the benefit of all in the long term, including businesses in the area.

Thus if one combines the various proposals, it is clear that the Minister managed to create a very exciting and positive budget which offers growth potential to a range of sectors and individuals. It is important to acknowledge that many provisions have been included by the Minister to improve overall living standards despite the fact that the national finances are constrained particularly because of the burden imposed by the national debt. I note that in excess of £2 billion will be required to service the public debt in 1994; this is equivalent to £1 in every £6 of State expenditure.

Taking into account the overall financial situation and the major funding needs of the Departments of Social Welfare, Education and Health, the Minister must be complimented on the variety of positive measures in the budget. Taking the budget's provisions in conjunction with the vital reductions in bank interest rates, the climate is becoming increasingly more sympathetic to the needs of developing industry. This development is vital if we are to make substantial progress in our efforts to create long term employment opportunities. While we must explore every avenue which offers the potential of job creation, a major breakthrough in this area can only be achieved if we fully harness the creativity of home-owned enterprises. The work of the Government over the past year, and the specific achievements of the Minister for Finance in particular, have undoubtedly been of great benefit to our business sector. When one considers the formidable obstacles which must be overcome by the modern business man or woman if they are to survive in an increasingly competitive market place, it is clear that they both need and deserve our full support in their endeavours. Further to the measures introduced in this budget, and the overall improvement in the financial climate, I hope the changed structures in the organisation of the IDA also prove to be of benefit in the development of our indigenous business.

In conclusion, I emphasise my strong support for this budget. In particular, I would like to highlight two key features of the Minister's proposals, namely, a continuing commitment to the particular needs of social welfare recipients and the acknowledgment of the need to provide a boost to those directly involved in job creation. I fervently hope that the encouragement provided by this budget will be quickly built on to accelerate the ongoing development of our economy to the benefit of all the people of Ireland. At present far too many people have much to offer but do not have an opportunity to play a role in the economic life of the country. All of our efforts must be focused on meeting the urgent needs of such individuals. Various elements of this budget, taken in conjunction with the National Development Plan, provide the momentum necessary for the rapid expansion of our economy. All our people, but in particular those currently suffering serious economic deprivation, must benefit substantially as a result.

I thank Deputy Wallace for sharing his time with me. I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on his excellent budget. I compliment the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, as this budget forms part of a coherent medium term strategy designed to give a substantial imptus to creating sustainable employment in Ireland. Real and lasting social progress depends ultimately on the achievement of that objective.

The Joint Programme for a Partnership Government sets out a strategic framework for continuing and accelerating the positive performance in respect of employment and living standards in recent years. As outlined in the National Development Plan, 1994-99, this involves keeping public finances on a sustainable course, a stable exchange rate within the EMS, moderate evolution of costs and incomes, developing the country's essential infrastructure and making the broad array of public policies more supportive of employment and investment. This budget involves further significant tax reform and management of the public finances aimed at supporting industry, employment and an increase in real take home pay.

I welcome the provision of an extra £15 million from the proceeds of the tax amnesty for the maintenance of national roads, better known as county roads. This will bring the 1994 provision to £28.3 million, an increase of 113 per cent compared with the 1993 allocation. As the Minister pointed out in his statement, non-national roads have an important and social role in Ireland because of the dispersed nature of the population and for reasons associated with industrial development, agriculture, tourism and rural and urban development.

We in Kerry, especially north Kerry, have the worst roads in Ireland. This was highlighted in the Tourism Development and Marketing Plan for Kerry, 1993-1998, commissioned by Kerry County Council and prepared by Tourism Development International last year. It identified the impact of tourism on the economy of County Kerry and set out a development strategy for the industry for coming years. The study further identified the condition of the roads structure throughout the county as a major inhibiting factor in the development of the industry. This is understandable considering the report also identified that 40 per cent of tourists to the county travel by private car, while a further 31 per cent travel by hired car and a further 14 per cent avail of coach services. The increase in population in the county during the peak tourist season places a substantial strain on the road structure. One-fifth of all overseas visitors to the county expressed a desire for an improvement in the roads and this is the main recommendation of the report in relation to the infrastructure in the county.

Other industries in the county are also affected by the road structure, as are the efforts of various agencies involved in attracting other potential industry to the county. The peripheral location of the county gives rise to difficulties in respect of attracting industry, and the present inadequate road system must be improved if we are to attract further development to the county. Agriculture, which is always modernising, is heavily dependent on an efficient road network. The number of county roads supporting tourist traffic is extensive in the prime tourist county of Kerry. For this reason I appeal to the Minister to make a special allocation available to Kerry County Council in view of the serious condition of the roads, particularly the county roads. Kerry County Council made a elaborate submission in respect of a roads development plan for the county direct to the Department of the Environment in June 1993 and I hope that submission will be given priority in respect of essential funding now required.

A further £12 million for local authority housing in 1994 is welcome. This level of expenditure on local authority and voluntary housing schemes represents a further significant step in the Government's commitment to deal with local authority waiting lists and the provision of housing for those in need. In 1993 Kerry County Council built a total of 164 houses, which represents almost three times the number of houses built in 1992. That is a tribute to Kerry County Council and the local urban authorities. In the recent lists circulated by the Department of the Environment on housing I was pleased to note that those authorities were only second to the authorities in Donegal, who built 200 houses during 1993. Having regard to the additional funding available this year, we in Kerry hope to increase still further the number of new houses built. That would help to reduce the housing waiting list in the county.

I would like to see greater promotion of the shared ownership scheme. It is a great incentive to young people and where possible they should be encouraged to opt for it. If they are not given that encouragement they will be forced to apply for local authority houses and may have to wait a number of years in view of the numbers on the present waiting list.

Extra funding should be made available to local authorities in respect of disabled persons grants and essential repair schemes as there are long delays in processing those applications due to a short-fall of sufficient funding. In many cases those applicants come from the weaker sections of our community and are not in a position to highlight their cases. Therefore, their particular circumstances merit special consideration.

Local authorities should also encourage housing estates within their remit to set up development committees or residents' associations. This will allow residents greater involvement in the running of their estates, which is essential to ensure the type of quality housing services they require. Residents know better than anyone the strengths, weaknesses and problems of their estate. The involvement of residents in such organisations can improve the standard of estates and help prevent their deterioration, which can give rise to social problems. Such involvement would also be helpful to local authorities as they would have a direct link with various estates, but funding is essential in this area. It will not be easy to persuade residents that they have an important role to play and that their views count. In many cases residents have strongly held and sometimes divided views on the problems of their estates and how they should be tackled. Dialogue can take place within residents' associations and residents can play a constructive role in the active running of their estates. They can be assured that the local authority will respond to such involvement in an appropriate way.

Section 9 of the 1992 Act provides the statutory framework for the delegation by a housing authority in respect of the management and control of their dwellings as one of its reserved functions. Such a body must be established by and be representative of residents of the area, or be established jointly by such residents and the authority of such other body as the housing authority may approve. An extra amount of £157 million has been provided in social welfare to improve the income of those who depend on social welfare to support families and jobs. It will help strengthen voluntary and community services and will also provide a major development in social insurance cover.

For the first time widowers will be able to claim a contributory pension. The widowers contributory pension is long overdue and is a further development of our social insurance system. It is the most significant measure to be introduced in social welfare in recent years. It also marks a major step forward in providing support for families where the mother has died. The new widower's contributory pension will be introduced next October. It will be available to widowers on the same terms and conditions as currently apply to widows. Regarding contributory pension claims arising next October, under the new arrangement both widows and widowers will be entitled to a contributory pension for the first year, after which a qualifying earnings limit will apply. I am also pleased that existing recipients of widow's pension will not be affected by those new arrangements. They will continue to receive their pensions irrespective of their level of earnings.

Further improvements have been introduced in respect of child benefit in line with the overall approach to the relevant child benefit as the main element of child income support. Last year the monthly rates for all children were increased to £20 for each of the first three children and £23 per child thereafter. In this budget the higher rate of £23 is being increased and has been applied to the third and subsequent children. The new payment structure from next September will be £20 for each of the first two children and £25 for each child thereafter.

The family income supplement is providing much needed support for workers trying to bring up families on low pay. The Minister for Social Welfare stated that this scheme take-up has increased compared to that of last year; some 9,600 families currently receive family income supplement and more than 30,000 children benefit from this payment. The substantial improvements in the scheme last year are beginning to have an impact in respect of its take up. Building on last year's improvements, the weekly income thresholds have been adjusted to take account of the tax measures announced in the budget. The eligibility thresholds are being increased by £10 and families will receive an increase of £6 per week.

The means test in respect of the lone parents scheme has been eased to help improve the position of young mothers who wish to take up work. That measure is most welcome. The current earnings disregard of £6 per child is being replaced by a flat rate disregard of £30 and a 50 per cent taper will apply where earnings are greater than £30 per week. Where earnings exceed the new disregards the amount of lone parent's allowance payable will be reduced by £1 for each £2 earned instead of the reduction of £1 for £1 earned which previously applied. I understand the impact of this improvement will result in an increase of £18.90 per week for a lone parent with one child and earning £80 per week.

In addition to the 3 per cent increase, changes are being introduced to the means test through provision of an earnings disregard of £100 in respect of working spouses. Most criticism of the allowance has focused on the means test, in particular where the spouse or the carer was working.

Most welcome news in regard to social welfare is the remit of the free schemes. A pensioner being cared for by a recipient of a carer's allowance will in future retain the free telephone rental allowance. Previously this was discontinued because the living alone conditions ceased to be satisfied. Pensioners aged 75 or over who no longer live alone will retain the free telephone rental allowance. The age requirement of 80 which applies in the case of retaining the free electricity allowance will also be reduced to 75. Widows between the age of 60, and 65 whose late husbands had entitlements to the free scheme will retain entitlement notwithstanding their age. This is most welcome, as for many widows, following the death of their late husband who was in receipt of these entitlements, payment was withdrawn if they were not of pension age.

The free electricity allowance scheme is being extended to include night storage schemes. This extension will allow unused day time units to be offset against the cost of night time units, and will enable pensioners with night storage heating to maximise their units under the scheme. The free travel companion pass is being extended to all wheelchair users currently entitled to avail of free travel under the Department scheme. Payment of dependant allowance is being continued for six weeks after the death of an adult dependant. In the case of a retirement pension, old age contributory, old age non-contributory pension, pre-retirement allowance, and invalidity pension, payments will be provided for six weeks after death.

A major problem in many cities and urban areas throughout this country is the question of money lending, especially leading up to holiday time and at Christmas. An additional £250,000 is being provided to combat the problems of money lending, bringing the total allocation to £750,000. I would like to compliment and congratulate the many credit unions that have moved in on this major problem. I can say without fear of contradiction that in Tralee and north Kerry the credit unions have been responsible for resolving many serious problems with regard to money lending. I hope to see them get a substantial slice of this extra funding as it will help them to further develop and expand the household budget management services they provide.

In regard to employers' PRSI, from 6 April 1994 a reduced rate of 9 per cent will be levied on incomes up to £173 per week. Above £173 the normal rate of 12.2 per cent will apply. This morning I received a fax from a leading factory in Kerry with 450 employees, all earning just over £200 per week. They do not benefit under the single threshold proposal of a lower employers' PRSI rate. What they are seeking is the more logical graduated creative PRSI that applies, for example, in the UK. Following this budget the company will face an annual bill of some £450,000 more than their UK competitor companies on employers' PRSI alone. They have further issued a notice to their workforce today confirming that the European currency market remains seriously depressed and is currently in a plus 20 per cent over-capacity position. This means that there will be further lay-offs which will continue indefinitely. Arising from this continual large gap between demand and capacity, it is forecast that manufacturing rationalisation in Europe is inevitable. I hope that before the Finance Bill is published this most important issue will be effectively addressed by increasing the £173 per week to approximately £220 to £230. This problem not only relates to Kerry but also to many other factories throughout the country.

For the past number of years health boards have been complaining about their large overdrafts which have caused them serious problems. The Minister is to be congratulated on making available £100 million from the tax amnesty proceeds to restore the financial position of health boards and hospitals. In this regard the Minister should take a serious view in the future of any health board not working within its budget.

Time constraints do not allow me to refer to many other excellent aspects of this caring budget. It is a budget by which the great bulk of taxpayers receive substantial benefit. The low paid are especially catered for. Social welfare increases in the last two budgets were higher than inflation. Extra places have been provided in the new community employment scheme for the long term unemployed. This is a tremendous and caring budget and I commend it to the House.

Few Ministers in recent years have had as much flexibility as had the present Minister to produce a positive budget and no Minister in recent times has disappointed so many people. A token gesture has been made to the unemployed, the sick and the elderly by crediting them with a 3 per cent increase, which is just in line with inflation. However, there has been a vicious onslaught on the middle class and employers have been hammered once again.

I neglected to say at the start that I would like to share my time with Deputy Carey.

It is part of the understanding in this debate that Members may share time. It is quite in order.

Those in the middle and particularly the upper-middle income groups may in future need their personal accountants to establish their true position. The extension of the residential property tax, by reducing the value of property and the salary threshold, basically can be seen as a reintroduction of domestic rates. This budget has all the signs of being heavily influenced by the Labour Party who have repeated their historic attack on those who are prepared to help themselves. However, this attack on the self-reliant will also add to the misery of those on housing lists and hospital waiting lists. The extension of the property tax and the reduction of tax relief on VHI and mortgage repayments will have the cumulative effect of increasing the number of people on housing lists and hospital waiting lists.

This budget has attacked the engine house of our system, those who attempt to finance their health care and housing needs. The property tax is a reintroduction of domestic rates which Fianna Fáil abolished in 1977. The tax is most unfair in that it will be paid with moneys that have been heavily taxed already. It is heaping insult on insult. The tax has been introduced in a brutal and hamfisted way and will have the effect of torpedoing household budgets and personal plans. All of these measures show that the budget is anti-family. I will address the anti-family elements in the social welfare code at a later stage. The extension of the property tax is the thin end of the wedge and this downward spiral is likely to be repeated next year. The aim is to impose property tax on all householders in the not too distant future. People who are prepared to house themselves and pay for their health cover have been dealt a savage blow. The decision to lower tax relief will have a negative effect on the construction industry. The number of people able to afford VHI cover will be reduced and many people will be forced back onto the already over-stretched and under-financed public health services.

