Deputy Brady is in possession. He is sharing with Deputy Dennehy and I understand he has 13 minutes remaining.
Financial Resolution No. 4: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to inland revenue (including value-added tax and excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
–(Minister of State at the Department of the
Taoiseach).
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
Our success enables us to project an annual increase of 5.3% in capital investment for 2000-03. The Minister and his colleagues can hardly be castigated for eating the seed corn by virtue of the cuts and welfare increases. Personal taxation reductions will benefit taxpayers by more than £1.2 million. Standard personal allowances increased by £800 for single people and £1,600 for a married couple. The PAYE allowance doubled to £2,000. A single employee earning £144 per week is now outside the tax bracket. That compares to £100 per week before the budget. Some 133,000 people have been removed from the tax net as a result of the budget and 107,000 have been removed from the higher rate. The percentage of all income earners on the top rate of tax has been reduced to 23%. Both the standard rate and the top rate have been reduced by a further 2% in each case. There has been a further widening of the standard tax bands for single, married, one-earner and married two-earner families. Income tax exemption limits for those aged 65 and over are £8,500 for single and widowed people and £17,000 for a married couple.
The main PRSI rate has been cut from 4.5% to 4%. Under 55 rent relief has increased by one-third to £1,000 for a single person and £2,000 for a married couple. There is a tax exemption of up to £6,000 for rented rooms in principal private residences. All these measures put money into people's pockets. It must increase the incentive to work and contribute fully to society. Giving money back to people frees them to make their own decisions on how to spend it and increase their personal happiness.
Business taxation measures include a reduction in the standard rate of corporation tax for trading income by 24% to 20%. A 12.5% corporation tax rate will apply from 2001 for companies with trading incomes under £200,000 per annum, up from £50,000 per annum. Capital allowances are being increased for plant, machinery and business cars. These measures will enhance the attractiveness of Ireland as a place to do business and give further real incentives to the owners of capital to reinvest at a time of record company profits.
I am very pleased to see that the long running difficulties with the credit union movement have finally been resolved and there are now new tax reliefs for credit unions. The movement is widespread and deeply rooted all over the country. It provides valuable lending and saving facilities to people of all classes. It must be recognised that many small business people in urban and rural communities—
The Deputy must conclude.
I know of the wonderful facilities in my constituency. The values which infuse the movement are essentially community values and they deserve every encouragement.
This is the fourth of our five budgets. The cheers and jeers that met the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, when he said his first budget was the first of five have disappeared. Since taking office, the Government has helped to stimulate an unprecedented level of job creation and economic activity. In turn, this has allowed us to spend vast amounts of income on the provision of health care, social welfare, education and other services. Over our term in Government, we have continued to deliver on the promises made prior to the election. That is how we should continue.
We continue to emphasise the importance of caring for families and the elderly. That is why one of the budget's central provisions is the biggest increase in child benefit and old age pensions since the history of the State. Much has been done for various sections in society but more needs to be done. The best way to do that is by having a good economy generating wealth that can be used to provide services for the people. There are many specialist groups such as carers, the elderly, the handicapped, the socially deprived, who still need preferential treatment. Comparing the record of this Government to date with that of its immediate predecessor, the rainbow Coalition, it is the one most likely to provide that preferential treatment.
I noticed last year, and particularly this year, that whenever we refer to the rainbow Government the Opposition's mantra is we are raking over historical facts. I heard that line two nights ago from Deputy Stanton who referred to us raking over history. However, it is recent history. It is insulting to the voting public to suggest that they should not be in a position to compare records. It is only four years ago. Deputy Stanton mentioned three or four issues. He assured me and everyone else that in 1997 this country was left in a very good financial position. I was happy to hear that because when I criticised the increase of £1 in child benefit for the first and second child, I was told money was not available. There is a contradiction there. I am glad to hear there was money available and we must now see why it was not given out. A policy decision must have been taken to say we are raking over history. The public are entitled to question and look back at the figures.
