When debating the annual budget one usually discusses and assesses its provisions. However, on this occasion it would be totally inappropriate not to address what can only be described as the media circus which characterised the lead up to the Minister's Budget Statement. The performance of a number of Ministers over the past few months has been incredible to say the least. I have been a Member of the House since 1977 and every year the introduction of the budget was a very important occasion for the State. It was also very important in terms of ordering fiscal matters for the year and there was a degree of confidentiality regarding the proposed provisions.
Last year the former Minister of State, Deputy Hogan, was unceremoniously forced to resign from office for a minor indiscretion — he leaked some of the provisions on budget day. This year we did not have to wait for the Minister's statement to find out what was in the budget. On budget day the Ceann Comhairle went through the humiliating charade of asking Members not to take their copy of the budget out of the House until the Minister had concluded his speech. I hate to see the status of the Ceann Comhairle reduced to that level.
His reminder that the budget was a confidential document was a farce as Ministers had held press conferences prior to the introduction of the budget in order to curry favour with their constituents. At his press conference the Minister for Social Welfare said there would be major changes in PRSI, which there were. This was followed by a press conference by the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, who said he was seeking £10 million and predicted a number of changes which, of course, came to pass. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs did not want to be left out of the picture and he told us some of the provisions which would be contained in the budget. Details of some provisions were also contained in business journals and newspapers prior to budget day. One newspaper went so far as to leave a blank column after certain provisions so that people could write in their comments. This is no way to run a country or to deal with a budget. Does the Taoiseach still believe that investigations should be carried out into these serious and widespread leaks?
While the sight of a Minister rubbishing a colleague in Cabinet may be good media copy unfortunately it has serious implications for our reputation at home and abroad. It should be remembered that the actions of the Government are continually monitored. The IDA, which is doing a very good job, has been given the task of convincing industrialists that we have a good economy and operate in a professional manner. It is critical that the status of our democracy is upheld, particularly in relation to the annual budget. The citizens of this State require continual reassurance that our democratic institutions are functioning properly and in their collective interests. Indigenous and foreign investors are assessing the medium to long-term potential for allocating substantial resources to industrial developments within the State. Like that of any other sovereign state, our international political status is constantly under evaluation.
Why was the budget seriously undermined, some might say fatally damaged, before the Minister outlined his proposals to the House? It cannot be denied that the Government comprises a number of extremely able and decent people who have made important, personal contributions to political life — none more so than my colleague from Cork, the Minister of State, Deputy Coveney, who was, unfairly, a victim of the nonsense which has characterised some of the decisions of the Government. However, on reflection, there can be little doubt that its deep malaise has its roots in its origins in that the people were not asked to make a decision in an election, which makes it unique.
In an insane grasping for power, irrespective of the cost, the three parties concerned came together to form the most politically incompatible coalition possible within the State. As a result we have a combination of far left and far right policies with the Labour Party in the middle — a case of "whatever you are having yourself so long as it does not bring down the Government and remove us from our cushy positions". Sadly, the outcome of such chaotic government is both predictable and unfortunate. All involved in this sorry fiasco are only too well aware that any serious attempt to develop fundamental policy initiatives is doomed to failure because of the incompatibility of the Government parties.
This is the reason a press conference is held one day and another the next at which one Minister makes a statement to the effect that a certain policy document is a definitive response which is later denied by another who at least attends Cabinet meetings. That was another ploy to put a Government in place. Because the Constitution could not be changed to increase the number of Ministers to 16, a stunt was pulled to placate Democratic Left which has 1 per cent electoral support. As a result of this ruse it was offered a Minister of State post who could attend but not speak at Cabinet meetings and would also be given a State car.
After the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs had told all and sundry that the report on long-term unemployment was a definitive response the Minister of State decided to contact Joe Mulholland at RTE — this constituted interference with the State broadcasting service — to complain. The constant bickering and instability whereby Ministers constantly look over their shoulders to see what their Cabinet colleagues are doing have left us in a disastrous position so far as the making of coherent policy decisions is concerned.
The net result is nothing short of disastrous, especially for those most in need in society. It gives me no pleasure to recall the appalling irresponsibility of the 1983-87 Coalition which brought the economy to the verge of bankruptcy. When it entered office the national debt stood at £12.5 billion but at the end of its period in office it was £25 billion. It took a great deal of courage from the late 1980s onwards on the part of Fianna Fáil led Governments, first with the Progressive Democrats and later with the Labour Party, with the support of Deputy Dukes when leader of Fine Gael, to restore order to the national finances and our credibility internationally. Without the consensus of the majority parties in the House this could not have been done. Great sacrifices had to be made, particularly by the less well off. It is a pity that the orderly restoration of the economy to good health has not been continued.
For the first time in 27 years there was a surplus at the end of 1994, but the benefits are being frittered away. In times of recession the poor and companies under pressure fall by the wayside. In times of boom there is a need for retrenchment and to put something aside for a rainy day. This is certain to happen because of the cyclical nature of the economy.