I listened with interest his morning to the chairman of the Labour Party, Deputy Jim Kemmy, on "Morning Ireland". He said he supports property tax. He trotted out the sickening, pathetic reasons and explanations for the imposition of this tax. He made the excuse that promises made before the election in November 1992 should not be taken too seriously. He said they were made in the heat of an election campaign and, therefore, were not bona fide promises. A promise made should be met.

Am I to take it, then, that people should not take too seriously anything said by Deputy Kemmy between now and the European elections? Should we take any promises made by him between now and June as merely comments made in an election campaign which should not be taken seriously? If that is the yardstick used to measure the commitments made by him during an election campaign it does not say too much for his principles. As I said, promises which are made should be kept.

The 1994 budget will be remembered as a budget of broken promises and misrepresentation: it is the typical three card trick repeated so often by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern. This budget has certainly done nothing to help the lower paid, the Minister has failed to grasp this first real opportunity to significantly ease the tax burden on lower paid workers, thereby assisting job creation. Despite all the hype, most of the tax reliefs announced by the Minister will amount to very little. The Minister has broken the promises to increase all social welfare payments above the lowest income threshold of £60. One in every ten social welfare claimants will remain below that rate.

The promises made to safeguard children have also been broken. All child dependant payments will be increased by 40p per week, not even enough to cover the bus fare to and from school. The increase in the child dependant allowance does not apply to the first and second children; the increases apply only to the third and subsequent children.

The introduction of taxation on social welfare payments such as unemployment benefit is in line with the recommendations made by the Commission on Social Welfare. However, the increases in personal tax allowances should be high enough to ensure that those dependent on social welfare alone will not be taxed. The abolition of pay-related unemployment benefit was not unexpected, but these moves by the Government should be taken in the context of the implementation of all the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare — the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, was a member of that commission — and not merely the implementation of those recommendations which suit the Government.

The budget shows a worrying trend towards the further erosion of the insurance based system. Unemployment benefit is still means-tested for those made redundant, the deserted wife's benefit is similarly limited and now the widow's pension will be subject to an income limit. This trend, which corrupts our social insurance system, must not continue. I welcome the introduction of the widower's pension, but in giving pensions to widowers the first step is being taken to take pensions from widows. Such a reprehensible move will affect vulnerable and lonely people. It is a hard-headed, callous and cowardly act against widows which must be reversed.

I welcome the changes in the lone parent's allowance system which will enable lone parents to seek work. However, the rate of £36, irrespective of the number of children, is much too low for those lone parents who have more than one child.

The Government has announced the creation of 30,000 jobs under the new community employment programme which will replace the present jungle of work schemes. In bringing all of these work schemes under one roof the Minister is moving in the right direction. However, I must remind the House that schemes are not real work. In referring to work schemes I must again put forward my views on the concept of an optional work programme, similar to the proposal put forward by the CMRS. I am interested to see the conditions the Government will attach to the 1,000 places which have been made available in the pilot scheme.

Earlier this year the Fine Gael Party put forward its proposals in regard to an optional work programme, with the emphasis on "optional". Here again I must express my party's unhappiness about the proposals put forward by the Progressive Democrats. People must be given the choice of whether or not to take a place on a work scheme. Work schemes are not a substitute for real jobs and must not be used as a weapon to remove people from the social welfare system. Therefore, all work schemes must be monitored to ensure that they progress towards providing quality training and real work experience.

The budget was introduced at a time when ongoing negotiations were taking place between the Government and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on another agreement. This agreement must be closely monitored. Any new programmes must give priority to addressing the unemployment crisis and there must be a national strategy to solve the problem of long term unemployment and crate jobs. Even though it may be a wage agreement, it must go further and include provisions which will deal in a real way with the problems of the long term unemployed and which will make some effort to create real jobs for at least 10,000 of the people on the dole queue.

The budget has failed to bring about changes in the social welfare schemes which would support work, eliminate many of the anti-family provisions in the social welfare code, reverse in full the dirty dozen proposals and remove many of the employment traps in the social welfare system. With regard to the anti-family elements in the social welfare code, the present system forces young people out of their homes in order to qualify for unemployment assistance. Having been forced out of their home they can then qualify not only for unemployment assistance but also for a rent allowance under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. This provision is blatantly anti-family and is socially undesirable. Single young adults living at home are subject to the benefit and privilege rules, the stated intention of which is to value the board and lodgings received by them, but which actually constitute a one-sided sharing rule between parents and children.

How can a system under which elderly people lose their secondary benefits, for example, free electricity and free phone rental allowances — described by the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, as perks—

If they arrange to have a companion live with them for security reasons——

She did not describe these benefits as perks, and she made it very clear in the House that she did not do so.

She blamed one of her civil servants for including the word "perks" in her speech. She should have read her speech before she came into the House. Her problem is that machine-like she trots out scripts written by other people.

She did not read——

The Deputy without interruption, please.

At a time when there are widespread attacks on the elderly living alone, surely this provision is anti-family. Elderly persons obtaining social welfare payments in the form of old age non-contributory pensions stand to lose their pensions if they arrange to have someone live with them for security reasons — their income is means tested. As their income increases the amount they receive by way of pension decreases. At a time when there have been more than 12,000 reported attacks on elderly people living alone this provision is short-sighted and anti-social.

There are many other anti-family elements in our social welfare code. The improvements in the carer's allowance will bring a further 500 people into the scheme, giving a total of approximately 5,000 recipients. Approximately 40,000 people thought they would qualify for this allowance. The Government should give further consideration to this issue — I have dealt with it in the House on previous occasions. Improvements in this allowance would lead to knock-on beneficial effects for everyone, the Government and recipients. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach between the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, which are inter-related, in regard to this issue. The new nursing homes regulations and the new grants scheme which has been introduced are now regarded as inadequate in terms of meeting the real needs of people.

Time does not allow me to go into this matter in more detail but in relation to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress talks, I will await with interest the outcome of the negotiations in the smoke filled rooms between the social partners and the Government and I will certainly be casting an eagle eye over the details of this agreement. There has been much hype and shadow boxing between the social partners. Many of the discussions concern wage levels but there must also be structured agreements and measures to eliminate poverty and provide meaningful work for all our people.

On a positive note, I welcome the £2 million for improvements in special education for handicapped children in line with the recommendations of the recently published report of the Committee for Special Education. I understand that an allocation of £100,000 has been provided for escorts on buses taking children with special needs to and from school. In view of the very serious alleged incident in Cork, highlighted by me in this House and in an article in the Cork Examiner in December, the parents of children in Cork have demanded escorts on buses and are refusing to allow their children to travel without an escort. The Minister's decision, while long awaited, is nevertheless welcome. I hope steps will be taken immediately to implement the provisions of the report and that escorts will be available on buses for these very special children as quickly as possible.

The prime objective of any budget, apart from all the other issues, should be the reduction of the number of people unemployed and in this key element the budget has failed miserably. Even though the Minister announced the creation of a new FÁS programme to replace the existing one it is already unacceptable to all the organisations to whom I have spoken. It is basically a budget to provide schemes, not jobs. All the Government has done is to create more expensive quangos which of course will be filled at the top by its political friends.

The budget was once the highlight of the political year. It is now a damp squib because not alone is there a national jobs strategy but the level of taxation and economic planning is decided in a hotel room or in Government Buildings without any input from representatives of the Opposition parties or the unemployed. In dealing in a general way with the budget the Minister must be condemned for the basic thrust of his policy which is to attempt to create temporary jobs while ignoring the importance of saving existing jobs. The Minister could have preserved hundreds and possibly thousands of jobs but he chose not to reduce VAT on clothing, footwear and newspapers where jobs are very much at risk. The Minister has not yet learned that the cost of saving a job is far less than the cost of creating one. Only by manufacturing products for which there is a demand will jobs be created.

I welcome the allocation in the budget for the refurbishment of Collins Barracks, Dublin. However, the Minister should not be parochial, he should look beyond Dublin because many large public buildings are lying idle in towns and cities throughout the country. Our Lady's Hospital, a major architectural gem on the outskirts of Cork city is lying idle. It is a former psychiatric hospital in the ownership of the Southern Health Board and will soon be in the same condition as the North Infirmary in Cork.

The Minister should knock some heads together in Cork, in his Department and the Departments of Education and Health, and come to a decision in relation to that building. It is an asset owned by the taxpayers and I forecast it will either be sold to private enterprise at a low price or vandalised. There should be a scheme whereby Departments would come together in a joint effort to save the building and put it to productive use. This could have been done in the budget by the allocation of sufficient funds, say, to the university in Cork who could set up a secondary campus there because its present campus is overcrowded. Unfortunately, there is a compartmentalised approach to issues such as these. The Departments of Education and Health should make a joint effort to save that building and put it to proper use.

Finally, will somebody in Government spell out clearly its attitude to claims by women seeking arrears of alleviation payments arising from the decision of the European Court on 13 March 1991 in the Cotter and McDermott application? I tried to get information from the Minister for Social Welfare yesterday in the House but, as usual, he side-stepped the issue. Will the Minister state: (1) the total number of applications to date as a result of the European Court decision; (2) the average payment to each person and where possible, allow persons who have received payments through solicitors to know what was paid out on their behalf and (3) to advise women of their rights in this regard? He must come clean because for too long he has attempted to mislead the public on this issue. Will the Minister agree that tens of thousands of women throughout the country are entitled to approximately £140 million in payments? Will he also agree that they have been treated shabbily and as second class citizens? They have been denied information on the scheme and their rights; some of them — and I will again use the word — have been practically blackmailed because they have been warned that if they made public the level of payments steps would be taken to take it back.

Women paid through solicitors cannot establish what payments were made on their behalf. The Minister denied this yesterday but I have letters here, one dated 13 August from Mr. Fred Burke, Correspondence Section, in relation to a woman that I will identify to the Minister and whose PRSI number is 2268532. I have another letter dated 14 December 1993 from Mr. Liam Kavanagh, higher executive officer, in relation to a person whose PRSI number is 3496714NW. The letter states:

(Mrs. X) was among a number of married women who initiated court proceedings arising from the delay in implementing EC Directive 79/7. Conditions as to confidentiality were provided for in relation to settlements made in these cases and for that reason details of payments cannot be provided.

This person asked me to obtain details of payments to her solicitor. She is denied the information and I am also being denied it. So much for open Government, it is more like the Secret Service.

The letter from Mr. Burke states:

(Miss X) was among a number of married women on behalf of whom legal proceedings were taken seeking arrears over and above the provisions of the Regulations. A settlement was made in this case and payment was made through the legal representative. I regret to inform you that the details of the settlement cannot be supplied.

That women received approximately £5,000 from a solicitor but she does not know what payment was made by the Department on her behalf to the solicitor. That is not justice and in an open society, where taxpayers' money is involved, people should know their entitlements but in cases where people have been paid they cannot establish what settlements were made on their behalf. This is a matter on which the Law Society must take steps in relation to the client-solicitor relationship. Surely the Minister, as a representative of the taxpayer, should take steps to ensure that there is full disclosure of facts. There is no point in the Minister hiding behind the excuse that the courts took a decision and we are bound by the courts. Retention of information that should be made available to the public is wrong and should be rectified.

I have posed certain specific questions to the Minister to which he should respond either here in the House or in public. I attended a meeting in Connolly Hall, Cork, the other evening at which there were 500 women attempting to establish their entitlements. I have been misled, the people have been misled and are now forced into taking legal action against the Department. A similar meeting will be held in Limerick next week, another in Waterford and others in cities and towns nationwide. The women of this country are being treated as second class citizens and very shabbily by the Minister for Social Welfare. I ask that somebody be accountable for their actions in this House.

Since what I shall have to say will not be too complimentary, my short contribution will spare many people the agony of having to listen to me.

Budget day has become a real circus. Indeed, the indoctrination programme begins the previous September, dependent on which spin the Minister for Finance wants. Whether the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, takes part in it I do not know. There are leaks, counterleaks, estimates and so on, all speculative. The general attitude in Government and among political parties to the budget is to treat the people very shabbily, letting them down totally. Since the budget is an annual event, covering a full calendar year, its provisions could be debated in an ongoing fashion. For example, if Dáil reform was moving in the right direction and we had committees which could call witnesses, I predict the overall attitude to the budget and its provisions would change. But at present budgets tend to be used to provide political advantage for the Government of the day.

This year the Government proposed the extension of the residential property tax. Some few days after that extension was announced the papers are full of reports of U-turns on the part of the Government.

The Deputy should not believe all he reads in the papers.

I am interested to hear the Minister of State say that, because I hope she is as strident in her attitude as were the Labour Party when they formed part of the previous Coalition Government between 1983 and 1987 and were speaking about taxation and so on. Indeed, I recall the present Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs say at that time, in strident terms, that he would lead them in and lead them out — in other words, the Labour Party were not for selling, that they had their principles. Indeed, the residential property tax constituted a real ideological principle on which they stood. In this House yesterday the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs shouted accusingly at the Fine Gael benches that as far as he was concerned the residential property tax was a Fine Gael tax.

For the record and the benefit of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald who is present, I should like to read from the Official Report what the present Minister for——

——cracked chimneys.

——Equality and Law Reform had to say on 26 May 1983, at column 2633:

The answer is yes, the purport of this tax was the result of pressure by the Labour Party, and rightly so.

He was addressing those remarks to former Deputy John Kelly, who represented the same constituency as the Minister of State sitting opposite, Dublin South.

I could read into the record much more of what the Minister for Equality and Law Reform had to say at that time, that this was an ideological tax the Labour Party had foisted on that Government. Yet they are using its extension to improve, as they see it, the socialist base in Government. I do not know exactly what game the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is playing. Yesterday he endeavoured to give the impression that he was trying to get out of this tax, that he would be examining anomalies, if any, and so on. In fact, when interrupted he began with a de Valera quote, fancying himself as a successor to de Valera saying "As I was saying before I was interrupted". I wonder where is this man going? What status does he believe he has attained in Irish politics? Is he now God? Is he the man who decides everything for all of us? He was very ruffled in the House yesterday when Deputy John Bruton produced the document showing the U-turns the Tánaiste had taken on what he had promised the electorate and recalling that the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, had told the people in Dublin South that she did not intend to do anything about the property tax or relief on VHI premia.

