One of the great wonders of each year's budget debate is the ease with which Deputies on the Government side find items in the budget which they can commend and Deputies on the Opposition find provisions with which to find fault. That is stranger in recent times when parties have been moving from one side of the House to the other fairly frequently. Budgets have not been very different, being confined by the Maastricht guidelines.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is to be commended for being consistent, in this his first budget, with the philosophy he has expressed for many years in the House and outside and which does not always find favour with people in his own party. His philosophy shines through in what he is proposing.
Tax breaks provided for employers and others who are perceived in certain circles as having a good deal of access to finance have been criticised. In that context, the Minister will look to employers to deliver more jobs. Provisions in the budget that allow greater flexibility and man-oeuvrability by the people who control the provision of employment and finance is an important aspect which will ensure a return in jobs in the short term and also in the medium to long-term, and it will be very important to undertake an ongoing assessment of the effects of these moves.
Regarding taxation, Ministers have been faulted for the direct effect of their budget provisions on taxation. On this occasion the Minister for Finance has been universally praised for having improved the lot of the worker. It is important to put this year's developments in taxation, especially personal taxation, into a fairly short-term context. It is not very long since the standard and higher rates of tax were 14 or 15 points higher than they are this year. A 2 per cent reduction may not seem significant, but in the overall context of the past five or six budgets, or more particularly in the context of the past ten years and the improvement in national finances over that time, there has been a truly massive improvement in terms of direct taxation on workers' incomes. All Ministers for Finance over that period of ten years or so have reason to feel proud of their efforts.
The Minister is imposing some restrictions relating to the business expansion scheme, but he has allowed some exceptions in the short term. The lead-in period for many of these projects is very long and initial costs are relatively high. The Minister should, therefore, err on the side of being liberal in allowing business expansion schemes which have not quite got off the ground to be completed in the format in which they were initially envisaged. I do not have specific examples in mind, but I have no doubt there are worthy schemes which have reached a certain stage and which ought to be nurtured rather than dispensed with.
I welcome the specific provisions for the long-term unemployed, particularly the double relief for employers of people in that category. It is a measure which will need to be monitored to ensure that in 12-24 months' time there will be something to show for it.
I also welcome the innovation in regard to donations to charity and the inclusion of disadvantaged schools in that category. It is a way to make additional finances available to worthy charities and schools in a manner that does not directly cost the taxpayer.
There are a number of developments in the area of sport and tourism. First there is the fact that they have been put together. It is clear that under the Minister, Dr. McDaid, sport is getting a more central role. I welcome that very strongly. One of the elements of the budget which was singled out for particular criticism was the £20 million provision for Croke Park. I welcome that provision. As the debate has developed, more and more people are coming to the view that money will be well spent. In the publicity which surrounded it, other elements of the package relating to sport were forgotten, and they are also worthy.
The Minister introduced a new tourism marketing fund directed at areas which have been losing ground or failing to benefit from the growth in tourism from which certain areas have benefited. That is a welcome innovation for which I commend the Minister. I hope it will be directed specifically at areas which have the capacity in the short term to deal with tourism numbers and which have not been showing the level of growth that some areas, particularly the capital city, have been enjoying over the past five to 15 years. The longer term assessment is more dramatic in terms of the growth of tourism in Dublin and the Dublin area as against other parts of the country.
The pilot resorts scheme was to come to an end next summer and is being extended for a year for people who have expended 15 per cent of the cost of their project. For people purchasing land, the cost of the purchase of the land would generally be allowed to be included in the 15 per cent. However, there are some people who were already owners of property at the inception of the scheme who, for one reason or another, were not able to develop it, in many instances for reasons outside their control; there may have been short-comings in the sewerage or water services which meant that planning permission could not be applied for or granted sooner, or there might have been title difficulties or any one of a number of other difficulties. Some of those people would have extreme difficulty in meeting the 15 per cent requirement by the end of July. I urge the Minister, when adding detail to this in the Finance Bill to allow people who have done a certain amount of work and who were clearly intent on developing certain projects to go ahead. There has been much negative publicity regarding developments under the seaside resort scheme in Lahinch and Kilkee in my constituency. However, there has been little reference to the adverse effect of these developments on the surrounding areas and resorts. For example, Liscannor and Lisdoonvarna have suffered badly from the dramatic developments in Lahinch. It is important that the person carrying out the assessment of the scheme should also consider its effect on the surrounding areas. I welcome the rural renewal scheme being introduced for the upper Shannon area. A case can be made for the introduction of similar schemes in small areas along the Shannon, Erne and other waterways which have not benefited from the huge growth in surrounding areas. The same applies to the scheme for hotels. A county base may be convenient for the administration of the scheme but this does not always reflect the reality on the ground. For example, some of the towns included in the scheme may already have a number of hotels, while many smaller towns in adjoining counties have not benefited from the developments in the tourism sector.
It is disappointing to note the 5.1 per cent decline in farm incomes this year. The Minister for Agriculture and Food said that during his previous term in office between 1992 and 1994 there was a cumulative growth in incomes of 24 per cent. I do not know who he was trying to blame for the decline in incomes during the interim but it is a problem which the Government, this House and the EU must face up to. This decline is particularly evident in the beef sector which is suffering many problems, for example, the blockade in the UK, the BSE crisis and the release of intervention beef in world markets at very low prices. I urge the Minister to address these problems and ensure that current beef production secures the prices which are possible and necessary.
Many sectors of the agricultural industry are experiencing difficulties. I welcome the additional headage payments for sheep farmers this year. There is much debate about farm incomes and their subsidisation by the EU. It is clear that the provisions put in place for 1994-9 will not be sufficient. One debate relates to the Santer proposals post 2000, while another debate relates to the shortfalls in the funding provided by the EU. I am glad the Minister for Agriculture and Food managed to secure an extra £23 million for next year as this will ensure that headage payments will be at the level they ought to be. I also welcome his undertaking that small farmers will retain the level of headage payments they received heretofore.
There has been much controversy about installation aid for farmers. The funding for this purpose ran out some time during the summer and I am glad the Minister has provided adequate funding for the processing of existing valid applications. He has been very successful in introducing measures which will ensure that young people are willing to take over farms in the future.
The increases in social welfare benefits always receive considerable airing. When compared to recent years, the increases this year are decent. Nevertheless, all Deputies agree that we must provide generously for older people. I commend the Minister for the increases he has given them this year. The cumulative increase over the past three or four years is impressive but we must avail of the opportunities in the coming years to increase payments even further. This also applies to many other areas.
I welcome the change in the family income supplement whereby the payment will be calculated on the basis of net income. This will make an enormous difference for many people and make the scheme much more attractive.