This time last year there was a great sense of anticipation and it was confidently expected that the main problems facing society would be tackled in the budget. These continue to be social deprivation, unemployment, spiralling crime and increasing levels of drug abuse. Unfortunately, our expectations were betrayed and a truly appalling budget was presented, with the exception of a few provisions. It displayed a chilling indifference to the plight of the needy and the only seemingly acceptable excuse offered by the Government was the brevity of its tenure in office. The same excuse cannot be put forward on this occasion as a justification.
Despite the clear obligations of the Government parties to meet people's needs, in the weeks prior to the budget there were signs of what lay ahead. These included ministerial squabbling and the opportunistic leaking of details of the budget. At one point I felt the Government could have used the Welsh national emblem — the leek — as a symbol. There were indications, however, that the budget could be a good one. When one goes to Lansdowne Road or Croke Park one will see the players limbering up before the game begins. One in particular will do many tricks with the ball and engage in fancy footwork, but when the whistle is blown the player concerned who showed great promise will trot off towards the dugout and put on his track suit. That is what the budget reminds me of.
The contents of the budget are bitter for two sections of society in particular, those living in poverty and those involved in job creation. Its provisions are an insult to those most in need in society as we approach the end of the 20th century. Following the lamentable 2.5 per cent increase provided last year, we could have confidently expected the poor to be granted a higher increase because of our good economic performance, but despite all the talk about the 7.5 per cent growth rate and low inflation they were granted only an increase of 3 per cent in what is supposed to be the best economy in Europe and in a time of boom. In other words, a person in receipt of a non-contributory pension will now receive £64.50, an increase of £2.
In a recent report, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul indicated that over 80 per cent of the elderly on fixed or static income have only one pair of shoes. How could they afford to buy another pair of shoes on £64.50 per week? Many of them have only one overcoat because they cannot afford to buy another. In a time of economic growth it is disappointing that the less well off are not being assisted. In real terms, the budget has done nothing to improve their unacceptable standard of living and this is even more upsetting than the miserly increases. We were promised last year that the payments would be brought forward, but in the small print of the Principal Features it states that they will not be introduced until September.
Even though they make extremely depressing reading I will outline some of the studied insults contained in the budget. The orphan's non-contributory pension will be increased by a paltry sum of £1.20 per week. A similar miserable largesse has been bestowed by Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, on a blind married couple by way of supplementary allowance. The real extent of the Government's commitment to the family is exposed in its failure yet again to provide any increase in the child dependant allowance for a range of social welfare and social insurance payments. People over 80 years of age will receive a shameful increase of 20p per week. I can only assume that the attraction of rounding up £4.80 to £5, rather than a caring instinct, motivated this increase. Our elderly population is increasing, but unfortunately their position will not be improved as a result of this budget.
In the not too distant past age bestowed almost total protection on the individual from personal assault or insult, but unfortunately the current position is much different. The recent attacks on the elderly have horrified us and our primary concern is for the victims. I was appalled yesterday when the Taoiseach blocked the introduction by Fianna Fáil of the Misuse of Drugs Bill while saying that we must be mindful of civil rights. Of course we must be mindful of civil rights and of the rights of criminals, but in the first instance we must be mindful of the rights of victims. It is regrettable that party political advantage is put before the horror of living alone in rural Ireland today. I work 200 miles away from home and when I am away my wife locks the doors and keeps the dog in the house because she is frightened. It is regrettable that in such circumstances the Government, particularly the Minister for Justice, has not done something tangible in the past year rather than making empty promises. The Government blocked the provision of additional prison spaces last year.
Two days ago I brought to the attention of the Minister for Justice that the Department of Social Welfare assesses at the rate of 10 per cent the sum of, say, £2,000 that a pensioner may have on deposit in a bank to cover the cost of his or her funeral. It is not possible to accrue interest at a rate of 10 per cent on a deposit account; one would be lucky to get 1 per cent. When handling charges and so on are taken into account, in the case of small amounts on deposit one would accrue only £5 or £10 in interest per annum. Yet the Department of Social Welfare assesses the notional income of pensioners at a rate of 10 per cent. Consequently, the elderly keep their money at home and we are all aware of the consequences of that. I appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to charge them the actual interest rate. Most banks provide machines so that people can get a printout of their accounts stating the interest accrued and so on. I fail to understand why the actual interest accrued on such accounts cannot be taken into account. It is probably a case of indifference and that is regrettable.
We have heard the nonsense about giving people tax relief for installing burglar alarms. What good would that be to the elderly in receipt of non-contributory pensions who are not in the tax net? How would they avail of the tax concession? Why not give them a few pounds so that they could afford to install alarm systems? I hope the Ministers for Finance and Social Welfare are not serious about that because it is nonsensical. Irrespective of the arrogance of office, one must not lose touch with reality. Some of the measures proposed in this budget are far removed from reality.
I appeal to the Minister for Justice to accept the generous advice from this side of the House and to accept legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs Bill. The Government should cease hanging on to party political advantage and respond to the frightening problems that face us. Every morning on the radio one hears the relatives of victims asking what the Government or the Department of Justice are doing about the problem. I appeal to the Minister to respond to this particularly depressing and tragic problem and accept our proposals.