Perhaps the Deputy would now conclude his contribution.

The Minister of State has been spared. I have some other quotes here if she would care to have her researcher look them up. If the people who listen to Gay Byrne's programme on the radio want valuable information, I might add that Fianna Fáil's attitude to this residential property tax is contained in remarks by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, in the Official Report of 11 May 1983, at column 1003, on the Finance Bill of that year when he clearly illustrated what Fianna Fáil people thought about residential property tax. What a U-turn they have now taken.

I propose sharing my time with my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Before beginning my contribution on the budget proper I should like to refer to some of Deputy Allen's remarks earlier. He made a very good point in relation to the hospital in Cork, which I shall take up with my colleagues. In addition, the point he made about access to information was important. I am at present preparing a Freedom of Information Bill. One of the legislative provisions we hope to enact in this House will ensure that everybody will have the right to information in respect of their own cases. That point he made was a very valid one. Might I suggest to Deputy Allen, in regard to the insurance numbers he read out, if he would table specific questions on them they could be followed up. I am unable to answer in detail the Cotter-McDermott position because I am not directly involved.

Deputy Allen also made some good points in relation to social welfare. Indeed, there are many recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare which have not yet been implemented. We are committed to implementing them in full over the lifetime of this Government. The points Deputy Allen made about the carer's allowance, benefit and privilege, the need to continually improve the rates of payment, all are important. In this budget we have implemented some improvements in the social welfare system, but we have by no means finished the job of having a modern social welfare system that deals with people who have no income of their own in a caring and dignified manner. There is still room for improvement in that area. Those points were well made by Deputy Allen.

Some of the Deputy's party colleagues have characterised this Government as being a tax and spend one. Deputy Allen made a very good case for increases in spending in some social welfare areas. In that context I hope he will be looking at the volume of public spending, the need to ensure that, within prudent financial limits, we do protect the weakest in our society, such as the mentally handicapped, the people participating in special education, carers and so on, showing that we are willing to put our money where our mouths are in relation to them rather than adopting a Thatcherite, fiscal approach.

This budget was a budget for jobs, which reduced the tax wedge considerably, which targeted income tax relief, particularly for those with low and middle incomes, which saw the first reductions in employers' PRSI, which simplified and streamlined tax affairs for small business. Most important — and this marks the first step in real reform of the tax system — it was a budget on the lines suggested in so many reports, Culliton, the Commission on Taxation and the NESC. It was also a budget which marked a significant improvement in the overall range of provision for the long term unemployed, who without specially targeted action are highly unlikely to benefit from any overall upturn in the economy, because generally the rising tide does not lift all boats.

The strategy is to build on the National Development Plan's programme for job creation, by a complementary fiscal and tax strategy which will encourage the maximum job potential from this enormous investment. The prudent financial management which has seen interest rates tumble is a major fillip to investment and job creation. That prudent strategy has been continued in this budget.

Everyone in this House maintains that the creation of employment is the first aim of economic and social policy. Attaining that aim involves change, sometimes taking tough decisions, if we are serious about tackling unemployment.

It would have been easier for us to have proposed lower tax give-aways, and leave the structure of our tax system alone. That structure, which has penalised productive earnings as compared to property investment, left our economy with lower investment for growth and fewer jobs than would a tax system restructured on the lines on which the Government has embarked. The Opposition has consistently called for the implementation of the Culliton report. The core recommendation of that report is to move towards a tax system which rewards productive work within which individuals and businesses will seek markets rather than tax breaks. Those tax changes will deliver higher growth in employment in the economy. As a Government which is serious about its commitment to job creation it would be irresponsible to bypass the opportunity to restructure the tax system when it was possible to do so while leaving families better off.

One of the main concerns of the Government in drawing up the budget was to ensure that it would focus on the low paid. To reach those under the existing tax exemption thresholds, additional relief was given by abolishing the employment and training levies and health levies for those earning under £9,000. This would not have been possible otherwise as they are already under the tax exemption threshold.

This focus on the lowest paid helps those most likely to face serious unemployment traps. Health and employment and training levies are being abolished for the low paid under £9,000; tax exemption limits are being raised by £100 for each child; the marginal relief tax rate is reduced from 48 per cent to 40 per cent for those slightly above the income tax exemption limits — this important measure will help reduce poverty traps and reduce overall marginal tax rates; personal allowances are being increased by £350 for a couple; family income supplement is up by £6 a week and children's allowances are being increased for families of three and more. In addition, the 1 per cent income levy is being abolished for all income earners.

The net result of these changes is to leave all taxpayers better off through significant increases in their take-home pay. The percentage increases are particularly tilted towards the lower paid, with for example a 2.8 per cent increase in take home pay for a single person on £9,000, and a married couple with four children on £11,000 receiving a 4 per cent increase in take home pay. It is unique in any budget to have this kind of focus on the low paid with higher percentage increases for the lower paid, unlike, for example, the budget strategy adopted by the Progressive Democrats where the higher tax breaks went to the higher paid.

The 27 per cent tax band is being widened by £1,050 for a couple. The 1 per cent income levy is abolished. A married couple on PAYE will not now move into the top 48 per cent tax band until they reach an income of £22,186.

There are substantial tax reliefs in this budget for the middle income earners. The abolition of the 1 per cent levy, the raising of the tax allowances and the increase in the tax bands mean that a couple on £25,000 will gain, on the income tax side, £640, a couple on £30,000 will gain £690, a couple on £40,000 will gain £790 and a couple on £50,000 will gain almost £900 from the budget's reduction of taxes on income.

Despite the dog's dinner and the meal being made by the Opposition about modest changes to the existing residential property tax, it must be viewed in the context of tax changes. The bottom line is that the middle income taxpayer will be significantly better off after this budget. The substantial gains are countered balanced by the restrictions on mortgage relief, and the changes in property tax but the net effect is to leave families at this income range significantly better off.

I would like to illustrate the rationale of the budget's strategy with a simple example. In deciding to give a net gain of, say, £200 to a taxpayer, the Government could choose between giving a straight £200 reduction in income tax or giving a £300 reduction in income tax counter-balanced by an extra take on the property side of £100. The net effect for the taxpayer is the same, a £200 reduction in tax. But broadening the tax base through the retructuring should have an important spin-off for jobs.

The Commission on Taxation, the Culliton report and the NESC all recommended a shift in our tax structure away from taxes on income and towards reducing tax reliefs on property. If property rather than production is the more profitable investment, our economy will continue to under perform in terms of jobs, and all of us will be the poorer.

The property tax for an average family is only a small fraction of the income tax gain. The property tax on a house worth £85,000-£90,000, the highest valued houses brought into the net for the first time, is a maximum of £125 a year. To be liable for the tax, you have got to be earning £25,000 a year. The gain at £25,000 from the income tax changes in the budget is £640, comfortably more than the extra property tax. At the very minimum the net gain is of the order of £500. In addition, many families will benefit from the 10 per cent discount for every child, and the marginal relief discount of 20 per cent for each £1,000 step of income from £25,000 to £30,000, so that many families would in fact pay considerably less than £125. The budget's provisions must be seen as a package — the scale of the gains on the income tax side are only made possible through broadening the income tax base. The changes in property tax and the other taxes were made only in the context of very substantial give-backs on the income tax side and in the context that people, at the end of the day, would be significantly better off in financial terms. The message has to go out that the middle income group will be significantly better off, even after the changes in the structure of the tax system after this budget.

Social welfare benefits are being increased to reach the Commission on Social Welfare's priority rates, and in the case of unemployment and disability benefits the increases are 10 per cent. This is accompanied by special measures targeted at the low paid and designed to reduce poverty traps, particularly unemployment traps.

In addition to the macro-economic strategy to increase total employment, the budget has particular strategies to ensure that unemployed people are facilitated in taking up new job opportunities. The budget, plus the National Development Plan, will increase the total number of jobs in the economy. By tackling the poverty trap problem it will be financially realistic for people who are now unemployed to take up employment because of the manner in which we have targeted tax reliefs on the low paid.

The budget provides for a major expansion of the range of measures to address the needs of the unemployed, and particularly the long-term unemployed, with the community employment programme which will provide up to 40,000 places, providing work, education and training and progression opportunities for the unemployed, particularly the long term unemployed. The changes we anticipate in overall employment levels as a result of this budget will not in themselves lift the long term unemployed out of that position. We are aware from surveys carried out by the Tallaght Partnership that private employers are not particularly interested in recruiting from people who have been unemployed for more than a year. The figures indicate clearly that if you have lost your job for over a year the chances of obtaining employment within the next year tend to be under 20 per cent. The chances of obtaining employment in year three are reduced to about 10 per cent.

We will not reach into the heart of unemployment without specific measures targeted at the long term unemployed, and that is what the community employment programme is designed to do. This programme has been developed through learning from the experiences of other labour market programmes like social employment schemes, CEDP and VTOS, learning from the good and the bad aspects of these programmes, examining the research and evaluation of these programmes and, most importantly, from listening to the needs of the long term unemployed. This is not just another scheme, it is a programme developed through looking at the good and the bad aspects of these programmes and from listening and learning.

In the light of the current levels of unemployment we have to do something about the long term unemployed, to reawaken the economic potential and bring them back into the economic mainstream: that is what the community employment programme is trying to do. First, the programme is about providing work for people who want to contribute their talents and energies to our society. It is about getting work done which would otherwise not be done in local communities, particularly in the long term unemployment blackspots, and in State agencies and local authorities. Second, the programme is about development. It is not a make-work scheme, it is about giving people a real opportunity to enhance and develop their skills. The long term unemployed tend to be those who lost out on the education system, those who left school early or left without formal qualifications.

The programme is about providing second chance education and development opportunities so that people can compete fairly in the labour market. It is about progression, and throughout its term participants have access to supportive counselling and job guidance. The aim of the programme is to facilitate people to move out of community employment into jobs on the open market. The programme is about targeting the long term unemployed and 25 places will be set aside for young people in this category.

The programme is also about ensuring that people do not lose out because they take part, and secondary benefits will be preserved. On average people will work for 20 hours per week and will end up better off financially than when they were on social welfare. They will also be free to take up other work, education or training courses in their free time.

The National Economic and Social Forum, on which I am the Government representative, is undertaking a detailed examination of long term unemployment, including non-market work initiatives. We are starting here, but the programme is not written in tablets of stone and we will continue to listen, to learn from experience and to change the programme in the light of experience. One thousand places on the programme will be allocated to a pilot programme based on the recommendations of the CMRS. We want to try out their innovative and imaginative proposals so as to give a better deal to the long term unemployed, reawaken their economic potential and bring them back into the economic mainstream. This budget focuses on jobs, particularly on lower paid jobs, giving good increases in income to those in the lower and middle income brackets and also targets the long term unemployed.

As Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald said, this budget is about jobs. The Labour Party's priority in this budget is the creation of jobs. This budget will stimulate the economy and improve even further the prospects for growth over the next couple of years. It is part of an overall strategy which, together with the National Development Plan and the Public Capital Programme, will maximise the employment potential of the Irish economy.

In the 1992 general election the Labour Party campaigned on the theme "put justice into economics" and this budget is continuing evidence that we are remaining faithful to that pledge.

This budget has initiated a process of tax reform and widening of the tax base. Through the years other political parties have called for and promised tax reform but none has ever had the courage and the conviction to carry out any significant reform of the tax system. I do not see any Member on the Opposition benches who has the courage to carry out widescale tax reform. However, the Government has started a process of tax reform which it intends to implement in full during its lifetime.

PAYE workers, in overall terms, are now beginning to see substantial relief for the first time in many years. For a start, the budget abolished the 1 per cent income levy. In addition, there have been radical improvements for workers on low pay. The 2.25 per cent health and employment levies have been abolished for hundreds of thousands of workers on incomes of up to £9,000.

In addition to distributing the tax burden to other sectors in society, the Government is still committed to significant levels of social spending. Deputy Yates has accused us of being a tax and spend Government. Is he seriously going to tell the people of his constituency and mine that they cannot have decent schools and good housing? Last year the Government built more than 3,500 local authority houses and we intend to keep up the momentum in this area in 1994. People want good services and amenities; they do not want the stingy attitudes that we have been hearing from Deputy Yates.

I wish to refer to what my Department is doing in this area, in particular, to the urban renewal scheme, and the changes made to it in the budget. The present scheme, having been extended several times, is due to expire on 31 July next. Its success has been two-fold. The scheme demonstrated that urban decline can be halted. In just a few short years, the scheme has managed to dramatically transform once run-down and under-utilised areas into thriving business and residential communities thus creating physical, economic and social improvements to the areas that will remain long after the tax incentives have gone. The scheme has generated a substantial number of construction jobs and, most important, a significant number of long term term jobs.

I am happy to report that by the end of June last year the urban renewal scheme had generated 869 projects with an estimated value of £654 million between projects in progress and those already completed with a further £423 million in planning. What has been clear to all is that without the incentives offered under the urban renewal scheme to prime these areas for development, the vast majority of these projects would have gone ahead and decline would have continued unabated. An important and pleasing aspect of the scheme has been the return of private sector housing to city centre locations. As far back as 1988 the Labour Party campaigned to breathe life back into our cities. This is especially visible in Dublin today as it is estimated that more than 50 per cent of purchasers of apartments in inner city Dublin are owner-occupiers — an undoubted vote of confidence in the future of Dublin as a truly living city.

It was imperative, therefore, that the task of urban renewal should not be abandoned midstream. Rather, the proposals announced in the budget are the result of a major review of the present scheme and an examination of the future role of urban renewal policy.

The new proposals will encourage residential development in particular and will favour refurbishment over new building. The existing owner-occupier allowance will be retained at 50 per cent but will be increased to 100 per cent for refurbishment works. Allowances for provision of private rented accommodation — section 27 allowance — will be retained at the present level.

Under one initiative, the maximum floor area for refurbished apartments will be increased from 90 to 125 square metres in designated areas. It has been argued in the past that the conversion of large buildings such as Georgian houses into separate residential units within the existing 90 square metre requirements for incentives has proved difficult to achieve without loss of overall character and appearance. It has also been argued that the size restrictions militate against family size apartments. In the same vein of conservation, pilot projects are being initiated in Cork, Dublin Galway, Limerick and Waterford to bring unused floor spaces back into every-day residential use. With city living becoming a reality once more, it is essential to maximise the available space in existing buildings. Under this measure, up to three streets will be designated in each of the cities for tax incentives to promote the living over the shop idea. We are also looking in detail at ways in which any obstacles to the success of such projects can be overcome.

