The budget was dull, lacking in inspiration, and boring. It has become more interesting since it was delivered but for reasons the Minister for Finance had not anticipated and certainly would not like. There were a great many trailers in advance of the budget — we were told there was more money for the Minister to give away than in the past 20 years and to that extent it would be a good budget. Part of the trouble was that it was too well leaked.
We take on board many things from the British but often we take the worst in their system. On budget day it is traditional for the Minister for Finance to be photographed with his briefcase on the plinth outside Leinster House — aping the Chancellor of the Exchequer carrying his Gladstone bag. It is a pity, however, we do not follow their example in other respects. In 1947 or 1948, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hugh Dalton, on his way to the House of Commons to read his budget speech replied in the negative to a question on it from a news vendor outside a tube station. The news vendor, quite fittingly, was news conscious and rang an evening paper, I think it was the Evening News, and gave them the story which appeared in the newspaper before the Chancellor had reached it in his budget speech. He offered his resignation which was accepted. The Minister for Finance would have had to offer his resignation or be sacked if such a procedure had been followed here prior to the budget.
Another factor contributing to the boredom is the widespread use of scripts. Sir, as you know, when the Minister reads his Budget Statement, his speech is circulated to Members in the Chamber and it is possible for them to read ahead. That practice should be abolished except in the case of the leaders and spokespersons of the Opposition parties who have to respond immediately. Indeed, there is an argument for giving them more advance notice as they have the most difficult job. The fact that we can read the script takes from the sense of occasion and the element of surprise. Generally, I am in favour of limiting the use of scripts in the House. I have seen colleagues — in all parties — reading from scripts, but when they appear on a platform down the country they make electrifying speeches. If this practice was curtailed it might have the additional advantage of attracting more journalists to the press gallery instead of relying on scripts or watching the monitor.
The most controversial issue in the budget is the residential property tax. As pointed out time and again this tax will apply mainly to houses in Dublin but also in Galway and Cork. The professionals have calculated that up to 40 per cent of households in Dublin will be affected. It will affect people in my constituency, in the Castleknock and Porterstown area, and to a lesser extent in Lucan and Palmerstown. I acknowledge that this is a matter of concern for me as well as for a number of others. My concern and opposition to the residential property tax is added to by the fact that in recent days we have heard about another imposition — service charges. Members who do not represent Dublin constituencies may argue, with some justification, that service charges are imposed in other areas and that it is unfair that that was not the case in Dublin. Equally, Members representing Dublin constituencies can argue that residential property tax is unfair because of the house values in Dublin and that it is a double imposition. We know that councillors in the three new county councils in the Dublin area did not want to impose service charges but were forced to do so because the Government did not honour the commitment it gave in the Programme for Government that it would reorganise local government and rationalise its financial aspects. That has not happened and explains why councillors in Dublin have been forced by the Minister to impose these service charges. This is unfair on the councillors because it is the responsibility of the Minister and the Government.
Residential property tax is unfair because it is another imposition on middle income earners, particularly those in the PAYE category. They shoulder most of the burden of taxation in this State and are now being asked to shoulder an additional burden. The Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, commented on this matter. She commented on a great many matters recently — I will refer to that at a later stage. She said she favoured a provision whereby families could have their residential property tax deducted from their wages in line with the PAYE system as many people "could not afford the lump sum payment". If they cannot afford the lump sum payment they are hardly in the category of the rich whom socialists should soak. Socialists should not tax people who cannot afford to pay it in a lump sum. Why is there a need to pay the tax in instalments if people can afford to pay it in a lump sum? It is also an acknowledgment that the PAYE sector will again be soaked.
Instead of crucifying this section of the community once again could other sources of revenue be found? The Minister of State was among those most critical of recent rezoning decisions in Dublin, particularly in both her and my constituency and of the fact that certain developers and landowners lucky enough to have had the support of a majority of councillors on the old Dublin County Council made millions of pounds. I do not think any section of the community should be soaked in terms of taxation but if any section is to be these are the people from whom the much needed money should be raised.