I do not apologise for diverting from the fiscal implications of the budget to address the needs and concerns of a most valued but vulnerable section of our society. The protection of their wellbeing should be a priority. Lip service is useless. We on this side will ensure that the Government is kept on its toes in relation to this matter.
I pay tribute to the Minister for increasing the carer's allowance by £5, the child benefit allowance by £2 and for the changes in the back-to-work scheme, the family income supplement, the extension of the application of child dependant allowance and the criteria associated with assessment for unemployment assistance. Those measures will benefit the people concerned. However, it is stated in the Principal Features that an allocation of £10 million has been set aside to cover all those measures. An allocation of £5 million has been set aside for VTOS, £4 million for community employment and £1 million for recruitment. A sum of £1 million has been provided to cover a subsidy of £80 per week, £4,000 per annum. That will mean the creation of 250 jobs, but the small print states that there are up to 5,000 places. There will be 1,000 places under the community employment scheme and a further 1,000 under VTOS, but a sum of only £10 million has been set aside to cover all of those. Take 5,000 places at £80 per week, 5,000 at £4,000 per year that is £20 million. This is another confidence trick being perpetrated in this budget. The Minister cannot have it both ways; he cannot say he will allocate places if he does not put the money aside for them. It is nonsense to say one thing in the general introduction to the budget when, on reading the small print, it is obvious that the rhetoric is far removed from reality. This is more of the tinkering and tokenism that is part of this budget.
The depressing pattern of shadow boxing which emerges from consideration of the social welfare provisions of budget 1996 is repeated again and again throughout the document no matter what one examines, whether it is income tax, PRSI, enterprise monetary measures, benefit in kind, taxation of unemployment or of disability benefit or farming.
Agriculture gets 13 lines in this budget speech, the largest sector of our economy gets 13 lines. Many agricultural issues need to be addressed. For example, the export refunds which were painstakingly negotiated and put in place have been reduced by one third. Export refunds are valued at over £300 million. We were told by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry last November that this was only a temporary measure, that the export refunds would all be restored, that it would not affect cattle or meat prices. Of course it has; it was bound to. The difficulty in this budget is that the footprints of tinkering and tokenism are uniform throughout. There is not a single bold move, flash of inspiration or imagination in any part of it. The Minister for Finance and his colleagues have indulged to the point of absurdity in the tinkering and tokenism that applies to this budget.
This business expansion scheme is very good. It has allowed many projects to go ahead, putting money into worthwhile projects and jobs. The tinkering that has taken place with the business expansion scheme in this budget is unnecessary and makes no sense. If there is something wrong with it, why not abolish it? Do not tinker around with it. The same applies to the film industry. We have had a couple of well highlighted problems in the film industry but, by and large, it is a good scheme and we have had some notable successes with it. If there is a problem with it, do something radical or get rid of it, but to tinker around with it is appalling.
A committee attitude has applied to decision making by the Government in relation to this budget and we all know what these laborious committee situations produce. The committee attitude by the bevy of advisers and programme managers is now to be adorned by the left wing cell in the Department of Social Welfare. The left wing cell is exclusive to the readers of the forum pamphlet, which is available to members and supporters of the Democratic Left. Never before in my political lifetime have I seen a situation where applications for a job for which people will be paid at Civil Service rates are handled in this way. To whom do they apply? Normally applications are made to the Civil Service Commission and the application form contains the words "canvassing will disqualify", but in this case applicants are to send it to Mr. John Gallagher at the headquarters of the Democratic Left. This is the kind of Government we have, this is the kind of appalling situation we have come to.
The Minister already has programme managers, special advisers, special assistants, and now apparently there is to be a complete cabal within the Department. I have been speaking to some people in the Department of Social Welfare and they are appalled, because they have done a good job. We have a comprehensive social welfare system, the Department has been modernised, it has a good computer system and modern technology, but what happens? If you want to get research done now you go to the Democratic Left cabal within the Department because they have a unit there.
This unit is paid for by the taxpayer but the real reason for such a unit is that the Minister for Social Welfare and Leader of the Democratic Left wants to match the Leader of the Labour Party who has a special unit in the Department of the Tánaiste. This habit of Ministers watching one another is a real problem in this Government, which was brought into being without an election; in a desperate attempt to grasp at power no sacrifice was too great to offer to the goddess OTA — that is, openness, transparency and accountability. We have seen over the last year what arrant nonsense that was. Openness, transparency and accountability have been replaced by the DES factor, that is, deception, evasion and secrecy.
I read in a newspaper recently that this Government is the most secret since the foundation of the State. Evasion is the order of the day. You have to ask the right question or you are in dire trouble. I have been here for a good while but I have never worked so hard at couching parliamentary questions because if you do not ask the right question you will get either no answer or the minimum of answers. At this stage the best we can hope for is that these problems will be controlled to some extent until the current rainbow is relieved of power. That will happen at the earliest possible opportunity because this Government has had two excellent opportunities to tackle with effectiveness and imagination the profound problems facing our society in the mid-1990s. It failed in the 1995 budget and it has failed in an even more abject fashion in the 1996 budget. It would be irresponsibly optimistic to think that this Government was likely to change its spots at this late stage.