The new proposals will focus on areas where dereliction is most severe. The overall acreage of designated areas in the five cities will be considerably reduced and in the process some new areas will be included. It is intended generally to retain the designated areas in the provincial towns participating in the existing scheme. In addition it is also considered appropriate at this stage to extend the areas designated under the new scheme to include small areas in the following towns, Dungarvan, Enniscorthy, Killarney, Mallow, Monaghan, Mullingar, Navan, Nenagh, Newbridge and Wicklow.

The Minister forgot about west Cork.

Orders will be made designating areas for the new scheme which will last for a three year period at the appropriate time and details of the tax incentives will be brought forward in this year's Finance Bill.

This budget has been the best budget for housing for many years. It has specifically provided an extra £12 million for the local authority housing programme, an extra £2.5 million for remedial works, an extra £1.5 million for the provision of bathrooms, a special provision of £3 million for the replacement of windows in flat complexes and an extra £2 million for the Task Force on Housing Aid for the Elderly. These extra provisions — totalling £21 million — are on top of the already greatly increased provisions for the social housing programmes, including both local authority and voluntary housing in the 1994 Estimates.

In the Programme for a Partnership Government we promised 3,500 local authority housing starts or acquisitions in 1993. In fact, we achieved 3,800 by taking up unused starts carried over from previous years; about 300 of these represented the purchase by local authorities of existing houses. The capital allocation for the provision of local authority housing was increased by more than 60 per cent in 1993 and we are now increasing it by a further 95 per cent to £129 million in 1994. This massive increase is necessary to secure completion in 1994 of the dwellings commenced in 1993 and to provide for a further 3,500 starts this year. This means that in 1994 a total of 7,000 council houses will be under construction with a jobs content of 14,000 in construction and downstream industries.

In accordance with the strategy set out in the plan for social housing, the voluntary housing sector continues to make a growing contribution to meeting our social housing needs. The 1994 provision for the voluntary housing capital assistance scheme is being increased to £13 million and that for the rental subsidy scheme is being increased substantially to £20 million.

Between the completion of new dwellings, the purchase of existing dwellings and vacancies in the existing local authority housing stock, I expect that local authorities will rehouse well over 6,500 households in 1994. The voluntary sector should provide up to 1,000 additional units of accomodation and I expect that the £40 million provision for the shared ownership scheme will allow 1,100 shared ownership transactions to be completed. It might be easier to use the abbreviation for this scheme, the SOS, as it is a tongue tier.

There will be many an SOS before this year is out.

Taking these and all the other social housing measures together, I am confident that we will secure accommodation for at least 9,000 households in 1994 and 1995 compared to 7,000 in 1993 and only 6,000 in 1992. This level of output will mean a vast improvement in the housing prospects of every household on local authority waiting lists.

We are committed to providing as quickly as possible bathroom facilities in local authority dwellings that still lack them. Accordingly, the allocation for the bathrooms sub-programme will be increased from £2.5 million in 1992 to £4 million this year in line with the Programme for Government. The commitment of extra funding will enable authorities to eliminate this deficiency in their housing stock and ensure that no local authority tenant will any longer have to put up indefinitely with the absence of such a basic facility.

I am aware that many Members on both sides of the House have an interest in the scheme of special housing aid for the elderly and I am particularly pleased that it has been possible to double the provision for this scheme from £2 million to £4 million. This is a very worthwhile scheme which has in many cases helped old people stay in their own homes rather than having to move into local authority accommodation, health board care or private nursing homes. The work is carried out at no cost to the applicant. We expect to clear the backlog under this scheme this year.

As I have said before, this is the best budget for housing which has been introduced for many a long day. When account is taken of the extra £21 million capital provided in the budget, the total housing capital provision for 1994 reaches £295 million, an increase of 58 per cent on the provisional out-turn for last year, and will more than double what was spent in 1992.

There was not one word about the homeless. Are there no people sleeping on the streets of this city?

That matter is dealt with under the capital assistance scheme.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Crawford.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Listening to the previous two speakers one would think that everything was rosy in the garden and that this was the greatest budget of all time. However, I can only describe it as a non-event because it displays a lack of enthusiasm and drive to arrest the scourge of rising unemployment. Indeed, it is commonly described as "Bertie's buckshot budget" by countless thousands of people who see no light at the end of the tunnel to deal with this unemployment malaise.

It is well known that our major industries are agriculture, fisheries and tourism. What fillip will the budget provide for these important industries? Can the Minister point to one measure in his Budget Statement that will lead to the creation of extra jobs in any one of those three industries? In his lengthy statement, which ran to 48 pages, not once did the Minister for Finance mention the fishing industry, which is of importance to the economy, or give any indication that financial aid would be made available to develop this vital industry, which has the greatest potential of all our natural industries for job creation. There is no early retirement scheme for fishermen, even though they pursue an arduous life. The motto of this Government is that fishermen must not retire, only drown while their craft are towed astern by foreign trawlers.

Neither was it mentioned that fishermen would be allowed to avail of small business expansion loans, even though most fishing boats are family owned with a crew of four to six people. If there was ever an industry which deserved recognition by the Government it is fishing, which has been regarded as a cinderella industry for many years. Is the Minister aware that white fish trawlers have been unable to go to sea for the past ten weeks due to inclement weather conditions? Why has the Minister not set up a £1 million relief fund to aid these beleaguered fishermen like their counterparts in the horticultural and potato growing industries?

Is the Minister for Finance aware that our farmers find themselves in a serious predicament at present? Millions of pounds due to them in cattle headage, suckler cow, beef cow, ten month and 22 month beef premium, sheep headage and ewe premium payments have not been paid. Coupled with this, in seeking to secure a viable suckler cow, beef cow and ewe quota they have been subjected to degrading treatment by Commissioner Steichen, who rides roughshod over the European Union book of regulations. Is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry going to accept this treatment like a lamb going to the slaughter?

Why must farmers wait five years for an extension of the disadvantaged areas and reclassification from mildly handicapped to severely handicapped status? It is clear that red tape and bureaucracy, together with lack of control and vision, have led to the greatest débâcle in the European Union. By virtue of the fact that this is the only island nation in the European Union this country should be given preferential treatment within the Union.

I cannot understand the euphoria over the budget. Perhaps section 31 of the Broadcasting Act should be applied to all members of the Cabinet to ensure that they are not able to hoodwink the ordinary taxpayer with promises of good times around the corner when the direct opposite is the case.

On the national airwaves last week the Minister for Social Welfare boasted that people earning less than £25,000 per year had a positive future. It is apparent that life is like a game of snakes and ladders. It seems that an Irish citizen is not allowed to earn more than £25,000 per annum because if they do they will find themselves in a poverty trap which is worse than being on the dole. If they live in a respectable area and earn the sum of £25,000 they will be liable to property tax if the value of their house exceeds £75,000. This is the thin edge of the wedge so far as the introduction of rates on houses is concerned. No Minister in the Cabinet could be so naive as to believe otherwise. Does the Minister for Finance want to reduce middle income earners to paupers?

The Minister saw fit to increase taxation on the old reliables — drink, cigarettes, petrol and diesel. In 1900 with one pound sterling one could purchase 80 pints of stout. In the early fifties the first inter-Party Government under the leadership of John A. Costello reduced the price of the pint by 3d. Successive budgets have increased the price of the pint so that it is at a staggering £2 today. How long more can the ordinary working man enjoy his pint at this exorbitant price?

It was a welcome relief when the price of petrol and diesel was reduced recently, but the Minister eroded the benefit to the consumer by increasing the duty by almost 10p per gallon and this will have dire consequences for all business people.

The Minister said he would provide £15 million from the tax amnesty towards maintenance of all non-national roads. Although it is a step in the right direction it is only a paltry sum in the light of the serious condition of the roads in question. When £5 million is divided between the almost 30 county councils in the country it will amount to only £.5 million per county. Will Cork, with an area equal to one-eighth of the country, get its fair share? What about the £8 million Whiddy package that was siphoned off by a previous Fianna Fáil Government to pave Grafton Street for the millennium celebrations? Will the Minister for Finance restore that £8 million to the people of west-Cork for housing, roads and other important needs in the area?

The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, said that in overall terms PAYE workers were beginning to see substantial relief for the first time in many years. He said that for a start the Government had abolished the 1 per cent levy and that there had been radical improvements for workers on low pay. What about the increases in their medical expenses? Medical expenses must now exceed £150 for an individual and £300 for a married couple before anything can be recouped. Before the budget, medical expenses had only to exceed £50 and £100 respectively. Is this a step in the right direction? Rosy speeches are all very fine but they do not provide bread. These provisions are cold comfort to the people in rural Ireland.

The Minister also said that the special scheme to restore premises had been extended to towns and he named the following towns: Dungarvan, Enniscorthy, Killarney, Mallow, Monaghan, Mullingar, Navan, Nenagh, Newbridge and Wicklow. He completely forgot about Bandon, Kinsale, Clonakilty, Skibberreen, Dunmanway, Bantry and Castletownbere. These towns are of equal importance and have the same problems as the towns that will now get direct assistance from the Government.

It is time the Government faced up to its responsibilities. In the last 12 months unemployment has continued to increase. The number of jobs created is completely eroded by factory closures and other job losses throughout the country. Common sense must prevail. The Government cannot continue to place the emphasis entirely on the capital in which 1.5 million people live. Rural Ireland must also be saved. The population in rural Ireland is dwindling day by day and we will see vast tracts of land from Malin Head to Mizen Head completely underpopulated. They will end up as a safari park for wealthy tourists coming to view the wild animals that will roam through that area if there is no change in Government policy and a move towards the renewal of rural Ireland and the preservation of the population in that part of the country.

I would like to thank Deputy Sheehan for sharing his time with me. First, I recognise that there are some positive provisions in this budget. The 1 per cent levy has been done away with. However, that should never have been introduced so all we are doing is rectifying an unjust situation. Second, there is the proposed exemption of the spouse from probate tax. That, again, is a recognition of all the arguments we put up on this side of the House at the time of the last Finance Bill, which were totally ignored at the time. Thankfully, those arguments have now been recognised and this provision has been backdated to the date of its introduction. It is a step forward, but that tax should not be levied at all; it still causes enormous hardship to the widows, widowers and orphans that are left behind and is totally anti-family. Sudden death, death by accident or because of serious disease, results in families having to go through enough trauma without having to pay this unjust tax.

The use of the £100 million from the tax amnesty to relieve the over-expenditure of the health boards in recent years is also welcome and I hope it will ease some of the pressures on our hospitals and the health service generally. It must be remembered, however, that some health boards acted responsibly. I speak specifically of the North-Eastern Health Board which did not over-expend to the same extent as many others. They must be rewarded for their efforts to keep within their budgets. My constituency of Cavan-Monaghan desperately needs financial aid to upgrade the hospital services, an immediate injection of capital to employ extra specialists and, above all, nurses. In Monaghan General Hospital there is a crisis; it has the lowest staff-patient ratio in the country. The nurses deserve better treatment than they are getting there at the moment. Health boards that have kept within their budgets must be recognised for doing so and those that have over-spent should be curtailed.

The increase in social welfare benefits is also welcome. The 300,000 people unemployed and those in need, including the handicapped, widows, the aged, etc., need recognition and we on this side of the House fully support that. However, there is a sting in the tail because that increase will now be taxed and taxed at source. This is a retrograde step and we in Fine Gael have made that clear in the last few days.

The increase in child benefit and the improvement in the family income supplement is also to be welcomed as is the recognition of the right to widowers to a pension. This is the first time it has been recognised in this House that a widower suffers similarly to a widow on the death of a spouse, but here again there is a sting in the tail because they will be subject to a means test after one year. Those who were taxed under the PAYE system and paid PRSI throughout their working lives are aware of the seriousness of that measure. We must recognise that those who contribute to the State and work hard all their lives are as entitled to their rightful share as those who decide not to work or provide for themselves.

In theory it appears there will be a major change in respect of the carer's allowances in that the system will be loosened up to allow carers receive adequate assistance but, in relaity, that is not the case. A sum of £1 million was allocated this year and £1.5 million for next year. One would not need to be a great mathematician to realise that will give approximately 350 to 400 carers their proper allocation this year. It will mean that this year my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan can hope to get a proper allowance for approximately ten carers for the work they do for their loved ones. That will probably mean five carers in County Monaghan. Does that represent a major step forward? The proposal may appear worth while but the reality is somewhat different.

We welcome the Minister's commitment to provide extra funding for the improvement of school structures. For many schools in my constituency that is necessary. I welcome the Minister's commitment to build new schools in Killaney and Glaslough. I have called for the building of those schools on many occasions since I was elected to this House. A total of 27 schools were built in Galway in a few years compared with three in Monaghan in the same period. Monaghan has a long way to go to catch up. If not this year, I hope the Minister will take realistic steps to rectify the position in the county in the near future. Many schools there need major improvements. However, I welcome the funds allocated to improve sanitary and other facilities in Monaghan schools. Once again, the middle income group were given no hope in this budget in respect of third level education. In other words, that group will still be means-tested and receive no tax relief or other benefit to assist them in sending their children to third level colleges.

The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment spoke about the remedial works which need to be carried out to houses and about the improved housing programme. I welcome that, but many people who were encouraged, and in some cases forced, to buy their homes in the past number of years are now on social welfare. They were looking forward to receiving some assistance or grant structures to carry out improvement works to their houses. The Government has made its position on private housing clear. The Labour Party element of the Government does not believe that people should have the right to own their own houses and people are now faced with the changes in the residential property tax which amount to a reintroduction of rates by the back door.

During the last general election we were told there would not be any changes in residential property tax or mortgage interest relief. In fact we were told there would be an improvement in regard to them. We were also told that there would not be any change in tax relief on VHI premiums. The middle income group has once again been ignored in this budget and unless the people tell this Government otherwise in the European elections in June it will not be a residential property tax limit of £75,000 that will apply next year but £50,000 or even less. It was indicated here yesterday, and again today, that the income limits would be considered sympathetically. That was a reaction to Niall Andrews MEP and others who said that this measure will affect their election prospects. There is no doubt that the commitments of the Labour and Fianna Fáil parties prior to the last election are being reneged on. One has only to reflect on the message from the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs in this House yesterday. His answer was "no" to everything he promised. The main party in Government said it could make it happen and it has.