Deputy Stanton suggested that the Minister, Deputy Ahern, was childish to quote figures from the past. The figures should be put on the record for all time. As regards the old age contributory pension, in 1995 pensioners received an increase of £1.80, in 1996 it was £2.20, in 1997 it was £3, a total of £7. By comparison they have received £28 over the same length of time. On child benefit – I have taken the year 1997 because it was so different from anything that happened before – there was an increase of £1 for the first and second child. The total increase was £10 for the first and second child and £14 for the third. That compares with the record of Deputy Ahern of £37.50 for the first and second child and £47 for the third. That is almost a four-fold increase. The public is entitled to hear this, not in an historical context but to compare these two records – you vote for A or B. I suggest B in this case. The present Government has done much better.
I will put some of the other facts and figures on the record later. This has to do with delivering on promises. I might be wrong but it may have been Deputy De Rossa, a socialist Minister at the time, who gave these figures. Imagine what it would have been like had it been a conservative Minister. It is not being childish but factual and correct.
The other phrase trotted out is "what a lucky Minister for Finance". The rainbow Coalition was over and a new rainbow with a pot of gold appeared. It is the Minister's tax policy that has made the difference. In case the Opposition doubts me, it was good to hear it stitched into the record by no less a person than President Clinton. He did not just say this was the best economy in Europe, he went further and said it was one of the leading ones in the world. He referred to our policies. I am sure the public will be interested to hear that.
The Minister has followed a very consistent pattern. He started when he cut taxation in one category in his first year. He came back the second year and showed he had doubled the take to the State. They are the type of policies we want. In Nice last week, our colleagues in Europe tried to change our taxation structure. The reason is that we take seven out of eight jobs coming from America and elsewhere because of our tax structure. That, in turn, is putting money in the coffers beyond what we would expect with our population. It is also creating jobs and priming the economy with income tax.
When it was put to Arnold Palmer that he was a lucky golfer he said that the more he practised, the luckier he got. It is the same with the Minister – the harder he works at it, the better the economy gets. He should get credit for that and I am proud of what he is doing.
Deputy Brady mentioned sorting out outstanding issues. There was conflict with the credit unions but the Minister is capable of dealing with any problems that arise. He has shown that he is also a considerate individual by giving taking account of the position of fostered and adopted children and of those who paid stamps pre-1953. He has dealt with issues which Ministers have failed to deal with for the past 25 or 30 years.
Deputy Stanton criticised the Minister for taking the investor out of the housing market. I presume by that he meant the person who was buying five or six houses for the purpose of letting them. I am glad the Minister has taken action in this regard and that he has given the first time buyer a level playing pitch on which to play so that they will not be up against the moneyed people of this country. I am glad that as a result of his decisions, Peter Bacon was able to announce to the Cork Chamber of Commerce last week that he expects house prices to drop by between 10% and 15% next year. Deputy Stanton described those people who buy five or six houses as investors, although another name for them is multiple house purchasers. I am glad the Minister has ensured that young people trying to buy for the first time are taken care of.
One of the outstanding features in this budget was the treatment of the elderly. During my career I have had the privilege of serving the public in many capacities, one of which was as chairman of the Southern Health Board. During that time I met many elderly people who were sick with worry about the cost of health care and the fact they might have to pay for hospital care. The greatest breakthrough since we decided on free secondary education many years ago was the decision to treat over 70s as a special category and to give them free health care by allocating to them the medical card. I plead with the Minister to try to lower the age limit next year to those over 65 years of age. We should bear in mind that we are speaking about the people who gave me and others the chance to be elected to this House. They are the people who built this State and they deserve everything we can give them.
The additional money for child benefit represents a real advance. There were arguments about giving child benefit across the board and that some people who do not need it would benefit. The fairest way for the State to assist families is through child benefit. It goes directly to the most important person in the home, the mother, who is well able to handle it. Means testing can be a crude and costly method of redirecting resources. I commend the Minister for Finance on his budget and wish him well with next year's budget. He has exceeded all his targets and whatever we get next year will be a bonus.