Lloyd George, on the question of reparations following the First World War, said that his policy was to squeeze Germany until the pips squeaked. It would appear that the attitude of this Government is to squeeze the PAYE worker until the pips squeak. It is time this stopped; it has gone too far. The so-called coping classes have had enough and we are fast reaching the stage when they will no longer be able to cope.
The budget was supposed to mark the beginning of the process of tax reform. The Minister for Finance, told us: "residential property tax, as extended, was a modest measure of equality in the tax system. The extension would contribute to tilting the balance in the tax code more in favour of productive investment". Dan McLoughlin, an economist with Riada Stockbrokers, described the new tax on property as flawed in virtually every index of taxation.
We are reminded every day that this Government has the largest majority in the history of the State. Other Governments who did not have this luxury had to reconsider unpopular measures because there was a possibility they would not be able to get them through the House. The Government does not have that problem. If the Government was committed and determined to do anything it has the foot soldiers to get it through. Everyone recognises that the rebalancing of the taxation system, to use that euphemism, is likely to be unpopular but if this is to be done it will be done by a Government with a large majority. It showed a lack of commitment and sincerity on the part of the Government that when it started to tackle the issue it withdrew as soon as there was the slightest criticism. The Government, therefore, can be criticised in two respects: for the way it sought to introduce the measure and for the way it withdrew when criticism was expressed from the backbenches. This does not augur well for what is likely to happen when other measures unrelated to the budget have to be tackled.
We have been told by the Minister that the residential property tax will not be increased in later years and that there is no intention to change it. However, bearing in mind the promises and the denials prior to the last election as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bruton, there is a lack of credibility. I presume that when the Minister says there is no intention to change the tax he means there is no intention to change it at present. Deputy Callely got it right, unintentionally, last night when he said on television, "It is a banana skin the Government is prepared to change".
Tinkering with the property tax will not do; it must be scrapped. The coping classes cannot be allowed to cope on their own. Too much is being imposed on the PAYE sector and this cannot be allowed to continue.
In his speech the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, dealt with housing. I welcome the additional provision for housing and the increase in the number of local authority houses but there has been an increase in demand. Last September the Department admitted that there were more than 28,000 families in need of housing. That represented an increase of 23 per cent since 1991. Therefore, additional money was needed.
Are we aware of the extent of the problem? Having read speeches and statements made during the years and assessed the position in relation to housing in this city and elsewhere in recent months I have come to the conclusion that the extent of the problem is not recognised or realised. Yesterday I tabled a question to the Minister for the Environment asking him to undertake a survey of the housing stock. In his reply he referred me to the survey carried out in 1990. That is a worthwhile document but it is very inadequate. Indeed, it refers to its own inadequacies. Twenty-four per cent of the houses included in the sample were not surveyed. The occupiers of 35 per cent of these refused to admit the surveyors to their homes. No reasons were given but I suggest that they were reluctant to allow people into their homes because of the condition of the houses. Therefore, it is an imperfect survey.
It is also imperfect when it comes to the definition of "fitness". The definition reads as follows: "A housing unit should be taken as fit unless it is considered to be a danger or a health hazard to the occupants". That is a wide and subjective definition. A proper house condition survey which would form the basis for a concentrated attack on unfit housing in both the private and public sector is required.
In his contribution Seán Kenny of the Labour Party welcomed the fact that all local authority housing will have proper doors and windows. Big deal — in 1994 all local authority housing should have adequate doors and windows. We welcome the fact that money is to be made available but the amount is not sufficient. In this city, as admitted by Deputy Upton, there are people living in houses which do not have internal WCs. This is a scandal and I do not think any Minister should take credit for dealing with this problem. It is a scandal that successive Governments and councils allowed this to continue.
The speech of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment with responsibility for housing was of great interest and one word that was not mentioned in it, was the word "homeless". Are there no homeless people in Dublin and the rest of this State? Are people sleeping rough on the streets of Dublin and our other cities? One would not think so from the Minister's speech. The reality is different. In The Star of Thursday, 13 January 1994 the following extract from a report by Focus Point was printed:
In the first six months of 1993, there were more than 280 homeless youths in Dublin.