Unlike West Cork, which was not designated for any urban renewal schemes we were in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency. A total of 21 acres was allocated for redesignation in Longford, and the Minister referred to Cavan-Monaghan as a small area. We will watch with interest what will happen in the town of Monaghan when that area is designated to see if 21 or five acres are designated. Many people in the town of Monaghan are concerned because they have spent a great deal of money building up their businesses. They will now be excluded and outsiders can come in, reap the benefits and put local people's businesses at risk.

I welcome the exemption in respect of the 2.25 per cent levy and the change in PRSI for the low paid. When Fine Gael put forward a proposal in this House for a change in PRSI for low paid workers it was laughed at by Government backbenchers and we were told it could not be done. I am glad the Government decided to accept that PRSI is an unrealistic burden on job creation and has removed some levies. If we do not make it possible for people to work and industries to remain competitive there is no hope for the 300,000 people unemployed. This budget is supposed to benefit the unemployed, but what will it do? A total of 40,000 people are being put on special schemes. That will change the figures enormously but will not give any long term hope to those out of work. We need a much better thought-out package and a more realistic structure to give hope to those people.

A measure which will impact greatly on my constituents is the increase in the price of petrol, diesel and drink. It is unfortunate that at a time when we are trying to develop good communications with Northern Ireland — although the Minister present may not agree — the price of drink, petrol and diesel is increased. Also, this is taking place at a time when traders in Border areas are building up their businesses again.

My main concern relates to roads. The roads in Cavan-Monaghan have been a major issue in recent years. I welcome the fact that the Minister has allocated £15 million for road improvements. If that figure was solely for the Cavan-Monaghan area I would be quite happy, but it is obvious from the comments made by my colleagues Deputies Sheehan and Foley that all areas have bad roads. Nevertheless, it is recognised nationally that the roads in Cavan and Monaghan are deplorable. Some roads have practically disappeared because of heavy traffic in that area and it is accepted that funding is needed to improve them. If companies are to remain in business and retain the employment created, not by foreign industries but by local industries developed by the people of Cavan and Monaghan without much help from the Government, the roads issue must be addressed. The roads structure is an important issue for the people in Cavan and Monaghan. The railroad closed in 1957 and although an annual amount of £100 million is allocated to subsidise bus services, those counties receive no funding by way of compensation for the lack of a rail service. Between 60 to 70 per cent of our poultry industry and more than 60 per cent of our mushroom industry are located in Cavan and Monaghan. Local authorities in those counties will receive only a pittance from the budget allocation, each county will probably receive £0.5 million. At the same time, £10 million is allocated to prepare Dublin Castle for special EU meetings and another £10 million for initial improvement works to Collins Barracks. They may be important issues but the people of Cavan and Monaghan consider the paltry allocation to those counties of £15 million of the proceeds of £200 million collected under the tax amnesty to be inadequate. We need action now in respect of roads in those constituencies.

An independent report prepared by council officials recommended that it would cost £48 million to carry out essential road works in Monaghan to bring them up to an acceptable standard. It would cost a similar figure to carry out road works in County Cavan, yet the total budget allocation for such road works is a mere £15 million. County road funding has been promised by the EU and will probably be granted if there is a commitment to press for such funding, but it is not guaranteed. The proceeds of the tax amnesty presented an opportunity to provide funding for the repair of those roads. When I spoke on the debate on the tax amnesty, which my party opposed, I said I would support it to some degree if the proceeds were used to restructure the roads of Cavan and Monaghan. We can no longer tolerate this situation. Tourists, farmers and people travelling to work have their cars wrecked by travelling on those roads; indeed lorries and buses refuse to travel on them. The conditions have not been caused by this year's weather but because successive Governments failed to recognise they have a responsibility in respect of the roads of Cavan and Monaghan. There has been a slight increase in road grants in recent years, yet we are constantly told by Government Deputies that the increase has been massive. Unless you consider the total figures allocated to a county council you will not get the true picture. Over a ten year period the local authorities in the Cavan-Monaghan area did not receive £31.5 million in rate support grants. If they had we would not have a problem in respect of the roads in those counties today. If local authorities in those counties had received some monetary recognition for not having a rail service or an airport serving industries which produce pigs, poultry and furniture, we would not now be out with the begging bowl. I hope the Minister will tell the Ministers for Finance and the Environment that the people of Cavan and Monaghan can no longer tolerate the condition of the roads in those counties.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Costello. Tá ríméad orm deis a fháil labhairt sa díospóireacht seo ar cháináisnéis 1994.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak on the 1994 budget. I listened with great care to the contributions of Deputies opposite. Many of the urgent issues of rural renewal in respect of which Deputy Sheehan spoke are concerns which I share. He has lost none of his usual forthrightness and vigour in presenting a strong case for that general issue and particularly for west Cork. The thoughtful contributions of Deputy Crawford are welcome and the points he made in relation to the future development of our economy and its regional focus are worth bearing in mind.

I have no doubt when the immediate reactions to the budget of those who eagerly awaited it and who commented on it have died down, the question those people will want to ask is whether it contributes to employment. The biggest single difficulty facing our people is the issue of unemployment and of turning growth into jobs. I have no doubt that, on reflection, this budget will be seen as a significant contribution to employment creation, enabling us to take advantage of improved circumstances in the external economy. When we combine the measures in the budget with those of the capital development programme of the National Development Plan, we will be able to create a further engine of growth which will help translate growth into jobs that are urgently needed. No member of the Government suggested that the existing level of unemployment is satisfactory. It behoves us to do more than comment on this. Rather than simply stating the problem of achieving growth, we must create jobs. We must be seen to be taking strategic measures which facilitate investment in the economy and job creation in varying numbers in different areas. I have no doubt that in the fullness of time when the provisions of the budget are combined with other Government measures the budget will be welcomed as a significant development.

When the heat in respect of the budget proposals has evaporated it is important to recognise that personal allowances have been increased this year to a figure that represents total increases for the past six years; the standard rate tax band has been widened by four times the rate of the most recent inflation figure. Before this budget a single worker on an annual income of below £11,000, with normal PAYE and PRSI allowances would have been taxed at the upper rate, now he or she can earn up to £11,636 before paying it. The budget focused on the lower paid and on the vulnerable in society in an economy that needs to be invigorated. It also focused on important solidarities. I invite those who criticised the taxation measures in the budget to ask themselves if they would prefer us not to provide 3,500 houses in the current year as we did last year. Do they object to an additional allocation to maintain the attack on health waiting lists? Do they object to investing additional moneys in education, particularly special education? It is an aspect of social solidarity that we take such measures, but they must be paid for in a way that, far from adversely affecting the lower paid and the vulnerable, will be apportioned in a just way through extension of the tax net. In relation to the area for which I have responsibility, Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, níl amhras ann ach go raibh dea-scéalta móra sa cháinaisnéis don Ghaeltacht féin agus do réimsí a bhaineann leis an ealaíon, leis an gcultúr agus le cúrsaí oidhreachta agus be mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoi sin.

I was particularly pleased to be able to secure an additional £1 million for An Chomhairle Ealaíon to the sum originally proposed in the Abridged Book of Estimates, thus increasing its funding from £11.5 million in 1993 to £13.25 million in 1994. When I became Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the allocation available to the Arts Council was £10 million and this figure is being increased in 1994 to £13.25 million. This represents an increase of more than 15 per cent in one year and follows an increase of 13 per cent last year. Since this Government took office the increase in this area has been more than 30 per cent, a significantly greater increase than the commitments made in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the Programme for a Partnership Government. This is money well spent. An Chomhairle's research has established that every pound invested in the arts generates an additional £1.80 in the arts community. The money made available to An Chomhairle in the current year will therefore represent an overall injection of more than £37 million into this creative and, I emphasise, labour-intensive sector of the economy. The spending of the Arts Council has a multiplier effect throughout the community.

In raising the level of funding to An Chomhairle Ealaíon I am simply acknowledging the vital role it plays in the development of the artistic and cultural life of the nation and I am underlining its importance in the future to the mission this Government has undertaken. We are committed to putting arts and culture at the centre of our experience. In line with the commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government, I have asked An Chomhairle to draw up a three year plan for funding of the arts. I am proud that the Government has clearly indicated its resolve to provide the Arts Council with the resources it needs for its important work by exceeding the commitment given in the Government programme.

The success of this Government in allocating increased resources to An Chomhairle emphasises our commitment to a sustained, proactive and innovative approach to the development of the rich resource that the arts in Ireland represents. As well as the Structural Funds I have obtained under the National Development Plan 1994-1999, it further underlines the success which I have achieved in moving arts, cultural and heritage issues from the margin of Government policy considerations to a central position as an important instrument in the economic and social development of this State.

Maidir le scéimeanna feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht déantar obair fhiúntach ar mhaithe le forbairt na Gaeltachta agus cur chun cinn na Gaeilge le cúnamh na ndeontas a thugann mo Roinnse le haghaidh scéimeanna feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht. Clúdaíonn an réimhse scéimeanna sin bóithre, uisce agus séarachas, muiroibreacha, forbairt chomharchumann, hallaí agus coláistí Gaeilge agus saoráidí ilghnéitheacha ar nós páirceanna imeartha, pinniúirí liathróid láimhe, cúirteanna leadóige agus mar sin de.

Suim £2.71 milliún a socraíodh i dtús báire do 1994 le haghaidh na scéimeanna sin. Is cúis áthais dom féin agus don Aire Stáit ag mo Roinnse, An Teachta Pat The Cope Ó Gallchóir, an fógra a rinneadh sa cháinaisnéis go mbeidh suim bhreise speisialta de £1 mhilliún á cur ar fáil i mbliana do mo Roinnse le cur leis an tsuim £2.71 milliún — rud a fhágann go mbeidh £3.71 milliún ann san iomlán le caitheamh ar na scéimeanna feabhsúcháin. Níl amhras ann ach gur cruthúnas í an tsuim bhreise sin ar dháiríreacht an Rialtais i dtaca leis an nGaeltacht.

Caithfear cuid mhaith den soláthar breise chun dlús a chur leis an obair ar an mórscéim fheabhsúcháin muiroibreacha ar Inis Meáin agus ar Inis Oírr, Oileáin Árann, ar cuireadh tús léi anuraidh agus beidh an fuílleach ar fáil le caitheamh ar scéimeanna eile. Tá mé cinnte gur chun tairbhe na Gaeltachta agus a muintire a rachaidh an t-airgead breise atá curtha ar fáil ag an Rialtas.

Maidir le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta, ní miste dom an deis seo a ghlacadh chun cúpla focal a rá faoi na torthaí a bhain an eagraíocht amach i 1993. Bhí bliain rathúil ag an Údarás arís anuraidh i dtaca le deiseanna fostaíochta breise a chruthú do mhuintir na Gaeltachta. Ba í 1993 an dóú bliain déag i ndiaidh a chéile ina raibh glanmhéadú san fhostaíocht i dtionscail faoi scáth na heagraíochta sin.

Cruthaíodh 879 bpost nua lánaimseartha ar an bhfód i 1993 i dtionscail a fuair cúnamh ón Údarás agus, tar éis caillteanais de 675 phost a chur san áireamh, bhí méadú glan de 204 phost sa bhliain sin. Ba é sin an méadú glan ba mhó le ceithre bliana anuas agus tá ardmholadh tuillte ag an Údarás dá bharr. Chomh maith leis sin, tháining méadú de 330 ar líon na bpost shéasúracha sa Ghaeltacht le linn 1993 — ó 2,580 duine i 1992 go dtí buaicphointe 2,910 duine i 1993.

Bhí fadhb ar leith ag an Údarás le roinnt blianta anuas maidir le líon na bpost lánaimseartha a cailleadh sa Ghaeltacht gach bliain. Is maith liom a fheiceáil gur éirigh leis an Udarás i 1993 srian a chur ar chaillteanas post ar an iomlán — d'ainneoin na ndeacrachtaí tromchúiseacha a bhuail comhlachtaí áirithe sa Ghaeltacht i rith na bliana sin. Tá caomhnú post chomh tábhachtach agus níos tábhachtaí b'fhéidir, ná cruthú post. Tá súil agam go leanfar leis an dea-obair sna blianta atá romhainn.

I have already welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement that £10 million of Exchequer funding would be made available for the establishment of Collins Barracks as a major National Museum facility. I am confident that this Exchequer funding, allied with Structural Funds available for the project, which could amount to an additional £15 million, will enable the completion of the first phase of establishing a top class National Museum facility at the barracks.

The chronic needs of the National Museum in terms of exhibition space and conservation facilities are well known. A significant part of the invaluable collection of the museum is in storage in various buildings around the country and has never been on public display, which is a great tragedy — part of our own story is locked away from us. The difficulties faced in conserving this priceless part of the nation's heritage are also well known. A great debt of gratitude is owed to generations of directors and their staff for their heroic efforts in this regard. I believe that the Collins Barracks site presents a rare opportunity to resolve many of the problems associated with the museum in a coherent way and of allowing the Irish people to experience important elements of their national heritage currently locked away from them.

When this idea was first mooted, I asked the Office of Public Works to examine the feasibility of converting Collins Barracks to museum use. I am happy to say that the Office of Public Works found that Collins Barracks is a most suitable location for the National Museum in terms of historical relevance, the geographical location, the suitability of existing structures and the potential of the overall site to meet the needs of the museum. The original Office of Public Works study envisaged an entire project cost in the region of £65 million, which was a daunting prospect. I believe that the funds allocated in the budget will enable us to start with confidence to determine how the first phase of the project should be tackled.

The Collins Barracks project will have many important spin-off benefits as it will rejuvenate the North Quay area of the city — it will be the people's location for the museum — and I believe it will be warmly welcomed by city planners. It will also provide the long overdue opportunity for everyone to view and interact with important elements of our heritage in a modern purposely designed environment. It will allow access by buses and by people to walk there, to view what is part of their heritage.

I have recently circulated my proposals to other Ministers on the long term future structures of the National Museum and the National Library. As part of the process of putting such structures in place, I intend to establish an interim board for the museum to address and report to me on a number of critical issues facing this institution. One of the primary issues on which the interim board will advise me will be the Collins Barracks project in the context of resolving the museum's long standing accommodation problems, including both exhibition and storage.