I would like to share my time with Deputy Fitzgerald.
I listened with amazement to Deputy Dennehy castigate his colleague from Cork. I wish to remind him that members of Fianna Fáil have very bad memories. I remember when Mr. Haughey was going to announce a budget or when we he was going some place, he fell off a boat and hurt his head. I do not know if he was ever Minister for Finance. I know he was good with money in that when he got it, he looked after it and kept it.
Character assassination.
Does the Deputy remember the Minister for Finance with the dirty dozen? He has certainly continued with that policy in this budget. This is the fourth budget and again the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class are getting squeezed. That is what is happening. People have to work harder.
Is the Deputy referring to the right budget?
People are finding it more difficult to get a quality of life. They cannot travel to work or in and out of this city and yet this Government is standing idly by and not doing anything about it.
The last speaker referred to housing. I support the Minister's comments on the Bacon report – I would like to put my little tatoo on the record. I suggest to Deputy Dennehy that he speak to Deputies Flynn, Ellis and Doherty. I received a letter a number of weeks ago to the effect that those Members want to and are going to change it. In my reply I quoted the record of the Dáil proceedings of 27 June when I voted with my party. If this issue comes before the House again, I will not vote with my party but with the Government on the basis that its view on this issue is correct. We will give Deputies Ellis, Flynn and Doherty and the Independents the opportunity to vote with or against the Government bearing in mind that in the letter quoted, which they signed, they stated they are going to get this matter changed.
It has always been Fianna Fáil policy to say one thing in the Chamber and something else in the constituency. That was the case with the Ministers of State, Deputy Ó Cuív and Deputy O'Dea, and now we are seeing it again with these Members from the west but then, what should one expect?
What about the budget?
The Minister of State, Deputy Ryan, has a bad memory.
Deputy Ring, address your remarks through the Chair.
I remind my colleagues, because they have bad memories, that there are more than 50,000 people on the housing waiting list. About 8,000 will sleep on the streets of Dublin, Cork, Wicklow and elsewhere tonight in plastic bags and boxes. They will not have a bed in which to sleep. Is that the kind of society those in Govern ment want? Is that the kind of Government that is in charge of the country?
In Mayo, 1,300 people do not have a toilet in their house and they have to go out to the field or out the backdoor and Government Members are lecturing everybody about our wonderful economy. Of course, it is a wonderful economy when the richer are getting richer and richer. They are getting richer because the Minister for Finance is in the wrong party, although he has the right partners in Government – the Progressive Democrats. We know for what the Progressive Democrats stand. They do not stand for fair play; they speak, work and are in Government for the rich. They have certainly worked for the rich in this budget.
We talk about young people having a house. There is a £3,000 grant for the first time buyer and stamp duty levied at 9%. I accept some people do not have to pay stamp duty if it is their place of residence. Why did the Government not increase the grant from £3,000 to £15,000 or £20,000 when the money is available? If one went to any part of this country, whether Mayo, Dublin or Wicklow, one could not buy a three bedroomed house for £100,000 and yet ten years on, the grant for first time buyers is still £3,000. Why did the Government not do something for those people? While Mr. Bacon has dealt with it, investors are coming into this country and buying six or seven houses. More people from Wicklow than locals own houses in Mayo.
People from Mayo have houses in Dublin.
The Minister of State should listen to me, although he may not like what he hears. He will get his opportunity to respond.
I want to give an example of how daft this country and society has become. There are tax breaks for seaside resort schemes and so on under section 23. Investors from all over the country are coming in to buy property. They get the tax break from the Government and for the winter months the health boards have to rent the property from investors for poor people who cannot get a home. They get the tax break from the Government for the summer months and they are paid by the health boards for the winter months. What kind of society is that? It is a two-tier society from which the rich gain.