Most were aged 16 to 17 — and more than one third of them had previously been in care...
Hostels are full to capacity, often by 3 p.m. and the use of bed and breakfast as emergency accommodation is growing rapidly...
More than 6,000 people use adult hostels in Dublin yearly; 329 people per month sought accommodation from Focus Point last year, a rise of 129 compared to 1990. Nearly half were women and two thirds of them under 30;
Adult hostels in Dublin accommodate 700 adults per night and are always full.
Focus Point Director, Maureen Lynnott, said people were remaining homeless for an increasing length of time with the result that more were becoming caught in a "cycle of homelessness".
There was not a mention of that report in the Minister's speech, although this is supposed to be a caring budget and we have a caring Labour Minister for housing and a so-called caring administration. Not only is no help offered to the homeless, it is not even worth the Government's while to make a reference to them. It is no wonder that people despair when they read such articles.
Deputy Burton, the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, better known as the Minister for poverty, is also responsible for tax reform. I take no pleasure in criticising Deputy Burton, a constituency colleague, and it is good to have a good relationship with one's constituency colleagues. Deputy Burton is good at dishing out abuse but she is not too good at taking criticism. This often happens to people who are new to the political scene. They must learn that one can be critical politically without being personal. My comments are certainly not meant to be personal. Last year I welcomed her appointment as Minister for poverty and thought it particularly appropriate in that she represented the constituency of Dublin West where there is a great deal of poverty in the greater Blanchardstown area, particularly around Neilstown which is recognised as an area of deprivation. She has been a sore disappointment so far. In her speech on the budget she said, "widows and old people will benefit from improvements in the free schemes". Those free schemes include the telephone rental allowance, television licence, fuel allowance. ESB allowance and butter vouchers. The Minister of State's script went on:
Everyone agrees that the free schemes are very important to the recipients. I am very pleased that we have been able to remove some of the more unacceptable restrictions in these schemes. Widows aged 60-65 will now be able to retain these perks if the couple were entitled to them. There are also important improvements for old people and wheelchair users. These all provide further evidence for the caring nature of this budget.
Is it caring for the Minister for poverty to refer to these allowances for widows as perks? When I came into the House to listen to Minister Burton I got the script — another disadvantage. I looked quickly through it, saw that it mostly claimed credit for what her senior Minister had already announced plus abuse of the Opposition. I went back up to my office. Some time later I read the script and I could hardly believe that the Minister for poverty would describe these allowances as perks. In the event she did not use the word when speaking.
When I issued a statement I was offered an explanation by her office to the effect that this was a typist's error. I find that amazing. What sort of typist would type in "perks" for "allowances"? That was not the explanation. I was later told that these were speaking notes. Apart from the doctrine that the Minister must accept responsibility for these matters, what sort of mentality leads someone to describe these allowances, these entitlements, these rights, as perks? As Marian Finucane said on her show, "the use of ‘perks' is interesting as a perception". I find it interesting as a perception and will watch that Minister with greater interest in the future to see where that perception takes us. Aptly named "Minister for poverty", on the evidence of this budget she is determined not to become redundant; she will add to the poverty rather than eliminate it, as PAYE workers afflicted by property tax and widows whose contributory pensions are now to be means-tested will testify.
A tremendous opportunity was missed in this budget. The Government has the greatest majority in the history of the State and that can lead to its own arrogance. As the former Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, once said in a different context, that can lead to different problems. Those problems have started and this budget could be the first. The Government believes it is secure with the largest majority in the history of the State, a majority that was described as unsinkable. There once was a ship called The Titanic that was supposed to be unsinkable. Thomas Hardy, in his poem about it, stated:
As the smart ship grew in stature, grace and hue in shadowy silence grew the iceberg too.
The political iceberg will include, among other things, the residential property tax.