The Collins Barracks project, along with my proposals for future structures in both the National Museum and the National Library, will rejuvenate and enhance the importance and relevance of these institutions and the treasures under their care to the people of the nation. As I have indicated before, I intend to establish autonomous boards which will allow both institutions the maximum amount of control possible over their own destinies. It has long been recognised that the departmental structures currently in place are not the most appropriate. I hope to bring my detailed proposals to Government in the near future. The principle on which these proposals will be structured will be one of autonomy with responsibility. This will be achieved through consultation and discussion.

Many issues will have to be tackled in providing for the new regimes in both the library and the museum. Staff numbers and structures, particularly with new facilities coming on stream and the associated running costs, will have to be addressed. A long term coherent strategy for the museum will have to be established. I expect my proposed interim board to advise on these issues so that the museum can realise its full potential in the cultural life of the nation.

I should like to welcome the additional £250,000 provided in the budget for the national cultural institutions. This has enabled me to make increased allocations in the current year to the National Library, the National Museum and the National Gallery. Many people now use these institutions with great benefit.

Having dealt with the specific aspects of the budget which will benefit my areas of arts, culture and the Gaeltacht, I should like to voice my concern about certain comments which have been made recently to the effect that particular attention might have been paid by me over the past year to certain sections of my brief — reference was made to films and broadcasting — to the detriment of other sections, for example, the arts. I should like to state categorically that such comments have no basis in fact. As this House is aware, my brief is a wide one, encompassing arts and culture, the Irish language and the Gaeltacht, heritage, broadcasting and film policy. However, this fact does not prevent me in any way from devoting my attention to each of these areas. I am not more committed to any one area than to another, and it is my firm resolve to make every effort to achieve whatever progress is possible in all of these areas during my time as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

I am pursuing an integrated policy which will give more attention to the Irish language than it received previously and more attention to films and broadcasting that they ever received. I will also be linking the future of the arts and cultural institutions with that policy. It is only when we integrate the policy that everyone will benefit. As a corollary to this, I should like to state categorically that increased funding for any particular area is not achieved at the expense of any other. People have only to look at the increases to see the proof of this. The case for increased funding in any particular case is made on its merits and is approved, or not, accordingly. It is not a matter of taking from Peter to pay Paul. Rather it is a matter of giving Peter the highest level of financial support that circumstances permit, doing likewise with Paul, and integrating the effect of giving both of them more. I am not conducting a war among the poor. Such a reaction would be miserable in the extreme.

The Minister is taking from Peter and Paul and paying nobody. What about the Irish language in Dublin? When is the Minister going to do something about all Irish secondary schools in Dublin?

I would be delighted to answer that question if Deputy Mitchell put it down. He will find out that I have done more for the Irish language since I took up office than any previous Minister with responsibility for this area.

The Minister has done as much damage to the Irish language as Cromwell did.

That is a cheap jibe.

There are 18 all-Irish primary schools in Dublin.

The Minister without interruption, please.

I think that on reflection Deputy Mitchell will want to think about what he has just said.

I will address it.

My sincerity in regard to the Irish language can be compared favourably any day of the year to the attitude of his party to the Irish language.

The Minister may have done something about the Irish language in Galway but he has done nothing about it in Dublin.

Acting Chairman

The Minister without interruption.

I suppose that is the reason the Deputy's party went around trying to sabotage Telefís na Gaeilge.

There are 18 all-Irish primary schools in Dublin. What about all-Irish secondary schools?

The Deputy should rest his throat until the election campaign starts.

I will say something about it in a minute.

Otherwise the Deputy will wear himself out before he starts.

I will not wear myself out; rather I will wear out the Minister.

At least the Deputy does not change — he sounds the same every day.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an gcáinaisnéis seo — ar bhonn ginearálta, ar ndóigh, ach go háirithe i ndáil leis an sochar speisialta a thugann sí don Ghaeltacht, do na healaíona agus do chúrsaí oidhreachta. Tá fianaise cinnte dearfa sa cháinaisnéis seo ar thacaíocht láidir an Rialtais do na réimsí sin agus tá bród ormsa, mar Aire Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta, gurb amhlaidh atá an scéal.

It was a pleasure to listen to the Minister's wide-ranging contribution which underlines the importance of having a Minister with responsibility for the arts, culture and the Gaeltacht. The value of investment in the arts in terms of the return and in job creation is second to none. I am particularly delighted with the investment in Collins Barracks where the very valuable treasures kept underground in the National Museum, which is a stone's throw from this House — there was no space available to display these treasures in the museum — will be put on display for the first time ever. This investment will also have the effect of rejuvenating a part of old Dublin which is very much in need of development.

This is a progressive budget and its principal features must be looked at in the context of a number of other items. First, it must be looked at in the context of the National Development Plan, 1994-99, the EU cohesion and structural funding of approximately £8 billion and matching funds from this country and the emphasis placed on job creation, environmental matters, infrastructural development and the Government's specific target of an extra 70,000 jobs over the period of the plan. Second, it must be looked at in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The Government is presently negotiating a new pay deal with the private and public sectors to ensure that the emphasis is placed on job creation and competitiveness in the international market.

Third, the budget must be looked at in the context of the restructuring of our tax system, something previous Governments shied away from because they were not prepared to grasp the nettle. This restructuring is absolutely essential for our development as an economic and competitive nation. The Government has placed the emphasis on job creation in the budget and has kept our Exchequer borrowing requirement within the Maastricht guidelines of 3 per cent — it will be 2.7 per cent this year.

The budget marks the end of a long period of financial retrenchment, cutbacks in essential services and the depressing effects of high interest rates and debt service charges, which restricted the scope of many Governments to actively assist economic development in the past. When one looks at the post budget projected take in income tax, combined with the abolition of the 1 per cent levy, one can see that the Government does not propose to raise any additional revenue by way of tax. This will leave the bulk of pay increases in circulation so that net pay, when combined with the tax relief and pay increases under the new national wage agreement, will increase by approximately 4 per cent to 5 per cent for most workers. Given that inflation is just 1.5 per cent this year, this represents a boost to demand equivalent to 1 per cent to 2 per cent of gross national product and underpins the forecast increase in employment of 21,000, which I believe will be exceeded in the following years as our economy gains strength.

If one compares the tax and PRSI deductions for single people on low incomes which applied in 1987 with the changes introduced in this budget one can see that the percentage of income taken from someone on £5,000 a year dropped from 74 per cent to 14 per cent while for someone on £10,000 it dropped from 30.9 per cent to 25.5 per cent and on £15,000 it dropped from 40.7 per cent to 33.3 per cent. These are very extensive improvements for anybody on PAYE.

For low paid workers increases in personal allowances are the single most important instrument in reducing their tax burden along with a reduction in PRSI contributions, which has been recognised as a regressive tax in that the higher paid have a lower deduction rate because of the ceiling that applies to contributions. This year workers earning up to £9,000 per year quite rightly make the largest percentage gain in the reductions in income tax, combined with the largest increase in personal allowances in the last seven budgets; in fact, the increase of £350 for a single person and £700 for a married couple matches the combined increases in allowances in the previous six budgets. Workers in this category will secure minimum increases in take home pay of at least 5 per cent when account is taken of the increases from the national wage agreement.

The economic effect of the reduction in employers' PRSI from 12.2 per cent to 9 per cent for the same category of worker will be to reduce the cost of the 8 per cent pay agreement in the private sector to 5 per cent for a three year period to the employer. This will allow an expansion in service employment while protecting the position of the clothing and knitwear sectors that face strong competition from UK companies with lower PRSI rates.

Of course, the whole economy will benefit greatly from the increased purchasing power that lower interest rates will provide. On a sustained basis a 1 per cent reduction in real interest rates boosts employment by as much as 15,000. Debt interest charges have fallen substantially for the Exchequer and I believe there could be further savings on the budget estimate, which forecasts a £111 million reduction compared with 1993.

There has been criticism that the process of tax reform was not radical enough in this budget. Given that mortgage interest relief and VHI relief is to be equalised for all taxpayers, it was important that this should be carried out on a phased basis with the benefits returned in the form of reduced income tax for the PAYE sector. The criticism that the reduction in income threshold for residential property tax would catch families on incomes which were not substantial is a matter which should be addressed and I would like the Minister to consider what changes could be made so that the tax would be on a net equity basis. It has been rightly pointed out by some of my colleagues and others in the Labour Party that a high mortgage combined with an income of just over £30,000 could see an appreciable rise in the tax liability for a small number of people. The concerns expressed that the tax should not impact unfairly on family circumstances must be dealt with and, if necessary, the Minister can recoup any shortfall in revenue through other measures.

What I do not accept as legitimate is the attempt by some members of the Opposition to smear the Labour Party and the party leader in particular that we are breaking pledges given in the election manifesto. We are not. We have introduced no new property tax.

What about the reduction in the VHI and mortgage interest relief?

It is not such a long time ago that the Progressive Democrats were considering and indeed advocating the abolition of all mortgage and VHI relief so that we could have a top rate tax of 40 per cent and a standard rate of 25 per cent. Unlike the Opposition, I would not now accuse the Progressive Democrats of telling lies. The difference between the position of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats on tax reform and that of the Labour Party is that we do not see the value of some technical tax reform that does not have a genuine progressive effect of reducing the tax burden on those with the lowest incomes. Neither will we countenance the wholesale expenditure cuts which both parties have advocated and would implement if they were in Government today.

Mortgage interest relief and VHI relief, as we stated in the 1992 election campaign, will be maintained. The next three budgets will continue to implement the priorities outlined in the Programme for Government, which were to remove the low paid, especially families, out of the tax net; to broaden the standard tax band so that as in other countries only relatively high earners pay the higher rate of tax; to further reduce tax rates, especially the standard rate, when economic conditions permit; to maintain basic tax reliefs, such as mortgage interest and VHI, and consider measures in the 1993 budget to relieve the position faced by mortgage holders while the then situation of high interest rates lasted.

In conclusion, this is a progressive budget. We will continue along the lines of tax restructuring in the years to come and I commend the budget to the House.

I will come to the point in regard to widows' pensions in a moment, but, far from commending this budget to the House, Deputy Costello and his colleagues will retreat very fast from this issue in a very short time. That is my prediction. However, I will return to that point later.

I am sorry that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht did not remain in the House to hear my points in relation to the Irish language. He obviously does not want to hear the other side of the argument and may have thought it rather entertaining for his friends in the Public Gallery to have heard me say that he has done as much damage to the Irish language as Cromwell. But let me explain to the House what I mean by that. In Dublin at present there is a very real chance of the Irish language recovering so that people like me who did not have the opportunity to learn the language will have that opportunity. I want to declare at the outset an interest in this matter; my four children attend an all-Irish school and I make no apology for that. They do so for cultural reasons; if they are to learn German, French and English, they can learn Irish.

There are 18 all-Irish primary schools in Dublin. That figure could easily be 28, 38 or 48——

And will be.

——because the parents of those children have no hang-ups about the Irish language. Having seen other countries throughout Europe where children are multilingual, parents here want the same for their children. But what have we done for them? We have refused to supply all-Irish secondary schools and are thereby strangling the enthusiasm there is at the conclusion of primary level. If one attends an all-Irish primary school, say, on the south of the city, at 12 years of age one can attend Coláiste Eoin-Íosagáin in Stillorgan or go out to Clondalkin.

Or one can attend Coláiste Mhuire.

Is Coláiste Mhuire on the south side of the city? I would appreciate it if Deputy Costello allowed me to make my contribution without interruption.

Deputy Mitchell interrupted me a short while ago.

I will come to the north side of the city in a moment. Deputy Costello will be on the run in the next election for taxing widows, so he should take it easy now.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Mitchell without interruption, please.

The Minister did not have the courtesy to remain in the House and listen to the argument, so it would be better if Deputy Costello left the House now and had his lunch.

The Minister has done more for the Irish language than any previous Minister.

The Deputy does not have to knock on doors around Inchicore and hear about the widows' pensions.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Mitchell without interruption.

There is nowhere for those children to attend school if they do not go to Coláiste Eoin-Íosagáin or to Clondalkin. Similarly, on the north side there are two all-Irish secondary schools. Yet in the inner city there are empty secondary and primary school buildings which could be converted with reasonable ease into all-Irish secondary schools. Furthermore, people are disposed to travel to attend all-Irish schools. Therefore, we would not have to build schools out in Tallaght, Clondalkin and other such places; people will travel if the facility is provided.

Near Harold's Cross Bridge, in my constituency there are two secondary schools, Coláiste Chaoimhín, a Christian Brothers' school with a very fine campus, including a swimming pool, and, a short distance from that, the Marist convent, with an equally fine campus. I have been trying for a long time to persuade the Minister for Education or the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to take one of those schools and perhaps another vacant school premises on the north side of the city and give us at least six all-Irish secondary schools. Within a very short time we would have to have, say, eight, ten, 12, 15 if not 20 such schools because when parents see that the secondary outlets are there more of them will send their children to all-Irish primary schools. I repeat, there are already 18, despite the fact that there are very few facilities and that people must travel considerable distances to attend those schools.

The second thing I like about all-Irish schools is this. Not merely do they teach people Irish culture, which is a good thing in itself, but they are not inclined to be parish-based. People travel to them, which means there are the sons and daughters of professional people, of trades people, of labourers, of the unemployed — all sorts of people side by side in the same school. They are more egalitarian. What is the Government doing about it? The answer is nothing.

The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht congratulates himself on the great work he is doing. Every stroke pulled in relation to Gaeltacht expenditure appears to be pulled in favour of his constituency in Galway West, but he is doing precious little for Dublin. Dublin is being ignored by both the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Education, some big deal the Labour Party are doing in Government in relation to the Irish language. I put those facts on the record of this House. Instead of trying to denigrate me, let the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht come in here and deny those facts if they are not accurate.

Before going on to deal with crime, I want to refer to another form of larceny, that is, the attempted larceny of widows' pensions. The 86,371 persons in receipt of contributory widows' pensions and the 71,861 persons in receipt of contributory old age pensions are in line for severe and unjust attacks on their entitlements if current Government proposals are allowed to go ahead. I use the word "entitlements" advisedly since these people have paid for their pensions.