The process with regard to infrastructure and planning does not work. If one applies to Dublin, Wicklow or Mayo county councils for planning permission it is supposed to be decided within two months. On the last day of the two months one may get a letter from the local authority requesting further information. That means a further two months wait. There are not enough planners to deal with applications. Yet we are being told this is a wonderful economy. Young couples have to wait six or seven months to get planning permission while house prices continue to rise while the Government does nothing about it.
Lies.
The reason is it has no vision and no plan for the nation. All it is concerned about is to look after the guy with the Mercedes, give him the perks and make sure he is looked after. He must be looked after with regard to taxation and we give him another 3% or 4% of a high tax break. That is not on.
Some 133,000 people have been taken out of the tax net.
What is the Minister doing about the abuse of alcohol in this State? Nothing.
I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Ryan, to cease interrupting.
Does the Minister know what is wrong with him? Does the Minister know what people in my county call his Department?
What?
The department of fun and frolics. He is travelling all over the world promoting this country and spends more time abroad, like the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, as I told him a fortnight ago. He was speaking about Dublin traffic. What would he or the Minister of State present know about it, because both spend more time in the air than on the ground and do not know what is going on. They have lost contact with the people. The people are waiting for them and it will not take long.
As a rural Deputy it would not be right if I did not speak about farmers and farming. This industry was going well. When Fianna Fáil got into Government it destroyed farming as well as rural Ireland. Now it is making a damn mess of dealing with the BSE crisis. I hope there will be some action before the weekend in relation to problems in that quarter.
What about the budget?
There are many other matters I wish to speak about, including health. Last week I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for Health and Children – the smiling Minister from Cork, the press man, the photo man – who has a number of programme managers and doctors all of whom are promoting the good message—
The Deputy is a good man for an interview.
I ask the Minister to listen to this and then he might not fly all over the world but will leave the money in the State. I asked the Minister about cataract operations. I am talking about the elderly in the State who need cataract operations. There are 2,500 people waiting for a 20 minute cataract operation. A lady came into my clinic the other day. She was crying. She said she was 74 years of age and had worked all her life for the State and had never asked anything of the State. She said she was in receipt of a contributory pension and wanted a cataract operation which she cannot get. She cannot see with her right eye and her left eye is beginning to give trouble. She asked if I could do anything for her. I said I would do my best; I did not want to dishearten her. She has been waiting for months on end. Yet the Deputy says there is so much money in the coffers.
(Interruptions.)
During the lifetime of this Government a husband and wife on social welfare over the past four years have got an increase of £32. I will deal with the £8 increase in the budget in a moment. Those earning £40,000 or more are £210 better off while those on social welfare are £32 better off. This increase of £8 is at a time when inflation is running at 10%. While one may talk about Dáil Deputies earning £38,000—
Is the Deputy sure it is not—
—the spin doctors are on £70,000 and even £80,000 per year. It is no wonder they want to spin and they are good at it.
There are 120,000 carers here, 12,000 of whom are in receipt of a pittance from the State, caring for the elderly in their homes. Nothing was done for the carers. Why does the Government not look after those who are looking after the elderly? Why has the Government let them down? I ask the three Members on the Government benches to remember they will be old some day and they will depend on somebody to look after them. The Government will be judged on its record in relation to carers and the elderly whom it has let down.
Students got a grant of £49 per week in Dublin city. If one went across to Buswells tonight one would not buy three drinks with it, given the prices charged in Dublin.
The Deputy must be—
If one had to look for accommodation in this city and had to be fed on £49 per week one would have a problem. The students, the people of the future, were let down. Yet the Government wonders why students have no interest in politics or politicians. They have no faith in the Government and they will not vote. The reason is nothing has been done for them. They are the people of the future.
The Deputy must be drinking in the night clubs.
This budget was announced in the media over the past few months and every Minister tried to highlight his or her good points in discussing it. We knew before Wednesday what the budget would bring. One of our biggest social problems relates to the abuse of alcohol. President Clinton arrived in Ireland this week and everybody went out to see him but I did not go. The place for him to meet the members of parliament was in the Parliament. It was a disgrace that both the Taoiseach and the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children who has responsibility in the area of alcohol abuse had to show again the image of the drunken Irish by bringing him to the Guinness brewery. Why could he not be invited to the Irish Parliament to meet those Deputies who represent the people? Why had he to be taken to the Guinness brewery, which was a means of promoting drink? Last night I saw on television that Ireland is the second highest in the world in relation to its consumption of alcohol. The programme also stated that given the way we are going about it, Ireland will probably be number one in the next few months. It is no wonder, because we are sending out the wrong image and the wrong message to our young people. We should have had the President of the United States of America in this House, not in the Guinness brewery sending out the wrong message to young people.
I am reluctant to intervene but the Deputy's time has expired.
I will say what I think about the budget. The budget shows what the Government thinks about this country. It does not have the political courage to lead. President Clinton might have praised this country. However, we know that the minute the shareholders in America decide it no longer suits them to invest here, they will pull the plug as they pulled it before, when the ten years of grant aid are up. It suits them now to be here but it might not suit them in the future.
The Minister of State has to deal with the serious problem of the abuse of alcohol and drugs. He should spend less time flying around the world and more time in the country trying to deal with that serious problem.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the budget. Deputy Ring touched on many of the key issues when he said the budget expresses the values of the country and the plan the Government has for the nation. The first question one must ask is what values this budget expressed and what plan for the nation was shown in the decisions taken in it.
Never before, as Deputy Ring said, was there such an opportunity to make an assault on poverty. This budget could have made an enormous difference to the quality of life, particularly for the most vulnerable. This was an opportunity to use our resources to make a difference and to create an equal society.
Report after report have stressed recently that we are a very unequal society. Many other countries when they became wealthy, as this country has, used their resources to make their societies equal and to provide better services for those who need them most. The question is whether we did that in this budget.
Yes.
The answer is a resounding "No". I will quote from a number of organisations. The Carers' Association talked about the Government's disgraceful neglect of carers. The Disability Federation of Ireland disagreed sharply with the Minister from Cork, Deputy Martin, in regard to his views on what had been done for the disabled in this budget. Another group which analysed the budget, the Conference of Religious of Ireland, stated that the poorest people were betrayed as the budget favoured the better off, increased the divisions in society and failed to honour PPF commitments. The INOU, the organisation dealing with the unemployed, made the same point. The St. Vincent de Paul society, which deals with thousands of the most needy people every day made the same analysis.
Can all these organisations and people who have analysed the budget really be getting it so wrong? I do not think they are. Key decisions were taken in this budget which ignored those who needed resources most.
A headline in The Irish Times stated “In terms of kindness, rich Ireland's budget is poverty stricken”. These headlines tell a story. When one analyses the decisions taken in the budget, one sees very clearly that certain values were promoted, which said that we do not care particularly if we create a more unequal society and that we are not particularly concerned with the issue of equality in the Ireland of 2001.
I will give a couple of examples of this. Let us take the question of the £8 increase in the rates of social welfare. Inflation has been running at 6.8%. The increases in social welfare last year were predicated on a 3% rate of inflation. People who are dependent on social welfare have, in fact, been losing out all year because of the increase in inflation. As the compensation package put to the Government by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs was rejected some weeks ago, they have been losing out continuously. When the time came to allocate the resources, an increase of £8 was given in social welfare. That means, in effect, that the widow's contributory pension for those under 66 years is now £89.10, the invalidity pension is now £89.10, the personal rate of the carer's benefit is £96.50 and unemployment benefit is £85.50. This is at a time when we know that costs are escalating out of all proportion. The basic costs of food, clothing, transport and heat are all increasing, yet there has been an £8 increase in social welfare.
This was an opportunity to deal with relative poverty in this country but it was simply not taken. A clear choice was made to reduce the top rate of taxation rather than increase the lowest social welfare payments, despite the inequalities. The people will show, in due course, that they are not happy with that choice. For example, a recent public opinion poll showed that people wanted the gap between rich and poor reduced. The Government could have shown political leadership in this regard. It could have made a real difference.
We took 133,000 people out of the tax net – that is a real difference.
I will deal with that in a moment. The Government could have made a real difference to people who are the most needy. A recent survey showed that 70% of disabled people are living in poverty. That is the reality. Resources could have been allocated in that direction, which would have made a difference.
Another survey, the EUROSTAT survey, which was published a few days before the budget, showed that Ireland is at the bottom, and remains so after the budget, in terms of what we spend on social welfare and social protection. That is the choice of the Government, and it remained so in this budget. Sweden spends twice as much on creating a just society as we do. Countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Germany spend around 30% of GDP on social protection. The EU average is 28%. Ireland spends 16% of GDP. The next worse performer, Spain, is still far above us at 22% of GDP.
The carers, the disability federation, CORI and the St. Vincent de Paul society are not inventing this material. The reality is that we are not putting our resources where they are needed most. The budget did not put resources where they are needed most in this Celtic tiger economy. Many people have been left behind and this budget created even more divisions.
I will talk now about the 133,000 people who were taken out of the tax net. The interesting point about that is the fact that so many of them are on such low wages. Another interesting point is that 155,000—
They are on the minimum wage, which we brought in. The Deputy's party failed to do that.
—people who are on the minimum wage should have been taken out of the tax net.
I ask the Minister of State to allow Deputy Fitzgerald to speak without interruption.
They were not taken out of the tax net by the Government. That was a clear decision to favour those who have most once, again. Those who have most, got most. The budget figures show there are many low paid workers in this country – so many could be taken out of the tax net because so many earn such low wages.
We gave them the minimum wage – the Deputy's party gave them nothing.
The Government could have done a lot more in the budget but it did not.
I ask the Minister of State to allow Deputy Fitzgerald to speak without interruption.
By the Minister's own estimate, we have 50,000 carers in this country. In fact, the true figure is probably closer to 180,000. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs accepts the figure of 50,000. Only a tiny proportion of those people receive any money from the State. The vast majority of carers are completely unrecognised, from a financial perspective, by the Government. A small number were brought into the scheme in the budget but the vast majority of carers will still receive no money or support, despite the fact they save the State hundreds of thousands of pounds. Whatever happened to community care? In a little noticed piece in budget 2001, for example, the Minister for Finance has made it easier for people to claim tax relief in respect of the cost of maintaining relatives in nursing homes. This is welcome as the arrangements are cumbersome and apply only to relatives with low incomes. Reasonably generous tax relief will be available for maintaining relatives in a nursing home and for employing somebody to care for an incapacitated relative, but very ungenerous income maintenance and tax relief arrangements will apply to people who look after incapacitated relatives in their own homes. Support will not be given to those who do the work of carers at home but it will be provided to institutional care. Surely that should have been examined in the budget and a cost of care payment based on a needs assessment and the work being done in the Western Health Board should have been introduced.
This budget should have made a difference. A cost of care payment for those looking after those in need, incapacitated, ill and elderly should have been introduced. Once again it was a missed opportunity.
The Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy Ryan, is concerned about child benefit. If the national children's strategy is to mean anything it is time for the Government to set a minimum income standard for children. The Commission on Social Welfare set one for adults but it has never been done for children. The expectations around child benefit appear to be so enormous it is time to introduce one. The Combat Poverty Agency estimates that the cost of rearing a child per week is £36.45. Current child benefit rates do not meet that. There is a considerable gap, which has huge implications for low income families. Many families would say it costs much more than the figure indicated, given the increase in costs and demands of children of all ages. The minimum cost, which does not include child care, does not reach the minimum income level required.
The Ministers for Finance and Social, Community and Family Affairs need to consider what should be the minimum income payment for children. So much is expected from child benefit. It is expected to deal with child care and is viewed as an anti-poverty measure, which it is. I welcome the increases, but they should have been higher in view of what has been expected.
There is a need to progress on the issue of child care. The programme the Government is concerned with needs to be implemented. Families must get real support and choice, especially in the early years. Better maternity benefit is required. It should be increased to 20 weeks. There should also be paid parental leave.
There is an enormous surplus in the social insurance fund. It is time to be imaginative with it by improving benefits and making it a real insurance scheme and not just another tax on people. It is time to look at the kind of parental leave that can be introduced. Women are mostly involved, but it should cover parents who want to take time out in the early years. It is time to make choice a real possibility. The money is there in the social insurance fund. This is the time to use it imaginatively to introduce new benefits and allowances.
Once again, the disabled did not get the kind of resources they need from the budget. I have referred to the study done on poverty and disability and the close connection between the two. Huge issues of access to public transport and jobs need to be addressed. Much work remains to be done in this area.
At a time of enormous resources, a huge surplus and very serious inflation, the budget was an opportunity to make a difference, create a more equal society, to allocate resources to those who need it most. The Government did not grasp this opportunity.
I compliment the Minister on his excellent budget. Unlike previous speakers I believe he has given great hope to the many people who have found themselves on the margins, including those who have found it difficult to care for themselves, who wanted a health service and interactive local government, and to those on social welfare and the elderly. He has ensured that substantial sums of money have been put aside in the budget to deal with the issues they face in their everyday lives.
Given the sums being debated in the budget, the challenge now is to manage the huge expectations of the people we represent. We must also address the challenge of ensuring that the vast sums of money allocated to the various Depart ments is filtered down to where it matters on the ground and that such bodies as the health boards and local government not only take up the funding but begin to make it work in a cost effective and efficient way to deal with the problems I and previous speakers are highlighting.
The health budget of £5.3 billion, set aside to fund the health services in 2001, represents a 23% increase in spending. A sum of £72 million has been set aside for services for the elderly. The South Eastern Health Board must prioritise Government policy on the provision of care for the elderly within the south-east region. Recently the health board made applications valued at £84 million for services to the elderly. It received £15 million in the current year. A step down facility is needed at St. Luke's hospital in Kilkenny. The Castlecomer community hospital needs to be prioritised to keep people in care in their local area. This will cost £2 million. A sheltered housing scheme is promised for Castlecomer. These plans are included in the health board spent, yet this year the board has failed to draw down the requisite funding.
The Department of Health and Children must ensure that these schemes, together with those that will renovate and modernise Thomastown hospital for the elderly in Kilkenny, will be given priority. The home for the elderly in Kilkenny city is another priority. We must focus on all these problems. We need to get the health board to work with us to ensure that the money allocated will deliver the services on the ground.
A sum of £1 billion in the budget has been allocated for local authority and affordable housing. If we are to spend that we need to get local communities on side. In this regard a local County Kilkenny village of Mooneenrow has been interacting with the local authority under the stewardship of Fr. Joyce. It is regrettable that with regard to an application it submitted in 1999 to provide affordable housing, further information was requested at the last moment. The group was criticised for the plan it submitted and was effectively told the officials in the council knew more than the group about what the village required. That is not good enough because it harms the progress made at local level. It does not implement the spend set aside by the Government. Fr. Joyce and others in his local community know as much as the county council officials about what they want for their community.
A correction needs to be made to the planning process to allow such communities to deal in a proactive way with their problems by getting their land and affordable housing. A fast track planning process is required to allow them to solve their problems in a realistic way by availing of the £1 billion that has been put aside by the Government for that purpose. The planning process needs to be looked at.
Youth services were mentioned in the budget. Counties throughout the country provide youth services at different levels. County Kilkenny is on a par with other counties in this regard although it needs funding. I have made the case to the Minister and the neighbouring County Carlow has made an application in respect of the youth information services. There is an application for the purchase of a building in partnership with the local authority. That type of capital funding should be made available through this budget to organisations which will spend it for good purposes.
Debate adjourned.