The proposal to means test widows' contributory pensions is one of the most pernicious policy proposals ever put forward by an Irish Government. Yesterday, in an attempt to extricate himself from this debate, which I predict will get much hotter, the Minister for Social Welfare dug a deeper hole for himself by announcing that he intends to take only "earned income", to quote him, into account when means testing widows. In other words, a wealthy widow in very comfortable circumstances, with enormous investment income — that is, unearned income — will not be means tested while her counterpart, perhaps with three or four children, who goes out to work to supplement her widow's pension will be subjected to the full rigours of these proposals. My advice to the Minister is this. When one is in a hole, stop digging; fill in the hole and forget this ruthless proposal.

It must be pointed out that many people have contributed up to 40 years to pensions for their widows. It is a form of Government larceny to attempt to take back what has been paid for through the nose by those seeking to provide for their families. Many such people have contributed from their after tax incomes amounts up to £1,300 or more annually. Furthermore, many contributors have planned their other private insurance contributions to provide for lower payouts in the event of death because they have taken into account their widows' entitlements to receive full contributory pension.

This insidious proposal is the thin end of the wedge. The Government says that existing widows will not be affected. I predict that if this proposal is allowed to go ahead it will be only a matter of time before all contributory widows' pensions will be affected and that next in line for attack will be contributory old age pensions. Fine Gael will fight tooth and nail to prevent this measure going through. This proposal must be reversed. We will force a vote every inch of the way on this proposal. That marker has been put down for the Government to take heed. I predict that all of those back benchers who came in here and commended this budget to the House will run fast when they see the full implications of this and when their constituents hear just how pernicious and insidious is this proposal. It is time for those Government back benchers who wrestle with their consciences on these issues to allow their consciences win.

I am very concerned about the crime position in this city. I am particularly concerned about an aspect very rarely referred to, that is, the whole question of unemployment in relation to crime. I have to say that those people currently negotiating the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, mark II, should consider what it was that the Programme for National Recovery and the first Programme for Economic and Social Progress contributed either to national recovery or economic and social progress. All of the financial indicators in recent years have been good — low inflation, debt/GNP ratio under control, growth rates twice the European average, low interest rates, except for temporary aberrations, contributed to over a period by a number of Governments. All were good except one, employment.

Who represents the unemployed at these so-called talks in the negotiations on the second Programme for Economic and Social Progress? I believe it is time the unemployed were represented directly at these talks. All that is represented at these talks is vested interests, including Government as a vested interest, sitting around the table, carving up the cake in their own interest while nobody speaks for the unemployed. That is the problem I have with these latest negotiations, because that unemployment problem is contributing to the very high levels of crime in this city. There are many places in the inner city where there is 70 per cent and 80 per cent unemployment, people who have never worked. Tell that to those people sitting around the table talking about Programmes for National Recovery and Programmes for Economic and Social Progress.

One other point I should like to make about this unemployment problem is the lack of research into the creation of jobs. It is an important point on which I intend to spend some time. It would be my hope that when the Departments of Enterprise and Employment, Finance and others, including Education — I see the Minister for Education present in the House — listen to these debates, they will take up these points. This is an essential factor in relation to long term job creation here. Indeed, the jobs crisis is the most critical problem facing the nation today. To tackle it properly will require mobilisation of all the sources at our disposal.

It is recognised worldwide that knowledge-based industry and the creation of small to medium enterprises — SMEs — constitute one of the key contributors to job creation. In turn, this requires a sustained supply of well educated graduates and access to vibrant research and development expertise which generates and interprets new science and technology knowledge. This view was reinforced recently in Fortune magazine of 15 November 1993, which concluded from its survey of companies in the United States that a major attraction for mobile high-tech investment is a well resourced university in the immediate vicinity. It was also noted in The Guardian of 4 October 1993 that:

Britain will never get the expansion it needs unless it harnesses science to economic planning . . . . . . science still holds the key to expansion.

Ireland is uniquely endowed with a capable young population which, if properly trained, would cater for the manpower needs of knowledge-based industry. Ireland's research and development capabilities have a recognised international standing. In spite of both of these rich resources, it is unbelievable that they are not high on the agenda for job creation. The ability of the higher education sector to contribute fully is being severely compromised by a lack of adequate funding and by politics that are, to say the least, perplexing.

The historic neglect of funding for knowledge-driven — basic — research in Ireland is now the subject of heated debate in the national and international media. The effects are far-reaching both in the context of Ireland's international image as a prime location for the development of knowledge-based industry and in regard to the Government's overall strategy for job creation. Despite sustained representation from the research community, the response has been, to say the least, tardy and lukewarm. Policymakers still do not understand, or lack the will to understand, either the science of basic research or the need to support it even at a minimum threshold level.

The case for basic research in science is summarised in the following 15 points.

1. Those nations with access to new knowledge and the ability to apply it will prosper economically: those who do not will not.

2. Basic research provides the seed corn and the soil out of which future development in technology can grow: it has underpinned the applied research achievements in Irish universities over the past decade and the significant additional job creation which has taken place in that sector.

3. Without wide-ranging research, it is impossible to monitor, evaluate and exploit key developments in research worldwide: it is foolhardy to be disadvantaged in this way.

4. Training by research is an excellent training in state-of-the-art skills which are in demand throughout high-tech industry.

5. The attractiveness of Ireland as a place for major high-tech investment depends upon its international research profile.

6. All highly developed countries explicitly recognise the role of scientific research in promoting economic growth. Investment in science and technology correlates with industrial performance.

7. The ability of Ireland to attract the highest calibre people to fill university posts, and to keep them here, again depends on a healthy research environment. The EU's mobility programme has demonstrated cause for concern in the low level of applications from talented young scientists for temporary assignments in Ireland. This has immediate knock-on effects on the quality of our graduate output as perceived internationally.

8. Ireland invests very little in science compared with our EU partners, or almost any other country in the OECD. Our status in this regard is unique and embarrassing.

9. It is increasingly difficult for Irish scientists to participate in joint European projects because of the very low level of national support. To be serious partners requires a minimum level of national support, of the order of £5 million annually for basic science. Most EU programmes presume an adequate level of background national support: Irish scientists are severely disadvantaged in this respect.

10. Much of the current equipment base for research has passed its useful life span and is in desperate need of replacement. Current provision by the Higher Education Authority of £2 million per annum is considered, even by the Higher Education Authority, to be at least a factor of three too low. This figure takes no account of the major initial capital injection required to obviate the current level of equipment obsolescence in the third level sector. There was no improvement in the budget for research equipment in the allocation of Structural Funds.

11. Other points to be considered are, despite concessions in the budget, the question of VAT on research equipment is still far from satisfactory vis-à-vis other EU and OECD nations. This has been highlighted by the Wellcome Foundation which has threatened to withdraw its substantial funding of research in Ireland. VAT on all research equipment should be zero-rated.

12. The research environment in the universities is also being eroded with the sustained increase in student numbers which have grown from 65,000 to 84,000 over the past five years with a projected target of 100,000 by 2000. In the recent carve-up of Structural Funds, the capital provision for the whole third level sector for the next five years is £120 million, of which less than one-third has been allocated to the universities where the bulk of research is carried out. That figure represents a mere 27 per cent increase over the past five years when there was no exceptional Structural Funding available. When inflation is taken into account, the increase in spending in this area is negligible.

13. In reply to criticism, the Department of Enterprise and Employment fails to recognise the symbiotic relationship between basic and applied science, in which each stimulates the other: any long term strategy which supports applied research and neglects basic research will not succeed.

14. The most successful high-tech industries such as Hitachi typically invest 8 per cent of their budget in fundamental research.

15. Scientists have been poorly represented on policy-making bodies, even on those boards which require their expertise. This tendency has reached its logical conclusion in Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland which is deeply resented by Irish scientists, who are frequently recognised in appointment to such roles by European bodies but not here at home.

Arising from that I would like to put forward the following six recommendations:

—First, research to generate and sustain an appropriate knowledge base in Ireland should be high on the national agenda.

—Second, practising scientists should be more involved in the formulation of science policy at all levels as is the case in every other developed country.

—Third, the proposed drastic cutbacks in research funding in the current year should be reversed and the research resources deployed more efficiently.

—Fourth, 10 per cent of all research funding should be devoted to basic research.

—Fifth, VAT on all research equipment should be removed.

—Sixth, there is need to improve co-ordination between those Government Departments which interface with the higher education sector in areas of training and research.

I hope the Minister for Education, who is present, will consider those suggestions. I have taken some trouble to put those points in a succinct way. I hope also that the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the Department of Finance will examine this matter because scientists here are at a significant disadvantage.

I wish to refer to the question of crime. I said that the whole area of job creation was related to the crime problem. The maximising of job opportunities is related to the crime problem. It is very disturbing to read in the newspapers today that when the Garda statistics are published, later today or tomorrow, they will again indicate an 8 per cent increase in crime in Dublin and a 4 per cent increase in the rate of crime in the country as a whole. Those statistics do not reflect the true level of crime; they only reflect the level of reported crime. Many people have simply given up on reporting or if they do they will be told at the Garda station that there is not a whole lot the Garda can do about it.

Prison and sentencing statistics are pathetically sketchy. That has been referred to by the Whitaker report on Penal Reform and the Law Reform Commission report on sentencing. A national bureau of crime statistics, at no cost to the State, should be immediately established to ensure that legislators, judges and others are properly informed and can scientifically measure the true extent of crime. If we do not accurately measure categories and levels of crime we cannot have a plan to fight it. It is not good enough to hope that people will not notice and that the problem will go away. We should form a bureau comprising for instance the Director of the CSO, senior gardaí, the Comptoller and Auditor General and others, with statutory responsibility to publish crime, prison and sentencing statistics. At the moment one judge does not know what another is doing. Some judges use community work orders, others apply suspended sentences and others impose the full sentence. Where a sentence is suspended pending review in say six months, an offender will be more inclined to behave. When judges sentence people to Mountjoy prison, the prison must allow others out to accommodate them. If 50 prisoners go into Mountjoy on Friday, 50 others must be allowed out. There is not a parole board and nobody need consider whether these prisoners should be let out.

We need to review sentencing policy. Crime statistics could inform judges as to what penalties work and the Legislature should be informed of the true rates of recidivism, for instance. If one asks a question of the Minister for Justice as to the rate of recidivism, the reply can only be a guess because we do no have accurate statistics. The system with regard to criminal justice and crime statistics is a sham. If one wanted to put forward an education plan one would start with a Green Paper and we should do the same in the fight against crime.

The Government will not take on board my proposal for a national bureau of crime statistics because it would show the true level of crime and the Government would not get away with having the members of the Garda Síochána under strength. It is horrific that while crime is spiralling Garda numbers are 500 below the authorised level. It is no wonder that in two subdistricts in Dublin, the detection rate for indictable crime was as low as 14 per cent in one and 17.4 per cent in the other and that the rate of detection for the country for indictable crime, which includes crimes against the person, offences against property with violence, larceny and so on, is as low as 34 per cent. In the same year the detection rate for crimes against women under these headings was a low as 11 per cent and 15.6 per cent, respectively, in the two Dublin subdistricts to which I refer.

Unless we are serious about fighting crime, starting with a national bureau of crime statistics we will not come to terms with a frightening reality.

This budget marks the beginning of my second year as Minister for Education and the second year of progress, advancement and improvement in the education of our young people. It also marks the second year of the implementation of the education commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government.

Education is a key element in the Programme for a Partnership Govenment. The programme recognises the vital part which education plays in advancing our economic performance, promoting equity and equal opportunity for our citizens and, most of all, in tackling disadvantage in and out of school.

We all agree that more resources are needed in education. This budget with an 11 per cent increase on last year, has provided more resources. My task as Minister is to make choices, establish priorities and target spending. Often people in most need are furthest from where decisions are made and frequently have difficulty in making their voices heard. The marginalised in society are most easily ignored.

As Minister, I know that, despite all that is positive and good in our education system, it has the capacity, even at first level, to reinforce and perpetuate inequity.

I am concerned that early school leavers are very likely to face long term unemployment and I am concerned that large numbers of young people leave school each year with poor formal qualifications or none. I am concerned too that, even in 1994 young people from backgrounds of high socio-economic status are three times as likely to obtain a leaving certificate than young people from unskilled and semi-skilled backgrounds.

The choices I made in the budget are designed to remedy this problem. As Minister, I have the responsibility to make these choices; but I have made them in partnership, the most public expression of which was the recent National Education Convention which was marked by a spirit of optimism, co-operation and agreement on priorities by all the partners in education.

It showed a widespread agreement on the importance of promoting equity in education, retention of young people in the system and access to qualifications by them. This consensus has informed the choices I made in education spending this year.

Primary schooling is vital for children, if they miss out at this stage it is very difficult to catch up later. I know that many of our primary schools are in poor repair and that in some, even basic sanitary facilities are sadly lacking. That is why I have increased capital expenditure at primary level from £19 million in 1993 to £26 million in 1994, why I allowed 72 additional major projects to commence this year and why I made a commitment that every school will have modern sanitation and hygiene facilities by the end of 1994.

I know that our primary schools are under funded. That is why I increased the capitation grant by a further £5 per pupil. I have increased the disadvantaged fund by £707,000 to allow a range of initiatives in disadvantaged areas. I have set aside £16,000 to provide for the payment of television licences in schools designated as disadvantaged and have provided an allocation of a further £300,000 for the continued expansion of the caretaker and clerical services at primary level.

I know that the isolation of some schools presents a particular problem and challenge to teachers, especially those in island schools. That is the reason I have allocated £36,000 for the installation of telecommunication facilities in all island schools. These facilities will include telephones, modems, computers and printers.

As Minister I have ensured that, despite falling pupil numbers, all teaching posts will be retained in the primary school system. This reduces the pupil-teacher ratio to 23.4:1.

It is estimated that a minimum of 400 teaching posts will be available this year to improve education in our schools. I intend to target these posts by appointing 100 additional remedial teachers, by appointing additional teachers in schools designated as disadvantaged and by appointing additional teachers to the home-school-community liaison scheme. However, I will reserve a significant number of these teachers for the special education area as 1994 will be a year of initiatives on special education.

I believe that a test of the civilisation of our society is how we treat our most vulnerable members. This is the reason I have a range of initiatives in Budget '94 for children with special educational needs: an additional 50 childcare assistant posts; an additional £2 million for a dramatic increase in capitation grants; capitation grant recognition of children of post-primary age in special schools; £100,000 for in-service training of teachers of children with a handicap; extra administrative principalships in schools of special education and £100,000 for the provision of escorts for children with a handicap.

The provisions for children with special educational needs in this budget are the first part of a programme which has been mapped out by the report of the Special Education Review Committee. This committee's report contains much valuable research. I believe that our choices in education should be guided by such findings.

Proper research can help target our resources to combat the problems in education. Therefore, I have set aside £35,000 to fund two major research projects. One will monitor the development of the pre-school programme and the other will involve the Combat Poverty Agency in providing an evaluation of the current criteria for designating disadvantage.

In addition, I will shortly publish the consultancy study on the cost of school books commissioned by my Department. I have increased the funding for the books scheme by 17 per cent in this budget and the consultancy study will help us to use these funds to the best advantage.

At present, 73 per cent of our young people finish senior cycle at second level and our ambition is to increase this to 90 per cent in the near future. The increased numbers of young people in the second level system demand new buildings and new resources. I have, therefore, achieved an increase in capital expenditure for second level buildings from £20 million in 1992 to £27 million in 1993 and now to £37 million in 1994. The 1994 allocation represents an 85 per cent increase on the 1992 expenditure. It has allowed me to authorise 35 major building projects to commence this year.

The funding at our secondary schools has been inadequate. There has been no increase in the capitation grant since 1990. This year I have obtained a 9 per cent increase on the 1993 allocation which will be distributed with particular emphasis on disadvantaged schools. I have allocated an additional £800,000 for the continuing expansion of the caretaker and clerical services in our second level schools. I have also allocated an additional £276,000, an increase of 55 per cent, for a series of initiatives to address disadvantage and special needs at post-primary level.

The quality of education depends on the quality of our teachers. This year I will allocate an additional 45 career guidance posts, 25 remedial posts and 110 ex-quota vice-principalships. An additional 15 post-primary schools will be provided with the services of home-school liaison co-ordinators. I will allocate an additional 60 teaching posts to disadvantaged schools.

Access to second level education means access for all our children. This includes our children with special needs. I have provided £50,000 for the first time, for the provision of equipment for children with special needs in ordinary secondary schools. I have arranged that a major pilot project will commence this year on the development of appropriate curricula for children with special needs of second level schoolgoing age.

We live in a knowledge-based society and a knowledge-based world, a world in which access to higher education is increasingly important. More and more of our young people progress to third level education. These young people's life chances are enhanced by their education at our universities and higher education colleges. The higher education of our young people brings cultural, economic and social benefits to our community as a whole.

There is a need for improved facilities in our higher education colleges. This year, £35 million — £16 million from Exchequer funding and £19 million in the national plan — will allow for capital development in these institutions.

I recognise the growing importance of regional technical colleges, the Dublin Institute of Technology and certain third level vocational education committee colleges in the higher education sector. An additional £20 million, an increase of 19 per cent on the 1993 out-turn, has been provided for the day to day funding of these colleges.

I have increased the allocation for higher education grants to take account of increased numbers of students and the recent improvements in the higher education grants scheme. I have consulted widely on how we can encourage access to higher education and how we can remove barriers. I am aware of barriers which can affect individual students: barriers of mobility, barriers due to family circumstances, barriers due to disabilities. That is the reason I have provided for the first time a new fund of £200,000 for students in higher education. I will discuss with the authorities in third level institutions how best to use this new fund to ensure that students who experience particular difficulties have access to third level education.

Each child has only one start in life, one chance in education. This is why education is so tremendously important and why failure in the education system has a life-long effect on many people. The education system has failed some people in the past. As a society we must recognise this. Hence, I have a particular commitment to adult and continuing education and to those who have missed out on educational opportunities.

I have provided 2,500 extra places in the vocational training and opportunities scheme for adults and 1,000 extra places for young people on Youthreach programmes. I have also increased the funding for adult education organisations by 10 per cent and have allocated £200,000 for iniatiatives for adults in disadvantaged communities. I have provided a 14 per cent increase to assist the ongoing work of the adult literacy and community education scheme.

The year 1993 has been tremendous for Irish education. It has been a year of initiatives, of consultation, of reforms and of improvements, and 1994, with the publication of the White Paper on Education, will build on the foundations laid last year.

Budget 1994, with a net increase of over 11 per cent in the education provision, provides a splendid start to the new year. It is a budget which has built on the partnership of the National Education Convention, has targeted our resources in an open and honest way and improved our young people's life chances.

The education provisions in this budget are evidence of my determination to implement the education commitments to the Irish people in the Programme for a Partnership Government.

I warmly welcome this budget which will be a massive boost to economic activity on every front. This budget will, over the next few years, create a huge number of jobs in our economy. Furthermore, it provides for a significant increase in expenditure to assist every health board and includes considerable increases in other areas of social spending. It also includes the extra £15 million for county roads which is of significance to every family living in a rural area.

One of the outstanding features of this budget is the decision by the Government to tackle the issue of tax reform. For many years parties on all sides of this House have made noises about introducing measures to reform the tax system. However, when push comes to shove, very few groups have the courage to tackle this problem. This budget sees the start of a process of significant tax reform and a widening of the tax base. The majority of economic commentators in the media praised the Government's attempts to readjust the taxation system but what the majority of the people I represent want to know is whether their tax is going up or coming down. What is sickening the Opposition is that tax is being reduced at every level of income and, for the first time in the last seven years, those on low pay are getting a real look in with reductions in the employment and health levies combined with substantial increases in personal allowances.

I would like to take issue with Deputy Yates. What might we expect from his party if he were the Minister for Finance? I remember reading The Irish Times on 28 April 1993 where he indicated that his tax reform proposals would cut Government spending by £200 million and raise another £500 million by widening the tax base. Among the options he was considering were “the introduction of VAT on food and other zero-rated items and new local government charges”. Deputy Yates and the Fine Gael Party were bursting blood vessels here yesterday over the £5 million widening of the tax base in the residential property tax. I would like to see the medical condition he and his leader would be in if they had to contemplate a £500 million widening of the tax base. I can tell him that if he were to put a tax on food the standing of his party in the polls would shrink to a level enjoyed by the Canadian Conservative Party who have very few seats in their Parliament at this time. The problem with people on very large incomes is that they often have small minds when it comes to issues like tax reform. Of course, the money can be raised in another way and given as tax cuts but it should not weigh heavily on the less well off. What is more, the people of Ireland would give short shrift to any politician who claimed that tax reform might require putting VAT on food.

The real widening of the tax base that this country needs is the implementation of policies that will increase the number of people at work. This is the only form of tax widening that is worth a damn in reducing the cost to Government of unemployment which, it turn, requires higher levels of taxation. This may seem a very simple point but it is the only way we can have a sustained increase in living standards without penalising vulnerable sections of the community who do not have the muscle to object if services on which they depend are cut. I ask those people who advocate cutting public expenditure if they would point out the exact areas where they would implement such cuts. In particular I want to know what is the right-wing philosophy in relation to the provision of local authority housing and would this be part of the public expenditure cuts so eloquently advocated by these parties. What would they say to the prospect of 330 people on the housing list in County Westmeath today?

I am especially proud of the Labour Party's record in the provision of local authority housing and will continue unashamedly to encourage the Government to provide the necessary finance to ensure that waiting lists for houses are substantially reduced. There is no point in talking with forked tongue about this matter; we are either for public expenditure in this area or we are not, and if we are not we should point to exactly where the knife will fall. There is no point in being ambivalent. I can tell the people in County Westmeath what I stand for in relation to the provision of public sector housing.

I welcome the introduction of the community employment scheme by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister for Finance's announcement of extra places on the Youthreach programme. I wish to make a special plea for the community training workshops. These originated as work schemes for unemployed young people and were later taken up and expanded by Youthreach. They are now in danger of being left behind. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the community training workshops are given extra funding and additional places to get them out of the limbo they are in for which the Department must take some responsibility. In particular I want to see an increase in the number of places available in Mullingar Community Training Workshop from its current level of 30 to 50 places, and I appeal to the Minister to provide the necessary funds for this.

In the area of social welfare I warmly welcome the change in respect of the means test for the carer's allowance whereby the earnings disregard of the working spouse of a carer is being increased to £100. In addition pensioners who are being cared for by the recipients of a carer's allowance will be entitled to retain eligibility for the free telephone rental allowance and pensioners aged 75 years and over who no longer live alone will also retain eligibility for that allowance. In particular the extension of the allowance to widows aged between 60 and 65 years whose husbands were eligible under the free schemes is very necessary and long overdue.

The increases in child benefit for the third and subsequent child, when combined with the increases in last year's budget, will be of major benefit to large families and continues the Labour Party's policy of reversing the previous freezing of child benefit which was a Thatcherite-inspired and anti-family policy. The increases in social welfare, for example, will result in an increase of £6.12 for a couple with four children on long term unemployment assistance, bringing their income to £171.70 per week. A couple with three children on short term unemployment assistance will be £6.75 per week better off. These increases exceed the inflation rate and, though not large in percentage terms, will help to improve the living standards of unemployed families.

In the area of health, what the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin has secured in this budget will go down at the end of this Government's term in office as perhaps one of the greatest achievements by the Labour Party in the area of social policy. The waiting lists for hip, heart, eye and ear operations have been reduced by more than 50 per cent in the past year and an additional £10 million is being provided to achieve a further reduction in waiting time. Therefore, the less well-off need not now fear requiring a serious operation for themselves or their children. The application of £30 million, in addition to the health boards' £100 million debt reduction, will ensure continuity of the tremendous service that is provided by health care personnel. Also, that service will be available to all citizens and not just to those who have the money to buy immediate medical attention which, unfortunately, is the position for many people after years of Thatcherism in the UK health service. The provision of £28 million for services for the mentally handicapped is further evidence that the Minister for Health, at the end of the term of office of this Government, will have transformed the Irish health service.

I will deal now with an issue that needs examination and a Government decision as a matter of urgency, namely, eligibility criteria for higher education grants. I understand a review group will be reporting on this matter shortly and, as far as I am concerned, the sooner that happens the better. That issue affects middle income earners who find it particularly loathsome that assessment for eligibility is done on a gross income basis. Some time ago I called on the trade union movement to raise the matter in its discussion with the social partners because for a middle income family eligibility for higher education grants for family members is of far greater value in money terms than wage increases, of which a significant portion is clawed back in income tax. The time has come for the PAYE sector, who carry the bulk of the tax burden, to have the eligibility thresholds increased substantially or, alternatively, the basis of assessment should be on net and not gross income. The paymaster should get something in return.

When I hear people talk about unemployment I recall that ten or 20 years ago in every village and town in rural Ireland five or six people were employed by the local county council to maintain roads and do other necessary works. People were also employed on Office of Public Works drainage schemes and in Bord na Móna and the ESB. Those jobs were noteworthy in that they were all State or semi-State employment. Of course, if one is opposed to the semi-State sector — another area where there were public expenditure cutbacks — one cannot agree with a reversion to that type of policy. If I were Minister for Finance I would authorise local authorities to recruit people immediately to provide such services. It makes economic sense. Let us consider the condition of the roads in rural Ireland. If those roads were maintained on a regular basis there would be less need for expenditure on constant repairs and maintenance. That is a simple example, but on any cost-benefit analysis basis it would be worthwhile. I do not see the logic under any circumstances of not following that trend.

Those opportunities are no longer there, but if we are serious about reducing unemployment levels local authorities must be given a more proactive employment generating role. For example, in major capital projects such as road construction the rules and regulations governing the award of such contracts should be changed at both national and European level to permit local authorities to undertake those projects in total. That would result in the employment of thousands of people by local authorities on direct labour. In that way European and national moneys could have a real impact on unemployment black spots.

There should be further recruitment to the Permanent Defence Forces. The current recruitment campaign which will enlist 500 people into the Permanent Defence Forces and the Navy has attracted approximately 20 applicants for each available position. Further Army recruitment should be carried out on a planned basis. In Westmeath, where there are two important Army barracks, Custume Barracks in Athlone and Columb Barracks in Mullingar, it is hoped that this is just a first step in a planned recruitment campaign.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Keogh.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

This is a thoroughly bad budget, perhaps the worst this country has seen in living political memory. It was made worse by the fact that a splendid budgetary opportunity was hopelessly squandered. Seldom has a Minister for Finance had so many favourable factors to his back when introducing a budget. The Minister had the wind at his back with low inflation, falling interest rates, a rake of money from the tax amnesty, a healthy position in relation to growth and, at political level, a solid majority that would have enabled him to introduce a set of radical measures to tackle the single most important issue facing the country today, namely, unemployment. The Minister squandered all those opportunities. He and his Government could not resist the temptation to be popular, to squander taxpayers' money, throw it out like confetti at a country wedding, giving a little to everybody and at the end of the day failing to put in place any measure that would be of long term benefit to our economy or people.

We got nothing more in this budget than a lethal cocktail of high spending and high taxation measures. The budget lacks a coherent strategy for tackling the unemployment crisis and this time next year we will all be back in this House — with the proof of the pudding — with no new long term sustainable jobs created in any real measure. Seldom has there been so much expectations of a budget or advice and consensus about the shape a budget ought to have taken.

I have examined the new PRSI measures carefully. In my view they will cancel one another out and at the end of the day we will be left with a scoreless draw on the jobs scoreboard. The attempt to address the tax wedge and poverty trap will succeed only in moving the threshold, it will not solve the problem. We now have a new threshold under which workers earning £173 per week dare not look for or take a rise in wages because if they do so they will be liable for a new range of levies. Such people are trapped in that position and are as badly off as those on much lower pay, whom this budget boasted about setting out to relieve. That measure has failed and the poverty trap and tax wedge continues in the Irish economy. That is an example of the lack of coherence in respect of the long term outcome of that measure.

I wish to refer now to the increase in employers' PRSI and the manner in which it will affect workers earning £25,000 and more. That measure will have a devastating effect on employment in many sectors of the economy, especially areas in which there are highly skilled workers. I refer in particular to graduates in a number of industries in my area, for example, the chemical and financial services industries and the co-operatives which are replacing the manufacturing industries that collapsed in the 1980s.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn