Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Dec 2007

Vol. 643 No. 2

Financial Resolution No. 5: 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 for Health and Children).

The confidence of the Irish people in the capacity of the Government to manage our way through difficult conditions has been fully vindicated by the terms of the budget introduced by the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen. The role of the budget in a modern economy is only in part about the specific measures announced on budget day. Its more important role is to signal the strategic direction that policy is taking and thereby to send a clear signal to citizens and to stakeholders about how current challenges will be met.

This is a budget that will sustain progress in the Irish economy through more difficult international conditions. Our ability to produce an innovative, progressive and socially caring budget at this time reflects well on the strength and resilience of our economy, built up over many years. Today, we have the resources and the flexibility to respond constructively to less favourable conditions, in a way that would be the envy of our predecessors in the 1980s and of many of our European partners now. The budget is prudent and stays well within the margins of safety but expresses the Government's determination not just to hold what we have but to maintain forward momentum.

The message is loud and clear from this budget: we will maintain our focus on deepening the competitiveness of the economy so that we more than match most of our competitors, we will continue to prioritise the needs of the disadvantaged and those who need our support within the resources that are available and we will continue to create an environment where working people are rewarded for their efforts while enterprises are encouraged to invest through a strong and consistent pro-enterprise tax system. These strategic priorities have to be pursued in a realistic fashion, year by year. Our great strength as a society is our capacity to respond rapidly to changing circumstances. That is what is facing us at present. As a very open economy, we are directly and rapidly affected by changes in the external environment, such as the dramatic developments in international financial markets, the related sharp reduction in the value of the dollar, the changes in the environment for corporate investment globally and the international trend in consumer and business confidence.

Some pre-budget commentary appeared to suggest that the Government should somehow be able to control these forces while others suggested that we should implement all our specific policy commitments at once, irrespective of the economic and fiscal context. Some have warned us that we will be criticised either for taking account of these fiscal realities or for not taking account of them. At least we know where we stand with those people.

We have continued to make substantial economic advances this year and we look forward to further positive growth, including growth in employment, even if somewhat slower, next year. In 2007, growth will be well over 4%. The latest Central Bank figure is 4.75% for the year end. Next year, we expect it to be approximately 3%. About 72,000 net new jobs have been created this year, bringing total employment to approximately 2.1 million. This compares to less than 1.1 million at work 20 years ago. Next year, we expect to create net 24,000 new jobs.

Growth in current expenditure will be a healthy 8% and in capital expenditure it will be 12%, while general Government borrowing remains less than 1%. Very few of our EU partners have the financial scope to bring in such a positive budget in the current climate. In the circumstances, the Government is acting with great responsibility in adopting a fiscal policy that envisages a general Government deficit of 0.9% as a percentage of gross domestic product. This is a prudent course to adopt, within the parameters of our European commitments under the growth and stability pact, especially given the significant provision for capital spending and the responsible measures being taken to contain current spending to an increase of 8.2% in the current year, which is nevertheless a measured deceleration compared with recent years.

Some of the outside commentary of recent weeks might have led people to believe that there would be a different budget. We have no recession. There are no cutbacks of any significance and no stealth taxes. This budget is for a country that is continuing to do remarkably well. Despite this, many people are anxious to emphasise only the negative side, the problems and challenging structural deficiencies that the Government is addressing. Many of the critics inside and outside this House are not willing even to acknowledge, let alone praise, the amount of progress being made on so many fronts, of which the public is aware.

The strategic priorities of this budget will come as no surprise. That is because they are consistent with the policy of Government over the past ten years. Not only that, they are consistent with the strategic direction for the medium to long term that we have set out with the social partners in the framework agreement, Towards 2016. The reality is that we cannot achieve all our goals in one year or even in a short run of years. The changes that have brought us thus far, and the further changes that are needed to allow us to meet our economic and social objectives in full, require the consistent pursuit of policy goals over a long period, during which short-term challenges must be faced and dealt with while we keep a clear focus on the underlying direction in which we wish to travel.

In political terms, we have made a good start on implementing our promises. The Fianna Fáil election programme and the programme for Government agreed with our colleagues in the Progressive Democrats and the Green Party are for five years, not for one. Taking into account adverse developments since mid-year, we are running a small and manageable deficit of under 1% of GDP. Taking one year with another, this is not too far removed from keeping the budget in broad balance. We said we would invest 5.4% of GNP in public infrastructure. Instead, we will raise it to an average of 6% over the next five years.

In the programme for Government we said we would increase tax bands and credits in line with wage inflation. We have done so. We immediately abolished stamp duty for first-time buyers in June, as agreed with the Progressive Democrats and the Green Party, and we have improved mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers in this budget, increasing it by €2,000 for a single person and €4,000 for a married couple. We have gone beyond that and reformed and simplified stamp duty on residential homes.

In the absence of a general property tax, stamp duty is, as I have stated on many occasions, an important source of revenue to fund essential public services and it raises approximately €3 billion annually. The existing step changes in stamp duty undoubtedly create anomalies, which there was little opportunity to modify when the market was already overheating. A rationalisation of the system on houses is clearly warranted and this is a good time bring it about. Sooner or later, a correction in the housing market was inevitable, given the high level of house building and historically low interest rates in recent years. It will be beneficial in bringing home purchase more within the reach of younger couples. One of the issues in previous partnership discussions was the high cost of housing, particularly in Dublin. The changes to stamp duty will restore confidence and stability.

The message from the budget is one of confidence that our short-term goals are attainable, that our strategy is the right one, that we have delivered in recent years and that we will continue to deliver. The message is one of confidence that the underlying strength of the economy enables us to increase spending — for both investment and current purposes — at significantly faster rates than most of our partner countries and that we can anticipate employment growth, low unemployment rates, increases in real living standards and improvements in physical infrastructure and human capital, in respect of which we are doing more than almost all of our trading partners. All of this is while maintaining a prudent fiscal position, including record low levels of national debt, and facing fully up to our responsibilities to build a more environmentally sustainable society and economy.

The budget sends a clear message that our delivery under all of these headings will continue. The dislocation caused by international economic turbulence will be limited, and will not deflect us from the strategic course on which we have embarked. Workers whose real incomes are protected by the budget, businesses whose commitment to development through moving up the value chain by a greater reliance on research and development, towns and regions that are planning for a new and strengthened role under our commitment to regional balance, educational institutions that seek to meet the needs of the students of today and tomorrow, families with caring responsibilities and communities seeking to look after their older people, their children and those with disabilities, can all see that their needs and efforts are being supported by the Government through the very balanced and progressive measures in the budget.

This budget is strong on equity. The gains in tax relief are again concentrated at the lower end. We have succeeded in maintaining the position where only approximately one fifth of income earners are on the top rate of tax, where two fifths pay the standard rate and where the remaining two fifths are outside the tax net altogether. As has been observed by the EU Commission on many occasions, we have the most favourable tax system for low earners in the Union.

Tables in the budget booklet also show how in the past ten years effective rates of taxation on annual earnings have declined both in percentage terms and on all levels of income. For example, a married couple on a joint income of €60,000 with two children now pay only 12% of their income in tax. Ten years ago, they would have paid three times that amount, namely, 36%. This is an enormous improvement for those on lower pay, which those opposite are incapable of acknowledging.

On the personal tax side, we have honoured our commitments to the social partners that net income gains will be preserved. Increases in bands and credits will ensure that four out of five income earners, including all those on average industrial earnings, will pay no more than the standard rate of tax, while those on the increased minimum wage will continue to remain outside the tax net. Average industrial earnings have risen by more than €14,600 in the past decade. Compared to then, however, tax on these earnings has been cut by more than €430. Since 1997, those on average industrial earnings have seen their take-home pay increase by 41%. Our consistent approach to income tax policy is to make work pay.

These changes maintain the strong, progressive character of tax policy in recent years. With them in place, the top 1% of income earners will pay 25% of all income tax, compared to the 15% they paid ten years ago. At the same time, those on average earnings or below who comprise 55% of all income earners, will pay only 4% of all income tax, down from the 14% paid ten years ago.

It is correct that we should provide clear incentives within the tax code to underpin economic activity on a sustainable basis. For that reason, I greatly welcome the further enhancements of the tax credits for research and development expenditure. It is vital that our enterprise sector, both indigenous and overseas, should be constantly attuned to innovation and development. The Government is continuing to increase its own investment in third and fourth level education and the associated research efforts. It is equally important that the enterprise sector should continue to increase its investment and the budget gives it further encouragement to do so. Tax changes affecting agriculture will also benefit that sector of the economy.

The changes in stamp duty on residential property bring to an end the period of uncertainty created by others about how stamp duty might evolve and might impact upon future transactions. The Government has a primary concern to support first-time buyers who are largely exempt from stamp duty. The increases in mortgage interest relief, which the Minister for Finance had flagged and which have now been implemented, will ensure that most new buyers are effectively insulated from the negative impact on affordability of trends in market interest rates.

The changes in stamp duty will encourage those who have perhaps been holding back from appropriate changes in their housing to reflect, for example, the stage of the life cycle they have reached. The six rates have been reduced to two and there will be a substantial reduction in liability. There will, for example, be a saving of €11,000 on a house costing €450,000.

Furthermore, young families moving into somewhat larger accommodation or older people trading down to more manageable properties will now have confidence regarding the stamp duty implications, which in most cases will now be more positive than would otherwise have been the case. This will provide greater confidence across the housing market and will help stabilise housing output at levels appropriate to our underlying need and at price levels that are realistic and sustainable. It is appropriate that those engaging in property transactions at the high end should contribute through stamp duty a proportionately higher share of the yield from property. However, everyone will benefit to some degree from these changes.

In other areas of the construction industry, there will be strong satisfaction at the clear commitment of the Government to maintain record investment levels in physical infrastructure. The national development plan is central to our economic strategy. It has the capacity to raise our performance. In previous times, a reflex response to periods of economic difficulty was often to cut capital expenditure as a less painful option. We are not merely maintaining it, we are stepping it up for the period ahead.

We have made rapid progress in recent years in rolling out our high-quality roads programme and developing public transport capacity and quality across the various modes of travel. We have provided record improvements in the water services required by our growing population. That trend will continue and accelerate, with an overall increase of 12% in capital spending over the current year. The Tánaiste is right to maintain this focus on the investment which will produce the basis for our continued prosperity, while enhancing the social infrastructure, such as output of social housing in line with our commitments under Towards 2016.

Road improvements, the removal of serious bottlenecks and the achievement of faster and more consistent journey times are appreciated by the public and are essential to all elements of industry and commerce. They are making many different parts of the country more accessible and, therefore, easier to live in and work from. Additional funding is being provided to maintain momentum.

Commuting, particularly at peak times, needs improved and expanded public transport capacity. Up to 1997, when I became Taoiseach, there was limited EU, but no domestic Exchequer investment in public transport. That situation was transformed from the late 1990s by this Government and in 2008 investment will further increase to close to €1 billion.

I have a particular commitment to those who are least well-off in our society. Nearly €1 billion has been allocated to support those in need. In recent budgets, the Government has provided record increases in the principal social welfare rates, especially the lowest rates. This is in accordance with our national anti-poverty strategy and our agreement with the social partners. I am pleased to say that the focus of the social welfare increases in the current budget has been to increase the rates for those dependent on social welfare. Despite the pressure on resources, the increases of €14 and €12 per week in the main rates are in line with what is required to maintain the relative value of payments and entail increases very significantly ahead of inflation. They put us well on target to achieve a pension of €300 a week by 2012 in line with the commitments in the programme for Government.

These real increases are particularly welcome in the case of older people. There is a strong conviction across society that those who have worked hard all their lives, reared families, paid taxes and built up the foundations on which our current prosperity rests should benefit from our policy decisions. The increase of €14 per week is in line with the commitments in the programme for Government. I am particularly pleased at the increase in the qualified adult allowance for pensioners, which means that couples over age 66 in receipt of the contributory old age pension and dependent allowance will have an 11% increase, equating to €41 per week. Equality will be achieved in next year's budget. Support for families with children is also most welcome, with increases across the full range of supports, including a 10% increase in the child care payment for children under six. This support is a quantum leap ahead of what it was ten years ago.

Increases in the health Vote include additional resources for cancer services. The very substantial increases in expenditure on health services only make sense in a situation where we can be reasonably sure that they will be applied to best effect. For that reason, I welcome the steps being taken under the health forum, established at the initiative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to bring all of the energies of the social partnership process to bear on developing a world-class public health system that we all desire. I appreciate that the changes which may be required to get from where we are to such a preferred model will not be easy. However, I express the Government's absolute commitment to delivering a world-class service and to supporting the change agenda which will come from the forum.

I welcome very strongly the provisions in the budget in support of the agenda for environmental sustainability. This is no longer a policy option. Well before the current Government was formed, I signalled my conviction that the question of climate change and the more general environmental challenge had to be at the centre of the policy-making agenda. Last year, the Minister for Finance made important changes in the supports available for more sustainable energy, including domestic heating systems. He flagged then his intention to do more, especially to align vehicle taxation more closely with environmental policy objectives. I strongly welcome the measures he has announced. They will encourage people to act responsibly when making decisions about car purchase.

It is a strategy which is entirely in line with making the cost of pollution more transparent, to be borne by those who choose to generate it. With these and other measures, the budget sends a clear signal about the direction of change which the Government has been driving since the summer. Later on, the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government will bring before the House the first ever carbon budget to deal with our CO2 emissions and show that we can generate new policy initiatives that will have a substantial effect on the kind of life we live in future.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will seek to find out how we can drive further investment in new technologies in the context of economics and business. We have seen how the private sector and environmentalists agree with the policies that we have created to make this a practicable way of doing business in the future. I look forward to these contributions later on today. These and other measures send a clear signal about the direction of change the Government, as outlined in the programme for Government, will implement over the next five years.

These are now urgent matters if the scale of the global challenge is to be met and if we are to take seriously the issues of climate change. Later on today, I will meet a representative group of young people who take this as part of their social responsibility. They will be presenting their views to me and my colleagues and will be taking part in a peaceful march this weekend to show that climate change must be at the top of the Government, the country and the world's agenda.

The Government is following through on the commitment to bring our overseas development assistance up to the UN target of 0.7% of GDP. We will be raising our oversees development contribution to €914 million, or 0.54% of GDP in 2008. We are doing this to help the people of the Third World and to live up to our commitment. We should be proud of this country and the financial contribution we make to UN aid projects, and to our own NGOs in many countries such as Vietnam, in Africa and other parts of the world which need our support. Staying on target to reach 0.4%, besides being the right thing to do, increases our influence and standing with a lot of the world's poorer countries which is deeply appreciated.

I would like to finish with reference to a particular change announced by the Tánaiste which is especially welcome. That is the reduction in stamp duty on payment cards and the parallel increase in duty on cheques. For some time now, my Department has been leading a cross-departmental and cross-sectoral debate about the development of a better payments system, which would be both more efficient and more appropriate to a knowledge economy. Yesterday's announcements will bring us closer to the day when payments are made more safely and more efficiently, and with significant savings as a result for customers and traders alike.

All budgets signal longer-term strategic studies and reviews. A quarter of a century after the commission on taxation, which was a catalyst for many significant changes, it is time to take a new look at our taxation system. This will include the question of how best to implement a carbon tax on a revenue-neutral basis. We look forward to the new commission on taxation being set up in the new year. We are also undertaking a review of administrative efficiency in all areas of the public service. This will complement the comprehensive review of the Irish public service by the OECD which I announced earlier this year and which will be finalised early in the new year. It will also complement the programme of external review of the capacity of Departments and offices which I initiated this year.

I note with some gratification that Ireland rated highly in an international business tax survey. The Minister indicated that he was also looking at uses of the tax system to encourage lower alcohol beverages, which is as important to public health as discouraging smoking. In the shorter term, the Minister is also looking at section 481 film incentives in the Finance Bill, a sector where international tax competition is fierce.

By honouring our commitments to the people, by keeping faith with the social partners, by signalling our clear intent to deliver fully on the programme for Government, by exercising responsible choices for today with an eye on the needs of tomorrow, and by demonstrating that one can combine a drive for continued prosperity with both environmental sustainability and social equity, the Government has shown why we continue to earn the confidence of the people in our handling of the economy. This is the first budget of five for the new Government and I congratulate the Tánaiste on it. I commend this budget to the House.

This is a budget of no courage or vision and will not live up to the confidence expressed by the Government. It is important to put the budget in the political context in which it is framed. We have a Taoiseach who, by his own admission, is on the way out and will not be leading his party into the next election.

The Deputy will have to wait a long time for that.

It is a while away yet.

I hope the Deputy is still there when I leave.

It might not happen directly, but it is beginning to happen. There is also some rustling in the undergrowth from those who wish to contend against the anointed one. The Minister for Finance has had a favourable press for quite some time. If he was serious about being seen as the iron chancellor, I would have thought he would have measured up in his fourth budget to making some difficult decisions. He funked every difficult decision that faced him. No difficult decisions were taken and the easy option of borrowing €5 billion was taken to balance the books. Yesterday evening Deputy McGuinness said the public service was a shambles with the levels of service and efficiency 20 years behind where they should be. The Taoiseach's comments this morning about a vision for the future, leadership, efficiency and world class standards revealed vastly contradictory elements within the Government. If the Minister for Finance were serious about setting out his charge of leading the Government half way through its tenure of office, or whenever, one might have expected that he would at least have taken the decisions that had to be made for the future. It is a budget without courage or vision and which will not inspire the confidence set out as its hallmark, including in the Taoiseach's speech.

The alarming consequence of the budget is that in the face of a modest slowdown in the economy the public finances have plunged precipitously, turning a €2.3 billion Exchequer surplus in 2006 into a €4.9 billion borrowing requirement next year. This will require at least €16 billion in borrowing over the next three years. The Taoiseach previously said we would eliminate borrowing and Government debt. This is the largest deterioration in the public finances in the history of the State, despite the comments by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. Can we believe their words anymore?

Yesterday the Minister for Finane blamed global economic conditions for the fiscal mess over which he presided. However, the public finances have been left dangerously exposed to a domestic property downturn due to his inability to be competent and face the difficult decisions, the Government's mismanagement of the public finances and reckless cheerleading of an unsustainable and debt-driven housing boom.

Last month experts from the International Monetary Fund reported that no other economy was more vulnerable to a property downturn than this one. The international credit rating agency Standard & Poor's estimated that the economy faced a prolonged slowdown, possibly to 2013, as the property bubble deflated. Even more worrying than the recent slowdown in property related tax receipts has been the Government's longer term ratcheting up of public sector day-to-day spending without any consideration of value for money or public service reform. By urging on the property boom, Fianna Fáil generated a large tax bonanza for itself. This allowed it to increase spending dramatically, faster than economic growth without resorting to traditional tax sources to fund its extravagance.

Most commentators did not notice the tax and spend cuckoo that had crept into the nest. However, the end of the debt-fuelled property boom has shown it up in stark relief. For the last seven years Government spending has grown on average 40% faster than the economy. It has grown as a proportion of GNP from under 25% in 2000 to 31% today. Since the Minister for Finance took office he has presided over an acceleration rate of day-to-day spending growth of 10% in 2005, 11% in 2006 and 12% this year. So accustomed have pundits and commentators become to the Minister's extravagance with taxpayers' money that his promise to slow current spending growth to 8% next year, still 45% faster than the economic growth forecast, is presented as ambitiously prudent.

The budget is an opportunity to reflect on the Government's overall allocation of taxpayers' resources for the achievement of the country's economic, social and environmental objectives. Ireland's most significant challenge stems from Ministers presiding over vital areas of the public sector with inflated budgets which are not delivering results on the front line. I listened to some comments from Ministers on the requirement to face the challenge of making decisions and delivering efficiency in the public sector, but there was no mention of this in the Budget Statement other than waffle and cotton wool. At the end of next year the situation will have deteriorated because this runaway horse is on the road and there is nothing in the budget to control it.

An unfortunate aspect of the budget and all of the Government's previous budgets is that only the marginal tax and spending changes receive attention. There is almost no focus on the €39 billion in current spending allocated to Departments on an "existing level of service" basis. There is little focus on the €27 billion non-social welfare Government spending on day-to-day goods and services. There was the usual lazy assumption in the budget presentation that every euro spent by Departments offered value for money for the taxpayer and that the purpose of the budget was to allocate extra resources on top of historical spending patterns. That is a fundamental weakness in the Government's capacity to deliver efficiency in the public service, not just this year but in the past seven years. The Government has turned its back on the opportunity for public sector reform and achieving real value in the public spend. It has spurned the process of budgetary scrutiny recommended by the Committee of Public Accounts. It allowed the culture of performance initiated in the 1997 Act to be stillborn. It failed to use benchmarking which will cost the taxpayer €14 billion in today's money to leverage real reform. It is five years since I made the point in Killarney that if one was to pay benchmarking, one should build in targets, objectives and specifics for the delivery of efficiency in the public service. I was ridiculed for the cost of €1 billion per year for that benchmarking process. The attitude was pay the money and to hell with efficiency. As a result, we have a public service of greatly inferior quality than we should.

The Government has overseen the expansion of bureaucracy in the Health Service Executive. When one examines the titles of many of the higher administrators in the HSE and tries to figure out their roles, functions and responsibilities, it boggles the mind. The Government has outsourced its job to 178 new agencies, bringing the total at national level to over 630. This issue was raised by Deputy Varadkar when he spoke on the extent of quangos, the jobs they were supposed to do and the waste of public money involved in many of them.

The Government has overseen the high cost overruns on capital projects such as Luas and the Dublin Port tunnel, now in situ and working well but at vastly inflated costs. As a result, the CSO estimates that the rate of inflation in public services has run at an annual average of 6% since 2000, 45% higher than the rate of cost inflation in the public sector in the United Kingdom. If cost inflation in the Irish public sector had been kept down at the UK rate, we would have had an extra €13 billion for tax reforms or front line services in education and health in the period 2000 to 2007, including an additional estimated €3.2 billion in 2007 alone. Mr. Gordon Brown’s Government in the United Kingdom insisted that public sector managers target and measure efficiency gains for every Department, delivering a total of €30 billion in efficiency gains between 2004 and 2007. This stands out as something that could have been done here. They are now targeting further efficiency gains of 3% per year by 2010-11, which will release an extra €42 billion for frontline services. In contrast, the Government here has never required Departments to measure or deliver specified efficiency gains. The reference in the efficiency review 2008 says each Department will be required to examine all administrative spending under its own or its State body’s aegis. What does that mean when there is no target inserted, no timeline and no specifics? If the Minister for Finance was serious about whipping public service efficiency out to the frontline of delivery, there would be efficiency targets and timelines which would be monitored and reported back to the Department of Finance on a monthly basis.

The measures identified should not jeopardise the maintenance of frontline services. So much more could have been provided for by way of frontline services had this been set out in a realistic, achievable and targeted manner.

In Britain they cut the number of administrative posts by almost 80,000, through technology-driven automation, with a high proportion of those posts being allocated to frontline services in education, health and policing. If the Irish Government had shown any semblance of a comparative level of ambition, there would now be 6,000 fewer administrative posts, with that capacity freed up for frontline services.

They introduced three-year budgets for all spending ministries to enable longer-term spending. UK ministries are given full end-year flexibility to carry forward any underspend from one year to the next so that wasteful year end splurges of money merely to get it spent are eliminated. Some areas in the Irish public sector, I understand, now receive cheques and payments for work they have not yet done, simply because agencies and elements of Government Departments are unable to spend the money allocated to them in 2007. We have a situation where Irish public sector managers still face, in many cases, a "spend it or lose it" choice at the end of each year.

The British introduced a resource accounting and budgeting system to capture accurately the full running costs of public services, including the value of assets, and to sharpen management incentives. In contrast, Irish public sector managers still do not account for the value or use of the assets under their control. The British introduced systematic, transparent outcome focused performance management systems in the form of public service agreements between the UK Treasury and line spending ministries. In contrast here the Government has only this year introduced annual output statements by Departments, few of which contain any concrete target for efficiency or performance and are not linked to resource allocation in the budget.

In short, Fianna Fáil-led Governments, spoiled by the property taxes that amounted to phenomenal figures from the debt-driven housing boom, avoided the hard decisions and new approaches being taken by other governments. Instead they stuck to the soft option politics of throwing money at every public service problem. After ten years in office the Government now joins that solemn chorus calling for wage restraint and public sector reform. It has announced a new efficiency review, to be carried out in 2008. However, when it comes to its own interests, there is no demand for reform and efficiency, but rather enormous pay increases, equivalent to €600 a week, with no matching performance improvement, as against the €14 for the single mother in Sligo this morning who, when asked what she thought of that increase, said "big deal".

Four new committees and three Ministers of State satisfied political demands in all the entourages. We can no longer afford these types of double standards and empty rhetoric about the need to achieve better value for money. Radical reform is not on the agenda of this Government. It just keeps doing the same thing, going back to the Taoiseach's basic ethics, namely, to get in here and stay here. To have any credibility whatsoever, the new efficiency review has to start by suspending the big pay increases for Ministers and senior public sector managers, making them conditional on the performances and efficiencies delivered. I guarantee, in two months time, when price increases have come in again and the budget is long-forgotten, people will remember that this Government, at a weekend, embraced the recommendations for higher pay for Ministers and higher public servants without any reference to performance, efficiency, output or standards, while everybody else could pay the price.

There is nothing in this budget for benchmarking. Obviously, that will kick in in 2009 and may well cost €300 million to €500 million — we do not know until the recommendations come out in January. The Minister for Finance should insist that every public body should independently deliver audited efficiency improvements of at least 2% during 2008. What is in his report is meaningless and there will be no increased efficiencies in the HSE or within any Government Department, given the way this is phrased. He should institute an immediate audit of every agency with the aim of achieving real far-reaching rationalisation. He should have held back €500 million, requiring bodies to bid for that new resource on the basis of delivering best practice at the frontline.

It would be childish not to welcome the improvements in pension and other social welfare benefit payments announced yesterday by Deputy Cowen, and indeed over successive budgets. Of course these measures are welcome. Even after the increases, however, one must reflect that the entire State pension for 2008 will still be less than one third of the pay increase now being accepted by the Taoiseach and Ministers. I look at the broken promises in this document as regards taxation, PRSI and all the rest, a point made by Deputy Reilly. We are now carrying out an audit, which I hope will be more accurate than the one conducted as regards the medical card for over-70s. The limit is now €184, so that a social welfare allocation of €197.80 could conceivably disqualify an applicant from receiving a medical card. Together with the charges now coming in, this means the Government has let down hundreds of thousands of people. The Government knew this was coming. Carrying out a blind ended audit is simply more waffle.

This budget is highly conservative when it comes to tax reform. Gone are the promises of PRSI reform and the promise to reduce the standard rate in 2008, which was in Fianna Fáil's election manifesto. Gone is the top rate of tax promised by Deputy Cowen in his last budget. It is only a source of some amusement now that the one tax that was reformed yesterday was the measure the Minister for Finance had completely opposed. I witnessed his body language, words and aggression last May or June against this tax, and it was incredible. The Department of Finance never wanted anything to do with stamp duty. Whether the claims by the builders, who certainly got around Fianna Fáil last weekend, worked, they certainly have had their day, because the tax is being reformed. I cannot complain about that because Fine Gael, and indeed the Labour Party, had a very clear document about reform of stamp duty. That reform, however, was to be introduced at a time when confidence was still very high and it would not have waned like it has now. What has happened is akin to a particular make of car that was imported 20 years ago, where there were problems with the petrol tank. The internal paint on those cars began to peel off if the level of petrol, or confidence, were to run low. When it did, elements of that paint got stuck in the filters. Even when the car was filled with petrol afterwards, it still never moved as it had originally.

Confidence has ebbed out of the property market. In a desperate move, where he was completely and utterly opposed previously, the Minister now introduces stamp duty reforms. While that will move some houses in terms of contracts being dealt with, it will not restore the level of confidence the Government had hoped for. In fact, when builders or developers are now faced with development charges, with the acquisition of land at more than €1 million per acre in some places, the cost for them of producing houses will be a figure below which they cannot sell.

People may feel stamp duty reform will bring major benefits, but I doubt it, given the international perspective and the uncertainty in banks with regard to interest rates and the ability to pay back mortgages. Serious issues surround first-time buyers getting on the property ladder. These issues include the cost of land and servicing land and the lack of real Government policy to provide for serviced land in sufficient quantities to reduce costs.

The point-blank refusal during the year of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, to have anything to do with stamp duty reform now seems hypocritical in the extreme. This is the second time the Minister has been done down on this matter from his point of view. I believe this budget was changed over the weekend and there was no serious intent to reform stamp duty until the figures became perfectly obvious during the past ten days. Perhaps the big builders and developers got around the Government last weekend.

The promises made with regard to tax and PRSI were broken. Back are the stealth charges and charges which were a feature of tax policy in the previous administration. The threshold for the drugs repayment scheme increased by €5, accident and emergency unit and hospital charges increased by 10%, motor tax rose by 10% and the employee PRSI ceiling rose by €1,900. The budget failed to fully index income tax credits and bands against earnings. These are all direct stealth charges, particularly against the middle-income group which will now be forced to pay more. As well as dragging more workers into the top rate of tax, the effect of these stealth charges and taxes will be to increase the rate of inflation by 20% next year, putting further pressure on living standards for those on low incomes. It will also undermine national competitiveness.

I am concerned about the drop-off in the level of corporate taxes now available to the Government. I do not have the details of the figures so I do not know whether the increase in exports we experienced this year was due to expenditure on research and development available to international firms here but being spent abroad. When this detail becomes available it will be interesting to see why a fall-off occurred in the level of corporate tax paid in view of the fact that exports increased in 2007.

Seven years ago, the national climate change strategy committed to the reform of VRT and carbon levies to reduce Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. For seven years, the Government did nothing about this while 500,000 new houses were built, in many cases in areas which meant people had to travel 50 miles, 60 miles or 70 miles to work, which led to 600,000 new cars on the road. There was a 55 minute delay on the road from the west this morning and it is like that every morning. The projections for car use by 2020 is that it will rise to approximately 3 million.

No consideration was given to emissions or commuter comfort and the Government locked Ireland into unsustainable energy uses for years to come. The Government has made no attempt to reach the Kyoto targets set for us. We now wonder why we must borrow large sums of money to pay our way out of the emissions commitments this country made under the Kyoto Protocol.

I welcome the changes in VRT. Why would I not do so? Fine Gael proposed these changes two years ago. The Government acts only when it is late and when the potential benefits of early action have long since been diluted. This happened with stamp duty and VRT reform.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, is not here this morning. If he were serious about building a platform for this country's future, why were difficult decisions left by the wayside in the budget? It is a soft option to borrow money, balance the books and keep it going as best one can. In recent weeks, the Government faced two motions of no confidence in the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children. This budget will not restore the level of confidence people need.

We had an election budget.

On 25 March at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis we were told taxes would be reduced, but Irish motorists woke up this morning knowing they were misled. The increase in motor tax represents a tax of €83 million that will hit every household and family. The spin from the Government is that this is part of a green agenda. It is not. It is a direct hit on the pockets of hard-pressed people who require motor transport to get to and from work. It will hit the smallest economical vehicle to the largest gas-guzzler. It suits Fianna Fáil to use the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, as a cover for this raid, straightforward theft carried out by a Government wearing a green balaclava.

Yesterday, the Green Party became Fianna Fáil's mudguard for this tax hike in the same way Fianna Fáil used the Progressive Democrats as its mudguard on health. The Green Party will now be used to protect Fianna Fáil from this blatant tax increase.

The cry will be to blame the Minister, Deputy Gormley. It is a green tax and that is why he is at it and he had to be given something. It will hit hundreds of thousands of people directly.

I mentioned the stealth taxes of the accident and emergency bed charges and the drug refund scheme, which represents a €50 million tax attack on the ill in society. It is strange that the Minister told us about the Kilbeggan bypass but not about the Government's plans to take €50 million out of our pockets. That is what is left of the Progressive Democrats mudguard.

This issue of stamp duty reform typifies the desperation which the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, felt in the run-in to this weekend. The Minister physically, verbally and politically opposed stamp duty every time it was mentioned. However, when the figures became clear, the big builders stated they were in the tent in Galway and the Minister had better do something about this on Wednesday. We now see the result.

I do not believe that reform at this time will restore the level of confidence in the housing market which people assume from construction elements or housing agencies. It is six months too late. Had it been done in the early summer when confidence was still at a high level it would not have stampeded the market but would have allowed it to move in a beneficial way.

It was a sop to the Sunday Independent.

It is a dull, uninspiring and unimaginative budget from a Minister who is happier to take the easy option than make the difficult decisions. Ordinary families and small businesses will pay for the incompetency and mismanagement of Fianna Fáil running this economy. Whether we have the same Taoiseach this time next year, when we stand in the House we will find the chickens will have come home to roost from this budget. It is a dull, uninspiring and unimaginative budget that lacks courage and vision, and from that perspective it leaves a lot to be desired.

This budget is a monumental breach of the promises made by Fianna Fáil to the Irish people at the general election in May. We recall that when the Fianna Fáil campaign floundered last May, the Minister for Finance appeared at a press conference, thumped the table, steadied the ship and made the promises. Nobody was better placed than him to be informed of the state of the economy before he made those promises, and he made them in the full knowledge that it was never intended they would be delivered.

The Minister promised 4,000 extra teachers, but he delivered none. He promised 2,000 more gardaí. Where are they? He was to double capitation funding for schools but he has not done so. He promised free fees for part-time students, but that is not in the budget. He promised 2,000 hospital consultants but, again, no money was provided in the budget for them. The list continues. We were to get additional child psychologists, extended GP services, local injury clinics, personal health checks and a community development fund. In terms of tax commitments, he promised to cut the top and standard rates of tax, halve the rate of PRSI, increase the home carer credit and introduce major indexation to bands and credits. Many of the promises were imprudent, as the Labour Party noted at the time, but the Tánaiste had the full resources of the Department of Finance behind him when he made them. He also promised a €300 per week old age pension to come into effect within four or five years. Based on yesterday's increases, however, it will take a further eight years before pensioners receive that level of benefit.

Instead of real improvements to the health service, yesterday's announcement brought more stealth taxes in health. The cost of attending an accident and emergency department goes up by 10% and the threshold for the drugs payment scheme is increased to €90. These stealth taxes were announced in the dead of night after the statement by the Minister for Health and Children. When I asked the Taoiseach about them this morning, he told me reference was made to them in the Budget Statement. I cannot find any such reference, so he might indicate in his response the page on which they are mentioned.

Yesterday our country needed a new budget for a new era which would restore economic confidence, begin a serious reform agenda to tackle poverty, make the hard decisions on climate change, invest in the people and the ideas that will grow the knowledge economy and point the way towards a better future. What we got was harmless but useless. Where we needed vision we got drift; where we needed innovation, we got indolence; and where we needed energy, we got lethargy.

The annual budget is much more than an accounting exercise. It is, or should be, a governing document, that is, a primary statement of the Government's political, social and economic priorities and an elaboration of how it intends to achieve them. It should at a minimum provide for basic competence in the management of the Exchequer and fiscal policy and seek to protect the jobs and incomes of people. It should also go beyond that, however, to provide for a social dividend and a set of coherent policies which will improve the well-being of our communities and people, protecting in particular the least well off in our society. Economic management and social policy should be based on a vision of where our country stands and where the Government wants to take us. This budget fails those three tests. It is an admission of economic incompetence and does not provide for an adequate social dividend. Indeed, it demonstrates that the Government has no intention of living up to the many promises that were made in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, which was initialled by the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats and subsequently called the programme for Government. Rather than being grounded in a coherent vision or national purpose, it continues the aimless drift of an Administration that surfed the wave of the economic boom it inherited, squandered its fruits, engendered serious economic imbalances and has no idea about what to do next.

This budget constitutes an admission of economic incompetence on behalf of the Tánaiste. That a Minister for Finance should see it as necessary to change the stamp duty regime twice in six months is an extraordinary admission of bad judgment. This is the Tánaiste's third attempt at stamp duty. First, he said he would make no reforms, then he implemented the wrong reforms and now we must wait to see the effect of his latest proposals. A simple review of some of the main aggregates presented in the budget also raises basic questions about the Government's economic competence. The Tánaiste is predicting 3% growth in real GNP in 2008 and 5.5% growth in nominal GNP, yet his baseline no policy change forecast, as set out in the White Paper, is for tax revenue to grow by 3.1%. Why is the elasticity of total revenues with respect to nominal GNP so low? How can it be that the configuration of taxes yields such limited revenues from what in most European countries would be regarded as a broadly healthy level of economic growth? I would like to hear an explanation because otherwise I am left to wonder if the Tánaiste has doubts about his own GNP growth forecast or is understating the expectations for next year's tax yields.

The weakness in tax yield explains why the Tánaiste is having to borrow nearly €5 billion to finance what is by modern standards a very limited social welfare package, almost no improvements in public services and an anaemic tax package. It should also be borne in mind that the total increase in capital spending amounts to only one sixth of the Exchequer borrowing requirement. Little is being achieved from the projected rise in current spending of 8.2%. In any other advanced economy, an 8% increase in spending would yield major improvements in public services but we are getting virtually none. Of the €5 billion increase in gross current expenditure, only 15% takes the form of improvements in non-social welfare services. The total budget for service improvement in health amounts to six days spending under that heading.

These wounds are self-inflicted. For some time, it has been clear that significant imbalances have been developing in the economy, particularly but not exclusively in the property sector. The housing boom brought a welcome and necessary increase in the housing stock and a strong increase in employment in the construction sector. It also resulted in an over reliance by both the economy in general and the Exchequer in particular on the construction sector. The key to managing this threat was house prices. The boom was driven by spiralling house prices, which drove profits and drew more and more workers and materiel into the construction sector. Time and again, the Labour Party warned the Government that allowing house prices to race on unchecked was making life impossible for buyers and that the economy was over reliant on construction but the Government refused to listen. Almost two years ago, the banks moved to curtail their exposure to land speculation by cutting down on loans for purchase of development land. It was also clear from the planning permissions data that developers were starting to stand back from the market. The total number of new housing units for which planning permission was granted peaked at nearly 76,000 in 2005 but decreased to 60,000 in 2006, a fall of over 20%. The downturn in the housing market was well flagged but the Government did nothing.

The inevitable has now happened in that the housing market has stalled. The ESRI-Permanent TSB index reports an average decline in house prices of 4.9% since the beginning of this year, including 1.3% in October alone. Anecdotal evidence suggests far more significant falls in some areas. However, that is only part of the picture. As anyone trying to sell a house will attest, the volume of transactions has collapsed. Many potential buyers are standing back from the market and waiting to see when prices will stabilise, which in turn is making stability even less likely. Of course, interest rates have had a major impact but the abrupt slowing of transactions in the housing sector is directly related to price uncertainty. The fact that rents are increasing is direct testimony to the strength of the underlying demand for housing.

A number of factors have come together to cause this fall in prices and collapse in transaction volumes, including general economic uncertainty, the rise in interest rates and the Government's hamfisted handling of the stamp duty issue. This tax, and particularly the accelerator built into it, was allowed to go unreformed for years, so that as house prices increased it became inevitable that stamp duty would eventually act to choke off demand rapidly rather than gradually. It was within the Government's power to reform the tax but it did not do so. Instead, it was a Government Minister, former Deputy Michael McDowell, who first created uncertainty about stamp duty and started the phenomenon of buyers withdrawing from the market. At that point, it was correct to be concerned about a cut in stamp duty causing an acceleration in prices but once the market had come to a halt and transaction volumes had fallen off, the time was right for significant reform. The reform introduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, after the election was too little, too late and badly constructed.

In the debate on that measure in the House last June, the Minister stated: "The proposals before the House to introduce stamp duty reform with retrospective effect will restore stability and certainty to the market." Now he has decided he needs a second bite at the cherry. It is a stunning admission of incompetence for a Minister for Finance to have to revisit a capital tax of this type twice within six months.

None of this was necessary. Time and again, the Labour Party called on the Government to address the spiral in house prices, through a number of measures, including intervening to limit increases in the price of building land. Fianna Fáil refused to do so. Now house prices are falling and buyers have withdrawn from the market, with the result that the number of units being built has also dropped dramatically. There has been a corresponding impact on the level of economic activity, with 1% being knocked off the rate of growth for every 10,000 fewer units being built. It is this failure of economic management which has led us to this budget.

It remains to be seen whether the changes announced yesterday will have the desired effect. With the construction boom fizzling out, there is little enough left in the Government's economic locker. Employment has been driven for some years now by construction and the public service. Neither sector will now drive growth or jobs.

The target for job creation for next year is very disappointing — at 24,000 it is half the figure of ten years ago — as is the prospect of unemployment creeping upwards. Only this week, Abbott Ireland announced the loss of 500 jobs in Galway. Why does the budget have no strategy to provide education or training opportunities for those being laid off from the construction sector and other sectors in order that they might be re-employed in other sectors of the economy?

Meanwhile, the competitiveness of the traded sector of the economy has been significantly eroded. When Deputy Ruairí Quinn left office as Minister for Finance the current account of the balance of payments was in surplus to the tune of 2.7% of GNP. Today, there is a deficit of 4.9% of GNP. While the balance of payments is not of immediate concern, the weakness in this area is a reflection of poor export performance and of an economy which has substituted domestic demand for export led growth.

The difficulties the Minister has encountered in framing this budget are of his own making. He has failed during his tenure to exercise the economic management required to avoid the hard landing we are now experiencing. This was not, however, the task he was given. He was appointed to the Department of Finance after the last local elections and given the job of rescuing Fianna Fáil rather than properly managing the economy. It was the Fianna Fáil interest as opposed to the national interest that came first. The damage done to the economy extends beyond the usual cynicism of spending before an election and cutting back afterwards. Through his failure to exercise basic economic management, we have been left with serious imbalances in the economy, the correction of which will cause unnecessary and in some respects severe pain.

As I stated, most European countries would be delighted with 3% economic growth. While there are problems in the economy, there are also many positives. Growth is no longer driven by exports of goods, although recent trade figures show growth in services exports of 16%, albeit from a low base. We should by no means abandon the idea of Ireland as a manufacturing location but the future lies in high value added activities such as sales, research and development and high value traded services. While Ireland cannot hope to make a living making the things other countries design and sell, there is no reason we cannot design and sell things ourselves.

If Ireland is to prosper in the next two decades, we must embrace the new economy and organise ourselves properly to latch onto and make the most of scientific innovations. We need to ensure not only that we invest in research in our universities but that the knowledge being generated is turned into commercial activities and young indigenous companies.

Significant investment has been made in our universities in developing world class research teams and facilities. What will determine our success, however, will be whether we can commercialise new ideas and intellectual property and turn them into jobs and incomes. A central element of this process is ensuring that entrepreneurs have access to start-up capital, an area in which Ireland currently falls short.

In the past 20 years, far too much investment has been made in property, in no small measure because the Government has provided tax based incentives for what was low risk activity. It is not overstating the case to say we have developed a cultural preference for lower risk investment in property rather than higher risk productive activity. We need to get better at ensuring technology, entrepreneurs and venture capital come together in the same place and time. In that way, we can develop the indigenous companies which will provide high value, high paying jobs and help to drive growth in other sectors. We need to shift the balance of advantage within the tax code towards high risk, high-tech investment and this budget was a missed opportunity to begin to reorientate the tax code in that direction.

The budget correctly maintains strong investment in the national development plan. If the expenditure plans set out are realised, we will finally reach the 5% of GNP target promised many years ago, notwithstanding the number of times the Government has congratulated itself for announcing the target. The issue of value for money arises regarding this expenditure. The Government has also made a number of announcements about this, before immediately praising itself for its record on this issue, as though announcements were action or correcting appalling levels of waste were an achievement.

There have been some changes to the budget process this year, which we welcomed, although the differences between the pre-budget statement and White Paper were such as to call the first exercise into question. I will refer, however, to the approach taken to investment spending. The Minister was correct to refer to the centrality of productivity growth to our future prosperity. While investment in physical capital is central to productivity growth, so too is investment in human capital. In other words, in a knowledge economy we cannot invest too heavily in our people.

Investment in human capital also allows a Government to simultaneously pursue higher productivity and social objectives. There is no better investment, for example, than universal pre-school education but it is also a highly important anti-poverty measure. The Labour Party has repeatedly called for this basic provision for our children. It is not expensive in the greater scheme of things and could be implemented over a number of years. Against that objective, the €1.50 per week increase in child benefit provided for in the budget is a matter of grave disappointment.

It is disappointing that in drawing up this budget the Minister has adhered to the old-fashioned distinction between capital and current expenditure in deciding what is investment. While I welcome the additional spending on school buildings, very little additional money have been made available to run the schools we have. Before the election the Government promised to double the capitation payment to primary schools. It could and should have taken this step this year because the cost is minimal and the long-run advantages are enormous.

Investment in human capital must begin with the basics, with children being taught in small classes, in high quality buildings with decent back-up services and resources for those who need extra help. Sometimes it is the small, unglamorous investments which are of most significance.

The greatest threat to our long-run prosperity is not the budget deficit or balance of payments deficit but the skills deficit. We cannot afford to continue with circumstances in which 165,000 adults under 35 years do not have a leaving certificate. We need a determined programme of investment in training and upskilling and a corresponding shift in our work culture to achieve it. For example, everyone who leaves school should benefit from a third level education, whether at degree level, through a post-leaving certificate course or another suitable form of education. This budget should have made a start by eliminating fees for part-time students who do not already have a degree — again, a modest but affordable measure.

We also need to look at targeted measures to improve skills in key areas. I would like to see the development in one of our third level colleges of an institute for advanced studies in financial services, which could be an important factor in the future development of what, for Ireland, is an important and high-value added industry. The over-arching point here is that we need a new approach for a new era, not simply a re-heat of budgets gone by.

The big picture in this budget is that capital spending has been increased, the rate of growth in current spending has been curtailed, a minimal tax package has been introduced which will effectively increase the taxes that families pay, and the State is willing to borrow about 1% of GDP. It is necessary to manage down the rate of growth in current spending from the unsustainable pre-election splurge, but again it is striking how little has been achieved with 8% current expenditure growth. How limited is the social dividend from 3% real economic growth?

Pensioners have fared best from the social welfare package. From 1 January, they will receive an extra €14 per week. By Christmas 2008, they will have received the same increase that the Taoiseach has awarded himself for a week. The remainder of the social welfare package is minimal. What can a person on the lowest rate of social welfare buy for €12 per week? What can a family on a low income buy with a child benefit increase of €1.43 per week — barely the price of a loaf of bread?

The Minister claims to have increased social welfare rates by more than inflation, but the truth is that inflation for people on low incomes is much higher at present than for the population as a whole. This is because the price of basic foodstuffs, such as milk and bread, is being driven up by increases in world commodity prices, particularly the price of cereals.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts that these high prices will be a feature of world markets for the foreseeable future. There is a requirement to change the traditional mind set which compares social welfare increases to the cost of the standard basket of goods as measured by the consumer price index.

This budget contains no concerted or thought-through effort to address the very real poverty that afflicts our society. One in nine children in Ireland lives in poverty, but there is no concerted effort here to address this monumental waste of human potential. We will only truly address the problem of poverty, when we extend the ladder of opportunity to every family in the State and break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. We will do that, when we ensure that people who can work can access the educational and training opportunities and the child care and other supports that are necessary to make the transition into the workplace.

The existing social welfare code does not do that. In fact, it traps people in poverty through schemes such as the rent allowance or the one-parent family payment, by not offering people real opportunities to train, and by its hopelessly inadequate child care system. The proposal to cut the funding for community crèches is typical of the small-minded cheeseparing myopic attitude that has driven social policy for too long. My colleague, Deputy Burton, referred yesterday to a number of the reforms the Government could have made, but did not — tackling the poverty trap that is the rent allowance, reforming the lone parents' payment, introducing a supplementary child benefit payment for people on low incomes, including the working poor. These are the kind of measures that need to be introduced.

Perhaps the most abject and pathetic element in this budget is the paragraph on medical cards. The Government says it wants to increase the number of medical cards for families with young children and for families who have a child with an intellectual disability. However, it says it cannot because it has to conduct a "data collection exercise" and a "review of the eligibility criteria for medical cards". That is very fine English. What it actually means is that it wants to give out more medical cards but does not know how to do it.

Will the Taoiseach please go and tell a mother, working on a low income, whose child is running a high fever, and who knows she cannot afford the €50 or €60 doctor's fee, that he does not know how to give her a medical card?

The net effect of this budget is to essentially freeze public services for a year. The allocation for improved services in health is so small, that the HSE will probably not notice it has it. It amounts to six days of spending on the health services. Other Departments, including the vital areas of Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform are getting paltry amounts for additional services. This is in an economy which after 15 years of growth has a crumbling health service and crumbling schools. It is striking that in the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the money for additional services is contingent on something called "savings in other areas". There is an entire section on what is called an "efficiency review". Why is the roll-out of cancer screening dependent on tight control of the number of pencils the Department of Health and Children buys? This is the same Department that cannot figure out who has and who does not have a medical card. All of these references, with which the Budget Statement is peppered, to savings in other areas look like cutbacks on a timer. I do not expect the Government to change everything overnight, but I expect it to have a reform agenda — to say, this is what it wants to do, and this is the first instalment. Even that would constitute a social dividend, but it is absent from this budget.

There is little enough to say about the tax package, because there is little enough in it. I want to comment, though, on one issue, individualisation. The indexation of tax bands has once again deepened the process of individualisation, but so too has the increase in the PAYE credit. For some years now, we have seen an increase in the PAYE credit alongside the personal credit, as a cheap way of taking employees on low incomes out of the tax net. One consequence of this policy, however is to further disadvantage one-income families, since the personal credit is doubled for one-income families, but the PAYE credit is not. This amounts to €1,830 per annum. It also disadvantages the large number of people, particularly in construction, who are technically self-employed.

I welcome the Minister's and the Taoiseach's conversion to the environment, though it would have been helpful had the Government seen the light in time to meet our Kyoto commitments during the past ten years. The greenest thing about last year's budget was a €270 million fund to purchase carbon credits from abroad. We were treated to more hot air yesterday, when the Minister said that all sectors of the economy must "contribute as best they can to the necessary reductions" in carbon emissions, but then proceeded to tackle only the soft-touch of the private motorist.

Where are the economy and society-wide changes championed by the Greens before they went into Government? Where is the climate change legislation to put the targets, with which we agree, on a statutory basis? A carbon report is not a carbon budget, no matter how it is spun. What about a rebalancing of infrastructure spending in favour of public transport — something that would be welcome?

The sustainability of our economy is dependent on the sustainability of our environment. We need vision to go beyond what is immediately necessary, and to anticipate the changes we will ultimately have to make. The vision of this budget does not reach that far. Increasing taxation on heavy CO2 emitting cars is a positive step, but is it enough to bring about a significant change in behaviour? What of those who have no choice but to travel by car, because they do not have access to public transport? If the track record on delivering public transport infrastructure is anything to go by, relatively minor changes to VRT will not deter people who have to get to work by the only means available for years to come. That €1 billion should be spent on replacing train carriages and commuter links is fine, if people did not have to go to work until 2009, instead of Monday morning. Delivering reliable, efficient public transport infrastructure within the next few years — not the distant future — are what will bring about real behavioural change.

One could start with purchasing 500 extra buses for Dublin, extending the Dublin Bus network further into our new suburbs, and introducing a simple €1 adult fare for the greater Dublin area, as proposed by the Labour Party earlier this year.

Reducing our carbon footprint must go beyond fine words and expensive ad campaigns. People need practical, accessible tools to help them to make changes to their homes, how they get around and where they get their energy. The greener homes scheme provided such support until the decision to slash its grants last September. Improvements in building standards are long overdue, but what will the Government do for the millions of existing homes that have already been built to poor specifications, and that will continue to be expensive and carbon-intensive to run? A €5 million pilot scheme on insulation will hardly cover its own administration costs. I urge the Government to overhaul the greener homes scheme to help people achieve lower "whole house" emissions. This should enable people to insulate their homes and to install renewable energy heating systems through a mixture of grant assistance and a loan. Evidence has shown that Irish people will respond to practical environmental measures, so let us see more of them.

The Minister stated that €1.7 billion will be spent on energy next year but omitted to specify how much of this will be spent on green energy, and how much will be spent on coal and peat burning power plants that will cost us millions in carbon credits for years to come. If the Government wants to achieve its target of a 33% share in the energy market for renewable energy, it needs to give a clear signal to renewable energy suppliers that it is serious about weaning Ireland off its fossil fuel addiction.

This budget confirms, once again, that the Government has long since run out of ideas. It has simply no concept of where it wants to take our country or of what kind of society we should build. This is not a new budget for a new era; it is a budget for muddling through what, it is hoped, will be a temporary diversion from more of the same.

The Minister, in his speech and in recent pronouncements has shown some inclination to believing that he should have some kind of vision. He just cannot articulate what it might be, and he certainly will not adjust policy to reflect it. There were references in his recent speech to Indecon and something called "equity", but certainly not to true equality. There was much talk about productivity, which I applaud, but calling for higher productivity does not constitute a vision of society. There were references yesterday to the environment, but no sign of economy-wide action on climate change.

As a country we have come a long way but we still have a long way to go. We need a new sense of direction and new purpose. I believe we can set out an inspiring vision of what it is within our power to become, and the Government can take the concrete steps that will further realise that vision. We did not get that yesterday. This was not a budget with a vision. It was not, as the Taoiseach said, the first of something new. It was the 11th budget of a tired Government. It was the budget of a Minister for Finance who has one eye on the Taoiseach beside him to see when he is leaving and the other on his colleagues to see which of them will challenge. If he had an eye in the back of his head, he would need it to keep track of the shifting sands of support behind him.

I call on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to present a report on progress being made towards meeting our targets for emissions reduction.

I will deal with some aspects of the budget as well as dealing with the carbon budget.

On a point of information, would the Minister, Deputy Gormley be happy to have Deputy Hogan attend his press conference today as a Fine Gael spokesman in the same way the former Minister, Deputy Roche, used to welcome Deputy O'Dowd to his press conferences?

I would be happy to——

That does not arise.

It is not a matter that arises now but I would be happy to discuss the matter with Deputy Hogan.

Would the Minister be happy to have him attend?

I am happy to discuss the matter with Deputy Hogan.

It is the Minister's press conference.

Deputy Kenny, that matter does not arise.

It does arise.

If I could just get clarification——

I call the Minister to make his speech.

Would it be all right for Deputy Hogan to attend the Minister's press conference?

Deputy Kenny, resume your seat, please.

I know the Acting Chairman is defending his own Minister but I am asking——

I am simply asking the Deputy to resume his seat because the matter does not arise.

This is a public press conference. I want to know whether the Minister would welcome Deputy Hogan's attendance at his press conference.

It is a "yes" or "no" answer.

I have answered the question.

The Minister has not answered the question.

I have answered the question.

Is it "yes" or "no"?

Deputy Kenny should resume his seat.

I said I would discuss the matter with Deputy Hogan.

He can discuss it at the press conference, in that case. Will the Minister discuss it at the press conference?

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate as leader of the Green Party and as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

This is nonsense. I would attend, if I were Deputy Hogan.

The Minister is afraid.

I congratulate the Tánaiste on the presentation of the budget. He has demonstrated a clear pathway forward for the sound financial management of the economy. He has taken a balanced and constructive approach to the challenges that lie ahead. I particularly welcome the strong defining theme in his Budget Statement highlighting the Government's environmental agenda. My party fully endorses the principles he has enunciated and we will work to deliver on compelling environmental polices side by side with maintaining growth and competitiveness in our economy.

The issue of climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity over the coming century. Climate change is a challenge like no other. It is profound in its implications for the planet and its inhabitants. It also cuts to the core of modern living and commerce in the 21st century. The causes are known — human induced emissions of greenhouse gases. The solution is obvious — we must reduce these emissions and quickly enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We all have a personal interest in succeeding in this objective. We all have a responsibility to play our part.

In global terms, Ireland's emissions may be relatively small but our scope to show leadership is enormous. Over the past 20 years, we have succeeded in becoming one of the world's most advanced countries, economically and technologically. Now, we need to draw on the resourcefulness, initiative and determination that brought us such success and apply it to the challenge of adapting to a low-carbon society. With our EU colleagues, we have been to the forefront in bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force and we will begin, next week, the task of persuading all the nations of the world to join us in a strong global agreement for the post-Kyoto period. Our efforts to secure global agreement on deep cuts in emissions must be backed up by a sufficient level of ambition at home. The programme for Government makes it clear that we are up for the challenge.

I am pleased today to introduce the first ever Irish carbon budget. The preparation of an annual carbon budget is a central commitment of An Agreed Programme for Government. The carbon budget marks the beginning of a new era. It is an era in which climate change moves to the heart of Government decision-making. It puts our responsibilities to tackle climate change on an equal footing with our responsibilities to manage the economy.

It recognises that the economy and the environment cannot be separated, and that the greatest risk to the economy is climate change.

This carbon budget will serve a number of purposes. It will integrate climate change considerations into the Government's budgetary policy, as they must be integrated into the decision-making process across all sectors of Government. It will be a clear measure of the progress made each year towards meeting our targets for emission reductions. It will help in our efforts to increase public understanding of climate change and the Government's response.

The concept of the carbon budget is new and this year's format can be seen as a pilot. I will consider how its content and format can be developed and improved in future years. The carbon budget process as it develops will be essential to achieving our greenhouse gas emissions goals. Climate change is a core consideration in Government policy-making. Therefore, it must be integrated into the annual budget process. We must reach a situation where our estimates of the carbon impact of the budget are as good as our estimates of the financial and economic impacts of the budget.

From now on, we must think differently — we must think carbon. Carbon must become the new global currency if we are to successfully tackle climate change and we must then de-carbonise society. We must put a price on carbon. I hope all Deputies in the House will begin to understand the necessity of introducing a carbon levy.

My statement today is accompanied by a short table, which has been circulated to Deputies, and which is the essence of the carbon budget. It presents an historical picture of Ireland's emissions trends to date and is forward-looking in that it shows how Ireland's emissions are expected to develop over the next five years. The table includes Ireland's emissions in 1990 and 2005, as well as provisional estimates from the EPA and SEI for 2006. These figures show some revisions for the years 1990 and 2005 compared to those published early this year due to ongoing improvements in the reporting systems. The provisional estimates are that total emissions in 2006 were just under 1% lower than in 2005, a welcome reduction following the previous year's increase.

Deputies should refer to the table and I will explain what it contains. The three key columns are identified as D, E and F. Column D shows projected emissions for the 2008-12 Kyoto Protocol period, taking account of measures included in the national climate change strategy published last April. Column E shows the effects of the additional measures we have put in place, including those in the budget. Column F updates projected emissions to take account of these measures. Column D shows that the combined effect of all measures quantified in the national climate change strategy was projected to reduce our net emissions to 66.2 million tonnes as a yearly average in the 2008-12 period. That is 3.2 million tonnes above our Kyoto Protocol target and would, therefore, have required the State to buy an average of 3.2 million carbon credits each year under the flexible mechanisms of the protocol, at an annual cost of anywhere between €30 million and €60 million, or possibly even more, depending on the terms which the NTMA is able to secure for its investments in relevant funds and projects.

That projection in the national climate change strategy of 66.2 million tonnes in the 2008-12 period is about 2.2 million tonnes above what is required to meet the programme for Government target of an average annual reduction of 3% in emissions. Deputies can see, from columns E and F, the effects of the further steps we are taking to deliver more reductions in emissions. These steps will get us closer to the 3% target and also reduce the amount we have to spend on carbon credits to comply with our Kyoto Protocol commitment.

I recognise, as Al Gore did when he was in Dublin last weekend, that the flexible mechanisms are an integral part of the Kyoto Protocol agreement and an important instrument in promoting low emissions investment in developing countries. Notwithstanding this, the Government is committed to ensuring Ireland is able to fulfil its commitments as much as possible by emission reductions through domestic action, reflecting our status as a developed nation with the resources, knowledge and political commitment to do so. If we can achieve the 3% annual reduction on average between now and 2012, we will need to purchase only 1 million carbon credits on average each year. Such a reduction is a big challenge but we are determined to meet it and the budget is a significant first step.

I will now provide a summary of new measures. The carbon budget table shows a preliminary indicative additional saving of 600,000 tonnes from measures announced since the publication of the national climate change strategy. These savings will be achieved due to additional savings by the emissions trading sector following the Commission's decision on Ireland's national allocation plan in July this year; additional measures included in the draft energy efficiency action plan, published by my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources — these include the announcement yesterday by the Minister for Finance of funding for an initial pilot programme to encourage the owners of older housing stock to upgrade the energy performance of their homes; and additional funding for a further phase of the highly successful greener homes scheme. The new phase of the scheme which was launched in October will promote a new range of additional renewable technologies now ready for market and deliver almost double the emissions savings that will be achieved under the scheme.

The overall effect of all these additional measures is to deliver a total annual saving of 600,000 tonnes on average each year in the 2008-12 period, bringing projected annual net emissions down to 65.6 million tonnes. This has two important consequences. First, it reduces our reliance on purchasing credits by 600,000 tonnes per year which, in turn, means a significant saving to the Exchequer. Second, it brings us closer to meeting the 3% target for annual average domestic reductions. The gap to be bridged is reduced from 2.2 million tonnes to 1.6 million tonnes.

As well as these measures which are calculated to deliver additional emissions savings, I am taking steps to implement measures which will deliver savings already quantified in the climate change strategy, as follows. I am announcing major changes to the existing motor tax regime to accompany the VRT changes announced yesterday by the Minister for Finance. Under the new system, both taxation regimes will be based completely on the rated CO2 emissions from the vehicle in question. These changes will be accompanied by a new mandatory labelling system for cars based on emission levels which will be similar to the energy rating label in place for white goods. I will give details of the motor taxation changes later in this address. I will sign regulations by the end of this month to strengthen significantly the energy efficiency requirements for new homes to deliver energy and emissions savings of 40% on current standards. I will further strengthen building standards in 2010 to achieve a 60% improvement on current levels. It is my ambition eventually to achieve zero carbon emissions associated with new dwellings. I hope to do this by 2016.

As I said, this is a first step. Efforts to reduce Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions will be an ongoing and central feature of the work of the Government across every sector. For example, it is clear from the table that the transport sector has a critical role to play. Last year greenhouse gas emissions from transport increased by over 5%, indicating the scale of the challenge in the sector. Next year will see the publication of the sustainable travel and transport action plan which will provide the basis for radical change in that sector.

All my ministerial colleagues on the Cabinet committee on climate change and energy security are looking closely at what more can be done in the sectors for which they are responsible. To take just one example, from my own area, of the scope for further action, I am announcing today that I will develop a national energy efficiency standard for lightbulbs.

Will the Minister change the bulbs again?

While the national climate change strategy proposed a levy on low efficiency bulbs, a more direct approach is necessary. The standard I will introduce will see an end to incandescent bulbs and will have to be met by all lightbulbs on the Irish market from January 2009. A national standard will create certainty for manufacturers and suppliers about the lamps that can be supplied and will stimulate the development of alternative lighting technologies in Ireland. It will also provide the greatest assurance as to effectiveness of the desired environmental outcome, both in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced energy consumption. This measure will deliver emissions savings of up to 700,000 tonnes per year from residential lighting alone when incandescent bulbs are fully replaced in all domestic light fittings. It could also save consumers an estimated €185 million in electricity costs per annum.

Next week I will join the world's environment Ministers as we begin the process that must lead to an international agreement on reducing emissions in the post-Kyoto Protocol period. Europe is showing real leadership on what is required and we must be part of it. The need to look to 2020 and beyond and contemplate the scale of the required emission reductions clearly shows that the annual carbon budgeting process must be an integral feature of the Government's policy-making and annual budgetary process. I will be providing more detail on the information contained in the carbon budget when I present the first annual status report on the implementation of the national climate change strategy to the Oireachtas in the spring.

I wish to deal with motor tax measures. Following a review earlier this year of its strategy to reduce carbon dioxide or CO2 emissions from new cars, the European Commission concluded that only limited progress had been made. In the light of this review, the Commission announced the framework of a new strategy that sets out an integrated approach towards achieving this overall objective. The new approach proposed a combination of legislative measures encouraging member states to levy car taxes based on CO2 emissions; promoting improvements in vehicle technology through enhanced research efforts, and promoting the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles.

Road transport generates about one fifth of the European Union's CO2 emissions, with passenger cars responsible for around 12%. Although recent years have seen improvements in vehicle technology — particularly in fuel efficiency which translates into lower CO2 emissions — this has not been enough to stem the growth in emissions due mainly to increased car ownership and increased size. While the European Union reduced overall emissions of greenhouse gases by almost 5% between 1990 and 2004, CO2 emissions from road transport rose by 26%. This was despite a reduction of over 12% in average new-car CO2 emissions between 1995 and 2004.

The situation in Ireland is even more stark. While road transport accounts for a similar portion of total emissions, we have seen an increase in emissions from road transport of around 180% between 1990 and 2006. This reflects growth from relatively low car ownership levels in 1990 but unfortunately the growth is expected to continue.

Currently, 12 EU member states, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, levy or propose to levy car taxes that are totally or partially based on a car's CO2 emissions or fuel consumption, or both.

In tandem with the Tánaiste's announcement yesterday on vehicle registration tax, I am introducing a fundamental change in the manner in which motor tax is to be charged for all new cars and newly imported cars. It will come into effect on 1 July 2008, from which date motor tax on such cars will be determined solely on the basis of their CO2 emissions. Thus, motor tax will be re-balanced in favour of cars with lower emissions. The public consultation undertaken on the greening of motor taxation following last year's budget proposed a system based on a combination of CO2 emissions and engine size. If we are serious about addressing emissions from cars, we need to move to a system based solely on CO2 emission levels. I am very pleased we are introducing this today. It reflects the views of many contributors to the public consultation exercise.

Turning to the detail of the new motor tax system, there will be a number of CO2 bands, commonly referred to as the seven white labels ranging from A to G. These are the same bands announced by the Tánaiste yesterday in respect of vehicle registration tax, and thus there will be a common approach in the motor tax and vehicle registration tax systems. Motor tax rates will be graduated as one moves up the CO2 bands. Band A corresponds to CO2 emissions of under 120g/km — the motor tax rate will be €100. Band B corresponds to CO2 emissions of between 121g/km and 140g/km — the rate will be €150. Band C corresponds to CO2 emissions of between 141g/km and 155g/km — the rate will be €290. Band D corresponds to CO2 emissions of between 156g/km and 170g/km — the rate will be €430. Band E corresponds to CO2 emissions of between 171g/km and 190g/km — the rate will be €600. Band F corresponds to CO2 emissions of between 191g/km and 225g/km — the rate will be €1,000. Band G will be the top band and the rate will be €2,000, reflecting CO2 emissions of over 225g/km.

The Minister's car.

Mine is not in the top band because it is a hybrid.

The clear objective of this new motor tax system is to influence the purchasing decisions of consumers by rewarding the buyers of low-emission cars and charging a premium on less-efficient vehicles. From 1 July, anyone buying a new car or importing a car can make a choice for the environment by purchasing a low CO2 emitting car, and thus enjoy a lower rate of motor tax. Alternatively, if the choice is to purchase a high CO2 emission car, a higher rate of motor tax will apply.

A key part of both the motor tax and vehicle registration tax initiatives will be a new mandatory labelling system for cars based on CO2 emission levels. This will be accompanied by an active public information campaign to promote the purchase of fuel-efficient cars. The proposed improvements in vehicle labelling are a very positive step in enabling Irish motorists to make more informed choices in buying new vehicles. I look forward to support from the motor industry in making their introduction a success.

The fundamental changes I am announcing for the motor tax regime for new cars are designed to achieve financial neutrality in terms of income to the local government fund.

Will the haulage industry be included?

I will talk to the Deputy afterwards.

I am sorry for upsetting the Minister.

That is not a problem.

As we proceed, there will be a need to keep the new arrangements under review to ensure the environmental objective is delivered while funding for local authorities is sustained.

These new measures apply to new cars and newly imported cars only with effect from 1 July 2008. Cars registered before that date will continue to be taxed in future years under the existing system relating to cubic capacity engine sizes.

The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with protecting our environment and does so in different ways. It licenses environmentally high-risk activities through the integrated pollution prevention and control system and through waste licensing. It enforces the licences that it grants, both to private and public sector undertakings, to ensure compliance with the conditions it attaches thereto. It also operates an emissions trading unit that is vital to our progress in meeting our Kyoto Protocol obligations. More generally, the agency monitors the state of our environment, highlighting the environmental pressures and challenges that we face.

The increase of over 40% in the Exchequer provision for the agency will enable it to carry forward this work with added impetus and vigour. It is further clear evidence of the impact of the Green Party in Government, and of the Government's commitment to respect and protect our environmental heritage in the broadest sense.

The revised expenditure provisions announced by the Tánaiste regarding my Department's Estimates make provision for increased levels of spending in many important areas. We will maintain strong momentum in the major national development plan housing and water services programmes. I am placing stronger emphasis on heritage areas in my Department and I will strengthen our capacity to further compliance and enforcement of our legal obligations in the area of environmental protection.

My Department's National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, is responsible for nature protection. NPWS has a nationwide presence and is key to front-line enforcement of our protected habitats and species. NPWS also provides expert advice to farmers and other landowners as well as to local planning authorities in circumstances where development impinges on sensitive sites and species.

The Government is committing resources to enhancing our national parks and reserves. In 2008 I will be seeking to consolidate and strengthen the Department's NPWS presence in the countryside. I also intend to review the natural heritage regulations in the new year to ensure that Ireland plays a leading role in nature conservation.

Ireland has a rich archaeological and architectural heritage. It is our duty to continue to protect it and hand it on to future generations to enjoy. The programme for Government sets out a number of important objectives on the protection of our built heritage. Significant progress has already been made in the achievement of those objectives and the most recent budget continues that work.

The programme for Government commits to strengthening the role and operation of the Heritage Council, particularly regarding built heritage. We are very clearly giving effect to that commitment today by providing €13.4 million to the Heritage Council, an increase of 14% over the figure for 2007. This will allow the council to further increase awareness and the growing appreciation of heritage nationally, carry out heritage research surveys and analysis, and promote best practice in conservation and sustainable heritage management.

The significant investment in infrastructure and other development in recent years has, of necessity, been complemented by a strong expansion in the archaeological investigations essential to ensure we achieve the right balance between development and the protection of the non-renewable resource that is our archaeological heritage. I am very pleased, therefore, to announce I will be providing funding in 2008 for a dedicated archaeological research fund, which fund will come into operation next year. While details remain to be worked out, this new measure is likely to be administered by the Heritage Council, which already manages a number of built and natural heritage grants programmes successfully on behalf of the Department. My Department will continue to have broad oversight of the new measure and its administration.

I have no doubt there is widespread support for maximising archaeological knowledge as we progress our development projects, and for the dissemination of the information gained to the widest extent possible. The new archaeological research fund provides a mechanism to make this goal a reality.

Housing matters will be dealt with more fully by my colleague, the Minister of State with special responsibility for housing, urban renewal and developing areas, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. The principle of sustainability is also a key concern of housing policy. While acknowledging the important economic aspects of the housing sector, housing policy is about providing homes for people. The aim must be to provide homes in a good quality environment with all that this means from a community and infrastructure perspective. Sustainable housing involves the construction of homes that are structurally sound, energy efficient, environmentally friendly and adaptable over time to changing household needs.

My Department places a particular focus on interventions necessary for those who cannot meet their accommodation needs solely from their own resources. I welcome the record financial provision of more than €1.7 billion for social and affordable housing in 2008. The increased level of funding is in line with the housing commitments contained in Towards 2016 and demonstrates the Government's determination to fully honour these obligations.

The 2008 provision will allow for 6,600 local authority homes to be started or acquired, 2,000 starts by the voluntary and co-operative housing sector and continuing implementation of the rental accommodation scheme, with a total programme output of starts or acquisitions of 9,000 homes. Funding will also be maintained for the provision of Traveller and homeless accommodation and work will continue on the redevelopment of Ballymun.

In addition, I am particularly pleased to have been successful in securing funding of €10 million to kick-start the major regeneration programme in Limerick. As well as dealing with a serious legacy from past mistakes, the regeneration programme in Limerick is an exciting opportunity to showcase the quality and sustainability agenda, which is now at the heart of our approach to housing.

Improving the quality of social housing generally is a key focus for us now. New projects will be sustainable community proofed as part of the project appraisal stage. Greater innovation will be encouraged, building on those initiatives taken already by many local authorities in building sustainable housing.

I am determined to ensure that the substantial financial provisions secured for 2008 will be used wisely. By building on the momentum achieved to date, we will be well placed to meet, in scale and substance, the ambitious targets set for the initial 2007 to 2009 phase of Towards 2016 and the national development plan.

It is very clear that the environmental imperatives of sustainability and balanced regional development now take centre stage in the national development plan. Consistency with the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines will be a requirement for all infrastructure investments. The systematic threading of the national spatial strategy into the national development plan in this way will yield important demographic, social and environmental dividends in the future. Equally, the factoring in of environmental impacts in a systematic manner is a real change in the way public expenditure programmes are implemented, which I very much welcome. It reflects a widespread consensus that now obtains regarding policies to promote economic growth and the protection of the environment.

I am happy to have had the opportunity of making a comprehensive statement to the House setting out budgetary implications in respect of matters for which I am responsible as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I am particularly pleased to be in a position to announce the carbon budget. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, will address housing matters and, together with the other Ministers of State in the Department, we look forward to a very successful implementation of Government policies and strategies in 2008.

I reiterate that my party is in Government to effect significant changes for the good of the environment and for the continued prosperity of the country. We are making good progress and this budget is a significant step for us in the right direction. For the first time, we have put forward a carbon budget. I will be on my way to Bali on Saturday and it is important we set the tone here for the successful conclusion of negotiations there. Hopefully, we will have a road map to a better future.

I welcome the record financial provision for housing in 2008. It is worth reflecting on the extent of the resources being made available — over €1.7 billion in Exchequer capital and current finance. This figure is up 16% on the 2007 Estimate and more than double the Exchequer resources made available only six years ago in 2001 at the same juncture in the last national development plan period. In a sense, this very strong upward trend in housing provision mirrors activity in the housing sector generally in that period in terms of demand and output, but also in terms of the specific and continuing need for targeted intervention by Government in the social and affordable sphere.

The increased level of funding in 2008 is in line with the housing commitments contained in Towards 2016 and demonstrates the Government's determination to fully honour these obligations as we move into year two of the current national development plan. Data for the first six months of this year indicate increased activity by local authorities and the voluntary and co-operative sector as measured by both commencements-acquisitions and by the number of units in progress. Activity under the rental accommodation scheme is also accelerating.

Following a 20% increase in 2006, the delivery of affordable housing in 2007 has continued to grow with 1,200 homes provided in the first six months of the year. My Department remains committed to meeting the ambitious targets set for affordable housing in Towards 2016 and continues to work closely with local authorities and the affordable homes partnership to achieve the required level of output.

The funding provided in 2008 will allow for the commencement of a significant number of new social housing units as well as bringing to completion a large number of units under both the local authority and voluntary housing programmes. Specifically, resources available next year will allow for over 6,600 local authority homes to be started-acquired, 2,000 starts by the voluntary and co-operative housing sector and continuing implementation of the rental accommodation scheme. In total, it is expected that programme output will amount to 9,000 homes in 2008.

We are also placing a particular emphasis on improving the quality of social housing which should be on a par with housing generally. In partnership with local authorities, we are tackling an important programme of regeneration and remedial works over the period of the national development plan. As well as continuing our support for the major Ballymun project, I particularly wish to support the programme of regeneration in Limerick being developed by the regeneration agencies established by the Government and Limerick City Council. As a demonstration of the Government's commitment to providing the range of supporting instruments required, an additional €10 million in resources has been made available in 2008 to support the initial phases of this process.

Through this year's budget, we will be able to devote a further €50 million to boost activity on affordable housing. Building on the successful market acquisition of housing initiated by the affordable homes partnership late last year, a further programme of purchases will be undertaken next year. In addition, we propose to examine the scope for introducing a new shared equity scheme to replace the current shared ownership option with the aim of offering new opportunities to eligible people to achieve their home ownership ambitions. Access to affordable housing will be further facilitated through increases in local authority loan limits from early 2008 and the development of nationwide on-line application systems by the partnership.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State but is there any chance we could get a copy of his speech?

I understood it was to be circulated. I will check that.

We will also pilot a new approach — incremental purchase — through which social housing applicants can commence purchase of new social housing on an incremental basis over 30 years. These initiatives form part of a package of measures reflecting the Government's commitment to broaden people's housing choices and offer increasing paths to home ownership to lower income groups. As Minister of State with responsibility not only for housing, but also for developing areas, I want to see quality housing built in appropriate locations with proper access to public transport links, open spaces and essential amenities. The substantial financial provisions announced today will help to build on the momentum achieved to date as we press ahead towards meeting the ambitious target set for the initial 2007-09 phase of the longer timeframe. I commend to the House the budget, the 2008 Estimates and the very significant housing provisions contained therein.

I wish to share time with Deputies O'Donnell and Reilly.

I acknowledge that we are in a budgetary position today where considerable emphasis has shifted to an area of policy put on the long finger for so many years. Fine Gael recognises the serious threat climate change presents to the global environment and believes urgent action is necessary. Ireland's emissions have grown to enormous proportions and in 2005 were 25% above 1990 levels. This sets out the challenge we face to reduce emissions and meet the Government's target of a 3% reduction in its lifetime. As Ireland has one of the highest levels of emissions in the world per capita, we should not underestimate the challenge which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has, rightly, set out as a major task in order to achieve the objectives of the programme for Government. I wish the Minister and the parliamentary delegation every success in working with our EU partners at the Bali conference in the next few days to ensure an ambitious target is set that will ultimately lead to a new Kyoto Protocol, the aims of which we can realise without delay.

It is all very well to introduce a carbon budget in the House. I note considerable emphasis in the flexible mechanisms section of the table produced by the Minister. This is the cop-out clause for not realising our objectives. The Minister did not set out in detail the way in which the programme for Government commitment of a 3% reduction in emissions would actually be achieved. He did not set out how we would negotiate or consult interests in the agriculture, transport, waste and the various sectors of the economy that contribute to higher emissions on how to reduce emissions to meet the necessary targets. The devil will be in the detail of these measures and the Minister has refused to go into detail today. He is to be excused on this matter but for seven years the previous Government knew about our difficulties in meeting our Kyoto Protocol commitments in conjunction with our partners in the European Union and did absolutely nothing. As Deputy Bruton noted yesterday, we have 500,000 new houses and 600,000 new cars. We could have done much of this in the past couple of years but the Government failed to do it.

On behalf of Fine Gael, I welcome the changes in the VRT system and the announcement by the Minister that from 1 July 2008, motor tax rates will be emissions-based. That is the fairest way to deal with CO2 emissions and give a choice to the people that when they buy motor vehicles, they will do so in the context of being incentivised to avail of new technology and take into account financial considerations in terms of the taxation regime. They will be able to make choices in respect of the output of emissions. If they want to pay €2,000 per year on motor tax, that is their prerogative, but I have no sympathy for those who want to make such choices. I welcome the fact that this initiative has been taken. As it concerns new cars, the motor industry will have an opportunity in the next six or eight months to deal with whatever issues they must deal with to meet the new regime that will apply from 1 July 2008.

The budget is about more than just dialogue among ourselves on what we can achieve. As I said, the devil will be in the detail of the practical measures that must be taken across various Departments to meet our objectives. In that context, a €15 million campaign undertaken by the Minister to promote climate change awareness is not necessary. Everybody is aware of the importance of meeting our climate change objectives. There is considerable detail in the discourse and debate about the objectives we must meet. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Minister to undertake a campaign at a cost of €15 million when we could put the money into the green homes initiative which was launched successfully some time ago but which ran out of money. We shifted €10 million from the broadband budget, which was essential, to the green homes initiative in order to pay those who applied to participate this year. Changing light bulbs is one thing but a €15 million campaign is another, especially when it will not meet our objectives. I do not think such a campaign is necessary.

On the local government fund, if one looks at the volume of expenditure in the Estimates published, one will see that local government funding is due to be reduced in gross terms by 2%. Therefore, the Minister failed at the Cabinet table to obtain sufficient resources from the Minister for Finance to meet obligations under the local government fund. As he had to raise money one way or another, he chose the easy option of motor tax. He made a grab for a figure of €83 million to top up the local government fund which resulted in a minor increase of 2%. Therefore, we went from a 2% reduction to a 2% increase after the announcement of the budget yesterday. When one looks at the enormous obligations on local authorities from the perspective of health and safety measures and measures relating to energy costs associated with tarring and restoring roads, both of which are beginning to bite, one will see a net increase of 2% in the local government fund will not go too far in 2008 to meet existing levels of service.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government handed over all the money relating to non-national roads to the Minister for Transport whom I said was not the best man in the world to hand over money to because he was not good at dealing with such issues. His record is not great. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, might agree with me that one cannot trust the Green Party when it comes to road expenditure, be it on non-national, regional, secondary or primary roads. All moneys must be dealt with by the Fianna Fáil Minister. When one sees the way in which Fianna Fáil has had a go at the Green Party during the years, this is understandable, as the Green Party has been very reluctant when it comes to expenditure on roads and motorways and has had to reverse on the issue in recent times. It is understandable, therefore, that the Minister for Transport will be dealing with the budget for roads rather than the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The energy efficiency budget which is very important if we want to meet our emissions targets has been slashed in the budget. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has some explaining to do, as the budget for energy efficiency initiatives has been slashed by 50%. This ignores the fact that better energy efficiency levels have been identified as one of the easiest and cheapest ways to reduce carbon emissions. Obviously, Fianna Fáil pays no attention to the few green agenda references in the programme for Government. There has been something of a capitulation on this issue.

The commission on taxation has been announced yet again. After six months in office one would imagine that the Green Party would have managed to get the commission up and running to deal with all the various taxation measures taken in the budget to realise some policy commitments.

There are no major initiatives announced to meet the objective of meeting 33% of Ireland's energy needs from renewable sources. This would involve mostly wind energy. The National Offshore Wind Association of Ireland estimates that it would cost between €600 million and €800 million to provide a new network infrastructure.

The budget is a continuation of the copying and pasting of the Fianna Fáil manifesto. A total of 15 of the 19 commitments on climate change in the programme for Government are lifted directly from the Fianna Fáil manifesto. The Green Party's attempt at a carbon budget is nothing more than spin, with the exception of the changes in motor tax, which I welcome. The target of reducing our emissions by 3% per year now seems a great challenge because, in the first budget, we failed to make a substantial leap forward or to outline the policy detail to meet those objectives.

I welcome the additional moneys for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Heritage Council. I look forward to the proposals to monitor water quality, the environment and emissions. We should have regular reports to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

In the speech of the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, motor tax was included under the heading of climate change and environmental matters. We were given the impression that changes were revenue neutral yet clearly the Government is collecting €83 million extra a year. Effectively these are increases in taxes, primarily on second hand cars and new cars up to 1 July. It is a bit rich to include it under climate change when it has nothing to do with climate change. It is a revenue collecting exercise, nothing more.

I see nothing in yesterday's budget or the carbon tax announcement by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, today to suggest that the extra tax collected on motor tax will be ring-fenced for environmental matters at local authority level. It is regrettable that the Minister is not in the Chamber to address these points.

The budget is deceptive, it provides many increases but they are not of real benefit to anyone. The increases do not match increases in inflation. For lower income people inflation increases are upwards of 15% for foodstuffs. The increases in tax bands and credits do not keep pace with wage inflation.

The Minister laid down a number of fundamental planks. He referred to boosting the economy. If there is a €2.3 billion surplus at the end of 2006 that has reduced by €7.2 billion to an Exchequer deficit of €4.9 billion, one must question if that boosts the economy or if it is good management. The Minister's capitulation on various issues, particularly stamp duty, means there will be a major fall in taxes. Stamp duty receipts will reduce by €600 million, corporation tax receipts by €250 million and VAT receipts by €400 million. The Government is not responsible for everything but in terms of policy issues, of which stamp duty is one, it must take responsibility.

Regarding public sector reform; since 1997 Government public expenditure has increased threefold, from €17 billion to €53 billion. The increased funding does not show up in increased services at consumer level. Spending on health has increased fivefold in the past ten years, from €3.2 billion to €16.2 billion. Fine Gael made a practical proposal that, similar to the UK, the Government would seek a 3% saving per annum. This year, such a proposal would have yielded €3 billion extra funding, giving rise to a surplus of the general Government balance. The Budget Statement includes a blanket increase of 8% to all HSE areas except the midlands at 7%. A breakdown on administration is not provided, whereas for other Departments a breakdown is given. This is a fundamental flaw in the way the HSE is funded. It should be funded through the Department of Health and Children. At least the Minister could then be held accountable. In this situation we do not know how the money is spent or how efficient the HSE areas are.

Two measures were addressed to home buyers. Mortgage interest relief only provides €33 extra per month for a single person and €66 extra for a married person. Mortgage interest payments for the average person have increased by €200 per month this year alone. This measure does not address the extra amounts to be repaid.

Regarding stamp duty, I asked the Minister to change stamp duty to make it more equitable on 26 June, during a debate on the Finance Bill, and on 20 November, during Question Time. On both occasions he refused. The public made up its mind that stamp duty was inequitable and stopped buying houses. The public sought a change in stamp duty but the Government was not forthcoming. People are experiencing negative equity and some 45,000 jobs will be lost in the construction sector. Fine Gael welcomes the measure since Fianna Fáil has stolen our clothes. The only difference is the rates Fine Gael proposed, which are more equitable. In the Finance Bill the Minister should consider providing relief for those purchasing residential sites, apart from the children of the landowner. This would make the system more equitable.

People are not buying houses, they are renting. In the private rented accommodation credit the Minister gave an additional €40 per year or €3.33 per month. Rents have increased by 20% in the past six months, €200 extra per month. It makes no sense.

Regarding the Government protecting the income of the vulnerable and supporting working families, the Government proposed that the inflation rate would be 2.4%, nowhere near what ordinary people deal with. The vulnerable will see a 15% increase in the price of milk, bread and eggs. The Minister gave €2 extra per day to the contributory pension and €1.71 to the non-contributory pension. The fuel allowance has increased by 3%, the family income supplement has increased by €10 per week and other social welfare benefits have increased by €12 to €14 per week yet the Minister will receive a €700 per week increase.

Nothing of substance was done with regard to child care. An additional €1.92 per week was given to early child care support, giving €1,100 per year, just over €20 per week but child care costs €215 per week for the average person, a shortfall of almost €200.

It is not correct to say that people on the low and standard rates of income tax will remain outside the higher taxation rate. The rate has not kept pace with wage inflation. Personal credit and PAYE credits have increased by only 4%, the bands increased by 4% for single people and in the case of a family with one earner, by 3%. Individualisation is militating against cases where the husband or wife wishes to give up work and remain at home with the children.

Stealth taxes have increased by €150 million and motor tax by 9.5%. On health, it was not mentioned in the Minister's budget speech but the cost of attending an accident and emergency department has increased by 10%. In addition, the cost of the DPS scheme has risen by 12%. Stamp duty for old age pensioners, in the context of writing cheques, has increased twofold from 15 cent to 30 cent. The Minister did not really refer to people with disabilities and provided only a €12 increase in respect of the disability allowance. Decentralisation was not even mentioned. To date, only 1,300 of the 10,300 jobs relating to the decentralisation programme have been delivered.

In the context of Limerick, I welcome the €10 million provided in respect of the regeneration project relating to both the north and south sides of the city. I wish Mr. Kenny all the best in the work he is doing in that regard. There was, however, no reference to the €53 million tourism and economic development plan, particularly in light of the discontinuation of the Shannon-Heathrow route. In addition, the Shannon-Limerick rail link was not mentioned.

I call on the Government to support the public service obligation relating to Shannon. The Taoiseach should approach his counterpart in Britain, Gordon Brown, and ask him to secure the requisite slots in order to preserve the Shannon-Heathrow route. The Government needs to stop paying lip-service to Shannon and take positive action instead. It has given nothing to Shannon. Where is the €53 million funding to which I refer? Will the Government support the PSO relating to the Shannon-Heathrow route?

I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

I am due to make my contribution.

I apologise, I misunderstood the position. I was of the impression that Deputy Reilly spoke before I entered the Chamber. There has been some slight erosion of the Deputy's speaking time.

How many minutes are available to me?

Eight and a half.

In that event, I will run through matters as quickly as possible.

We have managed to turn a surplus of €2.3 billion in 2006 into borrowing of €4.9 billion for next year. That is a good trick. While we are discussing billions, on numerous occasions I have heard the Minister for Health and Children state that the Government's spend on cancer care has risen by €1 billion over ten years. If one divides €1 billion by ten one is left with €100 million, which represents 0.6% of a €16 billion budget.

We are informed that the spending increase in health will be 9%, which just about meets medical inflation. I wish to consider the various aspects of this matter. When future generations consider the 21st century, they will consider the medical card scheme as one of the greatest scandals ever.

I agree with the Deputy and he knows what I am getting at in that regard.

The Government promised to provide 200,000 full, not doctor-only, medical cards in 2002. In the event, however, 125,000 doctor-only cards were provided. People who received these are still obliged to pay for medicines and hospital charges and do not have access to public health nurses. In addition, 175,000 full medical cards were provided. Medical card coverage of the population is, as a percentage, at its lowest level since the inception of the scheme. The proportion of the population to be covered was supposed to be 40% but this has dropped as low as 27% nationally. In the greater Dublin area, the figure is 20%.

Many people do not realise how scandalously low is the income threshold for medical cards. If a single person has the temerity, audacity or misfortune to earn more than €184 per week, he or she is not entitled to a medical card. The Government increased the social welfare allowance to €197.80 and, as a result, people on social welfare payments are now above the threshold for medical cards. A specific instruction had to be issued to ensure that these individuals did not lose their medical cards.

That was always the way.

It is outrageous.

It was always the way.

No, it was not. It only became necessary to issue that instruction in the past couple of years because the Government failed to index link——

It became necessary as a result of the inordinate increases——

I have only eight minutes in which to make my contribution. Perhaps the Acting Chairman will allow me to erode the Minister's speaking time.

——in the level of the old age pension.

I ask the Minister to cease interrupting.

The Minister should inform his constituents about the threshold of €184. In addition, he should indicate how this approach is patient oriented or patient centred. The Minister took a major pay rise and the Taoiseach gave himself a rise of €38,000. At the same time, someone earning little more than half the minimum wage is not entitled to a medical card. This is a disgrace and a scandal. It will be one of the greatest indictments of the Government, particularly as it occurred during a period in which the country has enjoyed its greatest ever prosperity.

What is the position with regard to the drug refund scheme? We are going to cater for the elderly, the vulnerable and the chronically ill and we will do so by charging them more for medicines. In that context, the threshold relating to the drug refund scheme has been increased from €85 to €90.

There has been a 10% increase in hospital bed and accident and emergency department charges. Someone sent me a text last night saying that I should give the Government hell because, to add insult to injury, it wants to charge people more to wait for hours on trolleys or plastic chairs in accident and emergency departments. People are furious with regard to what is happening.

I wish to refer to the ambulance service in the capital, particularly the part of it provided by Dublin Fire Brigade comprising 13 ambulances. At any given time during the day, the telephone queue for the ambulance service can stand at 300. I met members of the Dublin Fire Brigade who provided me with these figures. There has been a population explosion in Dublin but there has been no increase in the number of ambulances provided in the past 20 years. When I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister asking why additional trolleys are not been made available in accident and emergency departments in order that ambulance crews might wheel patients straight in and then leave with replacement trolleys, I was informed that it was not safe to move people off trolleys. What a facetious response.

No additional hospital beds have been provided. In 2002, the Government promised to provide 3,000 extra beds but to date it has delivered only 1,000 of these. Where are the other 2,000 beds? This question is particularly pertinent when one considers the increase in population. The Government waxes lyrical about the increased spend in respect of health and the fact that we have reached the OECD average. Following 20 years of neglect, we have finally achieved this. How can we possibly hope to catch up? Everybody knows that one must spend more to catch up when one has been way behind. The most recent figures from the OECD show that we have 2.8 beds per 1,000 of population. This compares with an average across the OECD of 3.9 per 1,000. Is it any wonder that we are in a mess?

The beds that are in place are not used properly. A total of 22,000 bed days were lost in Beaumont last year and even more were lost at the Mater. The combined figure stood at 57,000, which is the equivalent of five 30-bed wards being closed for the entire year. People are not able to leave hospital early because community facilities are not being made available to them when the acute phase of their treatment has been completed.

A sum of €35 million has been provided in respect of cancer care. However, when one digs deeper, one realises that this has been allocated for current spending and that capital spending aimed at providing linear accelerators, new mammography machines and other necessary equipment has not been provided. Compare this amount with the previously announced figure of €400 million which the Government indicated would be the cost of its new super-plan for cancer services under a public private partnership arrangement.

The previous Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, established 117 task forces and committees. He became known as the Minister for committees by the time he left the Department. His successor, Deputy Harney, commissioned a review by Ann O'Doherty — which has not been published — and another by Brendan Drumm in respect of Portlaoise. In addition, other reviews are being carried out in Cork and Galway. What is the best the Minister can do in respect of medical cards? She stated that the data relating to them will be reviewed. The ink on the budget is not even dry and the Government has already reneged on its previous promise to index link the threshold. Nothing will be done until next autumn. If he does not mind doing so, perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs will indicate whether he thinks the income thresholds relating to medical cards are fair.

None of the recommendations of the task force on obesity has been implemented. I have called for the carrying out of body tests on a nationwide basis. Due to the fact that prevention is better than cure, everyone should receive an age-appropriate health check and we could thereby catch disease early. For every €1 spent on prevention, €20 is saved on treatment. The Government waxed lyrical about physical health checks but action has not been forthcoming.

A total of €2.1 billion was promised in respect of primary health care and it was stated that 23 teams would be put in place. What do these 23 teams mean to patients? The answer is nothing. No additional service is being created and very few additional personnel are being provided. Everything is virtual. The HSE and Brendan Drumm stated that they want to build up community services. They also indicated that this is where the money should go and that additional hospital beds should not be provided. Community services must be in place before the number of beds can be reduced. Additional beds are required and the Government also needs to deliver in respect of primary health care.

We should have a primary health care system based on the one-stop-shop model, whereby people can see doctors, be referred for blood tests, have X-rays taken and receive their results. Instead of 25 or 37 people being obliged to travel from Swords or Balbriggan to Beaumont or the Mater, somebody could come to their area once a month to see them. That would be real change and it would represent progress. However, the Government will not make that change or provide funding in respect of it.

The number of patients seen by the National Treatment Purchase Fund has decreased to 80 per month. The figure previously stood at 1,400 to 1,700 per month. Cutbacks have obviously taken place in this regard. The allotment of an extra €10 million will not even cover half of these per month. In a memo to the Department last year, HSE officials stated that it was short €350 million for that year. This additional money will not even be able to keep pace. The Government talks the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, it is actually engaging in health care rationing.

The Government will not give people medical cards, so they cannot afford to see their doctor and they cannot get their medicines. The Government will not support the ambulance service by putting in additional trolleys and more ambulances, so patients cannot get into accident and emergency departments. It will not use hospital beds properly nor will it build more hospital beds, so people cannot get treatment. Basically, it is about protecting the system from the patients.

The Minister of Health and Children is not here today and I know she may have other things to do. At least she had the civility to allow me to attend her press conference, unlike her ministerial colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Hanafin, who refused to enter the room and had Deputy Brian Hayes removed forcibly. That is an absolute disgrace. The Government must engage in the commitment that the Minister for Health and Children made to the people of this country. I said before that I will support her efforts if they are real, but I will not support half-hearted, poorly thought out and ill-planned policies that are not properly resourced and doomed to failure from the outset.

A press conference should be for the press. If politicians want to engage with each other, they should come in here and do so.

He only went to listen.

I apologise to the Acting Chairman for intervening, but I find it very hard to contain myself when I hear Deputy Reilly accusing us of not wanting to give people medical cards.

Deputy Reilly was the leader of an organisation which fought the Government decision tooth and nail to give medical cards for over 70 year olds.

I want to correct that. I said it was inappropriate prioritisation at a time of plenty. We have seen the result of it now.

It is very hard to take. It is a scandal that in a five or six year period, the cost of the medical card system has gone from €300 million to €1.5 billion. The average payment to a GP on the medical card system is €220,000.

The payment is to a GP practice, which includes nurses, secretaries and possibly four doctors.

If the Government had the opportunity to spend that money on the people who deserve it——

I cannot let the Minister get away with that. The Minister is saying——

The Deputy is looking after his vested interests now.

——to the House and to the people that the payments are to a GP, when they are clearly outlined in the GMS payments book as payments to the practice——

The Deputy should declare his vested interest.

——which includes payments to nurses, secretaries and three or four doctors. The Minister should be accurate, stop his PR spin and tell the truth for once in his life.

Will the Deputy resume his seat?

The level of spending on the GMS has gone up dramatically.

Is the income threshold for medical cards fair?

I will not stand here and allow the Deputy to accuse this Government of not doing its level best for the people who deserve it most. When we decided to give medical cards to people over 70, the organisation formerly headed by the Deputy was against it.

Is €184 fair as an income threshold for medical cards?

The Minister, without interruption.

I am here to deliver this speech on behalf of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, who unfortunately is at the funeral of a colleague who died tragically.

This year's budget was agreed within more challenging financial circumstances than those of recent years. The package of €900 million for social welfare measures clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to protecting the less well off and most vulnerable members of society. Nearly half of all additional current Government spending announced yesterday will be spent on the social welfare sector. As a result, total expenditure by the Department of Social and Family Affairs next year will be €17 billion. The schemes and other supports that the Department administers will benefit over 1.5 million people. Families also receive child benefit for almost 1.2 million children.

The social welfare budget package for 2008 aims to achieve four important strategic objectives. It continues to make significant progress towards achieving the Government's target on social welfare pension levels. It significantly improves the position of the spouses and partners of contributory pensioners who receive the qualified adult allowance. It strengthens the framework of supports for family carers and it ensures that the real value of all social welfare payments is maintained and safeguarded. These were the overriding objectives of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in framing his budget proposals. They ensure that decisive steps have been taken in implementing proposals in the programme for Government, Towards 2016 and the national action plan for social inclusion.

Let us now look in more detail at what is being done in the budget, starting with the position of older people. When considering pensions, much of the current debate focuses on the future and how we will address the challenges we face as our population ages. These are major issues for our society and ones which must be faced. However, we must not forget that there are also challenges to be faced today in ensuring that older people have a decent income in retirement. The increases in pensions over many years have been one of the major achievements of the Government. Since 2002, the level of the contributory State pension has increased by over 50% from €147.30 to €223.30 following this budget. This improvement has had a marked impact on the living standards of older people, enabling them to face the future with a greater sense of security and dignity.

This is most strikingly shown in the numbers of older people deemed to be at risk of poverty, measured on a relative income basis. The most recent figures from the EU survey on income and living conditions, which were published last week, have confirmed the steady improvements of recent years. The risk of poverty rate for older people has fallen from just under 30% in 2003 to 13.6% in 2006. The fall last year was 6.5% from the previous year and this is before the significant improvement in social welfare pensions in 2007, and those announced yesterday, are taken into account. The Government is determined to maintain and improve on the progress we have made in improving pensioners' incomes. It is committed to achieving a pension of at least €300 per week by 2012. The budget has taken the first step by increasing the contributory State pension by €14 a week and the non-contributory State pension by €12.

The Government is also committed to increasing the qualified adult allowance to the level of the non-contributory State pension and to increase the numbers of people eligible for this payment. In this year's budget, an increase of €27 in the pensioner qualified adult rate has been achieved, bringing it to €200 per week or 94% of the target. This measure will benefit all qualified adults aged 66 or over, including those on reduced rates of payment who will benefit on a proportionate basis. It will be of special benefit to women who do not have an entitlement to a contributory pension in their own right because of home responsibilities in the past.

As a consequence of these changes in the personal pension rate and the qualified adult rate, over 42,000 pensioner couples will see their household income increase by up to €41 a week, or nearly 11% next year. To give another example, the total social welfare support provided for a contributory pensioner couple receiving the fuel allowance will exceed €23,000, an increase of almost €2,200. There has also been an increase in the fuel season, in respect of which the fuel allowance of €18 a week is paid, by one week with effect from April next year.

Despite the major improvements which have been made to pensions in recent years, we have concerns for the long-term future of our pension system. Let us be in no doubt that we face difficult challenges ahead. People's working lives are now shorter and we are living longer in retirement. Longer life expectancy is something to be welcomed and celebrated, but it poses challenges for the sustainability of our pensions system and the adequacy of personal pension provision. On 17 October last, the Government published a Green Paper on pensions. It addresses all of the challenges we face in the pensions area and puts forward a number of options for tackling them. The purpose of the Green Paper is not to recommend any particular course of action, but rather to set out clearly the current situation and the implications, from an economic and social perspective, of the various courses of action that have been suggested. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs looks forward to moving the debate forward during the coming year.

Carers play a critical role in ensuring that our older people, people with disabilities and those who are seriously ill can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. This is a very valuable and much valued role in our society. Since taking up office in 1997, the Government has been committed to supporting care in the community to the maximum extent possible. Over that period, weekly payment rates to carers have been greatly increased, qualifying conditions for carer's allowance have been significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer's benefit and the respite care grant have been introduced and extended.

As a result of these improvements, there are now over 34,000 carers in receipt of either carer's allowance or carer's benefit. These carers also receive a respite care grant, along with almost 10,000 other carers who do not qualify for weekly carer payments. The numbers availing of these schemes are continuously increasing. These improvements have been made in the context of continued developments in areas such as needs assessment and home care packages, which are also designed to facilitate the care of people in their own homes for as long as possible.

One of the key Government commitments to carers is the development of a national strategy. One of the recommendations of the report on the position of full-time carers, by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, was that such a strategy should be developed.

We are now in a position to act on that recommendation. This strategy will focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community. While social welfare supports for carers will clearly be a key issue in the strategy, other issues such as access to respite, health and other services, education, training and employment will also feature strongly.

Co-operation between relevant Departments and agencies is essential if the provision of services, supports and entitlements for carers is to be fully addressed. All relevant Departments and agencies will be involved in the strategy and there will be appropriate consultation with the social partners. An inter-departmental working group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, is being established to draw up the strategy and to manage the consultation process. It is expected that the strategy will be completed by the summer of 2008.

In the meantime, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is pleased to announce further improvements to the income supports available to carers which build on the significant improvements in recent years. As in previous years, there is an increase in the payment rates for carers. With effect from next January, the rate of carers' allowance will increase by €14, bringing the rate for carers over 66 years to €232 per week and carers under 66 years to €214 a week, while the rate of carers' benefit will increase by €14 to €214.70 per week. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs is pleased to announce an increase of €200 in the rate of the respite care grant to €1,700 from June 2008. This will allow over 48,000 carers next year to have a well deserved break from their caring duties and is a positive step towards the achievement of our commitment to increase the respite care grant to €3,000 per year over the lifetime of the Government.

The level of the income disregards for the carers' allowance has been increased to €332.50 per week for a single person and to €665 per week for a couple. This means that a couple can earn up to €60,150 per annum and still receive a reduced rate of carers' allowance as well as the associated free travel and household benefits. This measure surpasses the commitment in Towards 2016 to ensure that those on average industrial earnings can continue to qualify for a full carers' allowance. Similarly, the income threshold for carers' benefit has been increased to €332.50 per week. These improvements in the income supports available from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, with the improvements in home care and related services in recent years, represent a further realisation of the Government's vision of a co-ordinated approach to services and supports for carers in the community. The development of a national carers' strategy provides us with an opportunity to build further on these improvements and to consider other areas where progress can be made.

A priority concern in approaching this budget was to maintain the value of the lowest social welfare rates in keeping with the commitments in the programme for Government and the national action plan for social inclusion. The rates of payments to people with disabilities, the unemployed, widows and lone parents, to mention just a few of the groups, have increased by €12 or approximately 6.5%. The value of the qualified adult allowance for these payments is also being increased by €8 a week. As a result of the budget, a couple dependent on jobseekers' allowance with no other earnings will be over €1,000 better off next year, while a single unemployed person will gain by over €650.

These increases are well ahead of projected increases in both prices and earnings. Thus, for the fifth year in a row, social welfare rates have grown faster than prices and earnings. Since 2004, the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 58% compared to cumulative price increases of 15% in the same period. In 2004, the lowest social welfare rate of payment equated to 24% of gross average industrial earnings. It will now stand at 30%. These are significant achievements and a key priority has been to protect the value of social welfare payments.

The social welfare budget package sets aside nearly €148 million, or €194 million when the early child care supplement is included, to improve the range of supports provided for children. These include increases in child benefit of €6 for the first two children and €8 for the third and subsequent children and an additional €2 per week in the qualified child increase, formerly called the child dependant allowance, which is paid to all social welfare recipients with children. The threshold for family income supplement has increased by €10 per week for each child, which will result in payments increasing by €6 a week per child. These improvements will benefit some 26,500 existing families and entitle a further 2,700 families to the payment. Other supports for children include improvements in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and an increase of €100 per child in the level of the early child care supplement which is paid to families with children under the age of six.

The impact of these measures is best illustrated by way of an example. Take the case of a social welfare-dependent family with three children, one under six years of age and another over twelve years of age. As a result of this year's budget, the combined value of child support payments to that family will increase by €718 in a full year, bringing their total child income support to over €12,000 next year. This equates to an income support payment of €77 per child per week and represents an increase of over 6% in the value of their current payments.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs is particularly pleased to be able to increase the widowed parent grant by €2,000 to €6,000. This is an important measure for the families concerned, giving them a timely financial boost at a time of bereavement and great personal loss which is frequently compounded by economic uncertainty and concerns about the future. The Minister is also pleased to have been able to assist the Family Support Agency to improve the range of services it supports, including in the area of bereavement and family counselling. Additional funding is being provided for the school meals programme, which has been greatly expanded this year to the benefit of some 175,000 pupils in 1,800 schools. Total expenditure next year will rise to €32 million and the priority will be to expand the scheme to a further tranche of schools in the Department of Education and Science's delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, action plan.

Adequate income support is only part of the solution for people and families who are living in poverty. They need more than just money; they need a lasting solution to their difficulties and the necessary supports to help them make their way to a more promising future. That is why activation and participation in employment, education, training and personal development opportunities have become an increasingly important part of the Department of Social and Family Affairs's activities. To improve the effectiveness of these measures, it has been decided to amalgamate two initiatives run by the Department and to significantly increase the funding provided to them. The revamped activation and family support programme will have a budget of €6.5 million next year. It will provide funding for projects run by third parties to assist welfare recipients and members of their families to enhance their employability through education, training and personal development. It will also provide, or co-fund, training and development programmes for particularly disadvantaged social welfare customers and their families, including very young lone mothers, other parents rearing children without the support of a partner, carers, Travellers and people with disabilities.

Provision has been made in the Department of Social and Family Affairs's administrative budget for the deployment of an additional 30 facilitators with clerical support staff next year as the first stage in a radical development of activation supports provided by the Department. Funded under the national development plan, this programme will provide for the individual case management of all social welfare customers of working age who are not progressing into employment or accessing training or employment opportunities. The approach will be proactive, outcome focused and specifically directed towards those who, because of their personal or family circumstances, face particular difficulties in engaging with the labour market.

The budget makes provision for other measures designed to assist people in the progression from welfare to work. These include an increase in the upper income threshold for entitlement to one-parent family payment and a reform of the method of assessing earnings for that scheme by disregarding social insurance and other employment related contributions. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs is increasing the cost of education allowance by €100 to €500 per annum.

I have not dealt with all the measures in the social welfare package; time prevents me doing so. This is a strong package of measures. It provides for a real increase in all social welfare payments. This accounts for at least 50% of the extra money made available by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, in yesterday's budget. It takes a decisive step forward in implementing several commitments in the programme for Government and clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of society.

I asked the Minister a question and I would like an answer. Does he believe the income threshold for medical card holders at €184 per week is fair? I seek a simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

The question is inappropriate at this stage. The Minister had the option of talking about that matter.

I am sure the Minister would love to answer.

If we had a lot more money from the entire scheme, we might be able to divide it up better.

"Yes" or "No" would be good enough for me.

The average payment to a GP on the medical card system is €220,000.

How many people does the Minister pay out of his €250,000 salary?

I wish to share time with Deputies Neville and Burke.

In a radio interview four years ago, then Minister for Finance, former Deputy Charlie McCreevy, told us there were only three socialists in the Dáil, one being the Taoiseach and another, he later explained, former Deputy Joe Higgins. Mr. McCreevy left us speculating on the identity of the third comrade. After yesterday's tax and spend budget we can be certain that Deputy Cowen has been unmasked, at long last, as the third socialist in the Dáil.

We have witnessed in the past year an extraordinary turnaround in the public finances, the worst in the history of the State. A €2.3 billion Exchequer surplus has been transformed into a €4.9 billion deficit. The Minister expects this deficit to rise to €5.8 billion in 2009, equivalent to more than €5,000 in borrowings for every family in the State. Over the past three years Deputy Cowen has ridden the roller-coaster of economic growth in revenue buoyancy. He used major increases in revenue from stamp duty, VAT and income tax, most of which were created by the debt-fuelled housing boom, a Government initiative geared to increase spending and cut taxes. With the downturn in the economy for the first time this Tánaiste, Minister and Government have had to make some real economic decisions.

He should have introduced a reforming budget that would have brought about real public sector reform, the insistence on a 2% efficiency target for every Department and State agency, the deferral of the pay hikes for senior Ministers and public servants and the allocation of resources only to those Ministers who were prepared to accept service targets in tandem with resources. He should also have insisted on a root and branch reform of the 400 or more quangos that are funded by the taxpayer. Instead of embracing and driving reform he opted to return to old fashioned tax and spend economics, borrowing €4.9 billion to plug the hole in the public finances. This old fashioned socialist solution did not work in the late 1970s under then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch or under Charles Haughey as Taoiseach, and it certainly will not work now. It will become very clear to everyone by the end of the year that the deficit will be even larger than the Tánaiste has projected. When we meet again this time next year he will not be able to afford to do the tax and spend Houdini trick all over again.

In examining some of the key points of the budget, one must comment on the 8.2% increase in day to day spending. That is not an investment in capital infrastructure but rather an 8.2% increase in day to day spending, equivalent to €4 billion in tax. Yet everyone knows there will not be any real improvement in the public services with that money. In any other country, if the Government was going to increase spending by 8.2%, people would expect and get major increases in public services. If spending is to be increased by more than the growth rate, or more than inflation, one should be able to deliver real benchmarkable improvements in public services. Yet, in his budget speech, the Minister did not set out what those improvements would be and conveniently, he cannot be benchmarked against them. Most people will probably be worse off by this time next year as a consequence of this budget. According to the Minister's figures income tax changes will give an extra €2 to €22 per week to every taxpayer. It is pretty clear, however, that these increases will be wiped out, initially by inflation. I note the inflation target has been revised upwards by the Minister as a consequence of the budget. Motor taxes will increase by 10% and there are increases in hospital and accident and emergency charges. There will be increases in the excise duty on cheques and in the cost of medicines through raising the thresholds of the drug payments scheme, DPS. Some 750,000 people will be paying the higher rate of income tax of 41%. That is more than the one fifth of income earners suggested by the Taoiseach this morning. In fact someone who earns €13 more than the average industrial wage will be paying the higher rate of income tax. Anyone with a sense of justice can see how unfair it is for people on relatively modest incomes — families on €65,000, single people on €35,000 — to be faced with paying the higher 41% rate of income tax.

It is obvious that any attempt to drive public sector reform is missing from the budget. Take for example the 7% to 8% increase offered in the case of the HSE. The HSE could not deliver the same level of service this year as it did last year with 11% and 12% increases. How will it manage on a 7% to 8% increase without insisting on real reform? Something fundamental is missing in the budget too, namely the provision for the inflation rate in public sector pay rises that will happen as a result of social partnership. Also, where is the provision for the benchmarking increases? Many people such as SIPTU president, Mr. Jack O'Connor and other union leaders expect their members will do very well out of benchmarking, and yet according to the budget secondary school teachers' salaries will only rise by 5%. Given that a new secondary school is being built in my area and a number are under construction around the country, I do not see how the Minister, with a 5% provision, can deliver the benchmarking pay increases he promised — and should not deliver, by the way — and also provide for new teachers. The same argument applies to the Defence Forces, with 6%, the HSE with 4% and the Minister's Department, with 4%. Either people will have to take a pay cut in real terms or alternatively, these figures are not real at all. In the event, we will see Supplementary Estimates and overruns later in the year as the Government is forced to pay out and increase the public sector pay bill yet again.

A few areas where spending did not need to be increased deserve to be commented on. For example, in the enterprise and employment area, there is an 11% increase for the Competition Authority. I support and am enthusiastic about the work of the Competition Authority, but what is the point in giving a body such as that an 11% increase in the budget if the Government ignores all its reports? Either it takes the Competition Authority seriously and increases its budget, or if not, its budget should not be increased. The same argument applies to FÁS, where €800 million is being spent. There is very little evidence that many of its initiatives are training schemes at all. There is little evidence that many of the training schemes actually move people into employment. Why was there not a full audit of how FÁS spends its money before agreeing to an increase?

As regards welfare, everyone welcomes the increases in pensions and I acknowledge what the Government has done in this regard in particular. However, there are large numbers of people in the State who do not need to be on welfare. If one takes the example of the Nordic countries, Norway, Finland and Denmark in particular, labour force participation excluding women in the home — I appreciate that in Nordic countries more women are in paid work — is much higher than in Ireland, because they do not have large numbers of people on invalidity and long-term unemployment benefit. In many cases people are on those benefits quite dubiously as it is decided they have a certain illness and they are effectively just written off because of social partnership and Government policy. They are just given €200 a week or whatever and forgotten about. Instead, we should be assisting people who can work by giving them the skills they need, using a carrot and stick approach, admittedly, to lift them out of poverty and welfare, giving the opportunity — and requirement — if they can work, to properly enter the workforce. In this way we can save money, create wealth and expand the labour force. Why do we accept that a country as wealthy as ours and an economy so strong should have so many people living on welfare? Certainly, there are people who need to be on welfare, but there are many who do not. It is not that people in Denmark or Norway are somehow sicker or more disabled than Irish people. There is a serious problem with our welfare system and there is no attempt to reform it.

Obviously we welcome the changes in stamp duty, although they are somewhat late. I have a real concern, however, as regards the Tánaiste's ability to become a Taoiseach. One needs a strong person as Taoiseach in this State, someone who will stick by his or her principles and not fall over when coming under pressure from the Opposition, the Sunday Independent and the builders. Deputy Cowen has not taken many stands in his political career, but stamp duty was one of them. Yet, when he came under pressure he showed that he could buckle and that is not an encouraging sign for a potential Taoiseach who must face much more difficult challenges than those we have seen in the last ten years.

I want to mention some of the things Fine Gael would do differently, and that is crucial in this debate. Had we been in power up to now, we should have kept public spending under control and not allowed it to rise by 11% and 12% in the last few years. We did that when we were in power on the last occasion. Our tax reductions would have been much more restrained than Deputy Cowen's and as a result we would have built a much larger surplus, one that would now be used to stimulate the economy, instead of what the Minister is doing, namely, borrowing enormous amounts of money to provide such economic stimulus.

We would bring about real public sector reform, setting a 2% efficiency target similar to the UK, where efficiencies were squeezed and the numbers in administrative positions were reduced by 15%. As a result real improvements were delivered at the frontline in terms of nurses, teachers and policemen. We would change the way the budget works. Currently, each agency calculates how much it spent last year, works out how much it needs for next year and then gets an increase. One should start with zero. We would defer the pay hikes to the high earners in the public sector until they agreed efficiency targets and only give extra funds to Ministers who say what they will deliver with the money. They would not get any more money if they did not deliver. We would have a root and branch reform of quangos. A total of 450 quangos now exist, all of which have chief executives and press offices, and many of their reports are unnecessary. We would also involve the private sector in delivering some of the capital investment on a design, build and operate basis. This is the divergence in economic policy between the two parties in this House. The time has come for reform and we need a reforming Minister for Finance, not somebody who takes the easy options as the Minister did.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the budget. Yesterday, I was extremely concerned about the absence of any reference to the delivery of resources for psychiatric services and suicide prevention. A Government commitment to ensuring our psychiatric services are supported or providing the resources required to bring them up to a level of modern efficiency was not mentioned on any occasion or in any supporting document. The fact that, each year, 500 people take their lives was ignored and no commitment was made to support provisions for suicide prevention, research into why it happens or assisting those bereaved by suicide.

The public has no confidence in support services for people who are suicidal. According to a recent survey, only 7% of people stated that if they were in crisis, they would look to an organ of the State for support. Of those surveyed, 50% identified the Samaritans and 22% identified AWARE as services for people in crisis. These are non-governmental organisations. It is of concern that 28% of people stated they were unaware of any services available to people who were suicidal.

This is a serious indictment of the Government's concerns for people who are suicidal, in crisis and in need of support. Immediate investment should be made in psychotherapy and counselling services in all communities and this should be readily available as part of community-based psychiatric teams. We did not hear anything about this yesterday. I am concerned that while lip service is paid occasionally, resources are not supplied at the level required. Ten years ago, up to 10% of the total health budget was applied to psychiatric services. This has been reduced to 7%.

We urgently need greater psychological input in mental health care. In December 1984, a report, Planning for the Future, outlined the urgency required with regard to the input of psychological services in dealing with the treatment of mental illness. Last year, in a submission to the Joint Committee on Health and Children, the Irish College of Psychiatry stated that 83% of psychiatric consultants do not have access to a psychotherapist, 76% do not have access to a family therapist and 33% do not have access to an occupational therapist.

A senior consultant psychiatrist in the public service informed the Oireachtas committee that he has 480 patients with a staff complement of one community nurse, one social worker, two junior doctors, who change every six months, and one third of a psychologist. Mental illness treatment requires more time per patient than such a regime permits. Yesterday, the Minister in his budget ignored this area of urgent concern. The Government has no interest in or commitment to investment in developing mental health services. We urgently require balance of all disciplines involved in treating mental illness.

The Minister of State might state that I argue this on a regular basis. To support what I state and to show it is not only words or that only I say this, I will quote from the most recent report of the Mental Health Commission on this matter. This commission was established by the Government as an independent body:

Mental health services are managed at catchment level by senior management teams (SMTs) which consists in most cases of the clinical director, director of nursing and hospital manager. There were a few exceptions where the senior management teams were multidisciplinary, one example being in the Mayo mental health services. Most senior management teams have no representations from disciplines such as occupational therapy, social work and psychology. While the vast majority of services have signed up to multidisciplinary team working at service delivery this is not reflected at management level. The Inspectorate was unable to obtain any logical reason as to why this was the case, but the apparent resistance to widening the senior management base is surprising. In view of this, the time when service users will be represented at management level seems very distant.

It was suggested in 1984 that service users be involved in management. This report states this seems distant:

Communication and being part of the decision-making process were two areas where there was evidence of failure of management. The majority of senior management teams did not feel that they were part of the decision-making process. There was little evidence of effective catchment management teams. Time after time the Inspectorate was informed by senior management teams of the lack of communication from local health managers. SMTs are rarely integral participants in the planning of mental health services. Many are informed of decisions about their service rather than being part of the decision-making process. Indeed, some senior management teams heard of decisions that were made for their services for the first time from the Inspectorate.

The senior management teams learned of the decisions from the inspectorate inquiring into how they manage when they should have been involved in making those decisions. The report further states:

The difficulties that the Inspectorate had in obtaining information about plans for catchment services mirrored the difficulties that senior management teams had in obtaining information about plans for their own services.

The inspectorate was unable to find out the full case because of the inefficiencies and type of approach taken by the roll-out of our psychiatric services. It is an indictment of the Government that during the past ten years, while lip service was paid to this, nothing has happened and resources have not been allocated. On numerous occasions, particularly over the past five and a half years, we heard in this House about the Government's commitment to multidisciplinary teams. The inspectorate reports that it is not happening:

In the majority of catchment areas, the Inspectorate was left with no clear idea as to the future of the service over the next five years. Therefore it appears that resources will continue to be allocated on an ad hoc basis, with little contribution from the services themselves as to where resources are most needed.

It was quite evident that some senior management teams were not functioning and were not motivated in being part of the planning process. The Inspectorate was surprised at the lethargy demonstrated by some senior management teams which had not sought to have input into decision making. This could be looked on as a measure of the frustration that senior management teams feel about the future of the service and their role within it.

It is an indictment of any service if the management does not operate efficiently, is not in control, does not know what is happening, is not involved in decision-making and is not pivotal to how the service is run. I could quote from the report for half an hour but I have expressed the need for a hands on approach to ensure our mental health services are of concern to the Government and to the Health Service Executive. I cannot get a response regarding why the HIQA report on conditions in our hospitals, which was otherwise quite informative, ignored psychiatric hospitals. The conditions experienced by psychiatric patients should be just as deserving of scrutiny as those of general hospital patients. Did the Government fail to recommend that HIQA should investigate conditions in psychiatric hospitals because it was aware of the Dickensian conditions of some of them?

I thank my colleagues for sharing their time.

One would have expected the Tánaiste to reflect on the provisions of last year's budget before introducing the present one. A glaring example of his failure to implement the last budget was the provision for boosting tourism in rural Ireland. He announced tax incentives for tourism-related projects in the middle Shannon region, part of which lies in his constituency. After several letters were written by people, who are anxious to take the opportunity to develop tourism in this area, to the various Ministers with responsibility for implementing this scheme, the reply to a parliamentary question I put down last week revealed that guidelines have not yet been put in place for the implementation of the scheme by the Department of Finance or the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Application forms are not yet available and the board which was to oversee the projects has not been appointed. The Government has not even sent the details of the scheme to Europe for ratification.

Development in rural Ireland, particularly in tourism, must not be a priority for the Government if the Tánaiste is not prepared to progress this scheme in parts of his constituency. A pilot scheme implemented in the upper Shannon region by the previous Minister for Finance kick-started development there but the Tánaiste has neglected the middle Shannon region. Nothing has been done on the ground so where have the funds gone that were provided last year?

Several of the Tánaiste's proposals for the transport sector are welcome, particularly the western railway corridor between Athenry and Ennis. It is hoped that work will continue on this important part of the infrastructure of the west. However, if the Government, the NRA and local authorities throughout the country are serious about road safety, why did the NRA decide to withdraw 11 proposals to develop rest areas along national primary routes? It is a bizarre decision, particularly in the aftermath of last week's tragic accident in County Meath in which a family had to stop on the side of a national route and a child was killed when a van hit their car. If the Minister for Transport appreciates the country's concerns regarding road safety, I urge him to direct the NRA to change its nonsensical proposal. Much has been said about the matter and attempts have been made to address it but the 200 road deaths in the past five years which were attributable to driver fatigue make clear the importance of reverting to the original plan to provide rest areas. The reasons given by the NRA for its decision in terms of anti-social behaviour and even prostitution are ludicrous in the extreme. As long as it continues dreaming in that way, it is certainly not interested in road safety.

A number of Deputies have noted failures in areas of the budget, the first casualty of which is education. Recently the Minister for Education and Science directed that 30 school projects be halted. While she did not give a reason for her decision, the country's cats and dogs know it was because of inadequate funding. Now that additional funding for capital projects has been announced, will the aforementioned 30 projects be progressed? Many projects have been implemented in rural schools and efforts have been made to provide reasonable conditions for students and staff, but the limits to the funding provided must be revised so as to return the initiative to local boards of management. How will the Minister support the additional 13,000 students in the coming year with the resources available to her? She has hidden for the past two days because she failed at Cabinet to get adequate funding for education.

We were told that an additional €35 million has been provided for cancer care. I have asked the Minister for Health and Children about the funding available to hospitals from which cancer services have transferred. Have the funds and personnel for these services also been transferred and, if so, what will this entail? It is clear from the increase in the charge for accident and emergency services from €60 to €66 that the Government is attempting to create a smokescreen to allow it to introduce another dirty dozen cutbacks which will affect the old, the sick and the needy.

I wish to share time with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Jimmy Devins, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, and Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy John McGuinness.

It was interesting to hear Deputy Varadkar refer to the role of the medical profession in the area of social welfare and disability. I suspect Irish people are as healthy as those in other nations. Perhaps the Deputy, in his role as a member of the medical profession, will inform the House how he proposes to reduce the number of people who are economically inactive.

I would be pleased to do so if the Minister of State is genuinely interested in the issue.

I would be very interested to hear the Deputy's proposals.

We could adopt the Dutch certification model using independent doctors.

In respect of the area for which I am responsible, I welcome the €12.5 million increase in funding for drugs programmes in 2008, which the Minister for Finance announced in yesterday's budget. This increase of more than 25% constitutes a major funding boost for drugs programmes next year and builds on increases in funding secured for these programmes in the past three years. It reaffirms the high priority the Government continues to give to tackling the drugs problem.

The 2008 allocation of €64 million, of which almost €56 million is current funding and €8 million is capital funding, will facilitate progress towards the fulfilment of drug-related commitments in the programme for Government. From the debate on the drugs strategy in the House last week, it is clear the Government approach enjoys cross-party support. I look forward to receiving the support of all Members in rolling out facilities to assist communities in addressing drug-related issues in their localities.

With respect to the work of drugs task forces, the additional funding will allow for further progress towards the full implementation of the agreed work programmes of the regional drugs task forces, the development and strengthening of local drugs task forces programmes and the full implementation of the emerging needs fund. The allocation will also cover the provision of more facilities and services for young people between the ages of ten and 21 years who are at risk of becoming involved with drugs.

Support, encouragement and confidence building for young people are vital. In my years as a teacher and through my experience working in the youth and voluntary sector, I have witnessed at first hand the positive effects which can arise from giving disadvantaged young people extra support and encouragement at an early stage. The allocation will also facilitate the expansion of the operation of the fund to some further towns, primarily in Leinster. I will engage with the regional drugs task forces to identify the towns they consider most appropriate for the roll-out of this programme.

This funding will not only consolidate the valuable and ongoing work being done under the drugs initiatives but will provide funding to roll out those aspects of the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the working group on drugs rehabilitation, with its focus on the development of an effective inter-agency approach based on a continuum of care for the individual, which pertain to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

The tragic events of recent weeks have highlighted the increasing threat to society from cocaine misuse. The Government sets a high priority on tackling this issue. I intend to increase funding aimed at dealing with this threat through ensuring the implementation of the recommendations, as appropriate, of the report, An Overview of Cocaine Use in Ireland, published by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs in March this year.

Furthermore, I intend providing funding to initiate the development of a number of projects to tackle the drugs problem in Limerick city, based on the vision statements of the two Limerick regeneration boards which are due early in the new year. The operational timespan for the current national drugs strategy is drawing to a conclusion and I am initiating the process which will lead to the formulation of a new national drugs strategy for the period after 2008. This will be a collaborative exercise between Departments and agencies and the community and voluntary sectors. Many challenges will face us in the years ahead and for this reason I am anxious to become actively engaged with various interest groups. In particular, I wish to engage with young people in the coming year to establish how they believe they can contribute to addressing a difficult social issue. I expect the steering group will meet in the next two weeks to initiate the consultation process, after which we will enter full-scale consultations with the various stakeholders.

I acknowledge the deep interest and leadership Deputy Neville has shown in the area of suicide prevention. The Deputy made some interesting references to the lack of support services in the youth psychiatric area. From my engagement with the Health Service Executive, specifically its primary and continuing community care teams, I am convinced it is determined to ensure this aspect of care is addressed. Only last week, I saw a very good initiative which is operated under the aegis of Arbour House in Cork. The facility, which is under construction in St. Finbar's Hospital in Cork, is a new centre of excellence that will provide integrated services and comprehensive care for a wide range of patients, including drug misusers and people affected by related problems.

We face many challenges in this area and I have no doubt the next strategy, which will extend to 2016, will require periods of review and evaluation, as has been the case with previous phases of the national drugs strategy. With considerable cross-party support in the House, it is possible to overcome these difficult challenges.

I am pleased, as Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with special responsibility for people with disabilities and mental health, to congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, on continuing the tradition which has built up over the years of providing funding each year in his budget for people with disabilities. The provision of this funding continues to support the national disability strategy launched in September 2004. This strategy reinforces equal participation in society for people with disabilities and provides for a framework of new supports for people with disabilities. The programme, with the enhancement of other key support services, are key factors in building the additional capacity required to ensure services best meet identified needs.

The strategy builds on a strong equality framework, which is reflected in a range of important legislation, and places the policy of mainstreaming public services for people with disabilities on a clear legal footing. Its main elements are the Disability Act 2005, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, sectoral plans published in 2006 by six Departments, the Citizens Information Act 2007 and the multiannual investment programme for disability support services for the period 2006 to 2009.

In launching the national disability strategy the Taoiseach announced the Government's commitment to a multiannual investment for disability specific services over a five-year period. The Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, has consistently delivered the resources for people with disabilities since the launch of the strategy in 2004. The additional funding of €50 million provided in the 2008 budget is in line with the original multiannual commitment. The funding allocated in the budget is to meet the costs associated with a range of elements in the multiannual investment programme.

For each of the past three years, the investment programme funding has been used to create additional residential day and respite places for persons with a disability. We have been provided with funding for 255 new residential places, 85 new respite places and 535 new day places in the intellectual disability and autism areas. In addition, the implementation of the plan to transfer persons with intellectual disability or autism from psychiatric hospitals and other inappropriate placements will continue to be progressed.

In regard to services for persons with physical or sensory disability we have provided funding for a further 80 new residential places and there are also resources for 250,000 extra hours of home support and personal assistance. The additional €50 million announced in the budget will continue to provide a baseline to considerably enhance the multidisciplinary support services for people with disabilities in line with the Government's commitment to build capacity within the health services and to deliver on the various legislative provisions in the national disability strategy that I have just outlined.

Since 1997 the Government has had a clear and effective strategy on the planning and delivery of health funded services for people with disabilities. The Government, through the strategy and, in particular, the funding measures I have outlined, is building on the very significant additional investment that has already been made in these services. In all, additional funding, amounting to €851 million, revenue and capital, has been invested in health funded support services for people with disabilities since 1997. This funding has also allowed for the commencement of Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 which, as Deputies are aware, is a key element of the national disability strategy.

Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 was commenced on 1 June 2007 for children under the age of five. This gives people with disabilities an entitlement to an independent assessment of health and education needs and a service statement identifying the services to be delivered. A system of complaints and appeals has also been established. This is a welcome significant step towards enhancing the level of support available to persons with disabilities.

This is the first time that an independent assessment of need, conducted according to standards laid down by an independent agency, the Health Information and Quality Authority, will be available. The implementation of the Act will also give us an accurate picture of service provision and of areas for improvement across the system into the future, through the provision of an annual report to the Minister, which will outline information on service provision and unmet need.

The mental health service is underpinned by comprehensive policy frameworks outlined in A Vision for Change and Reach Out. Furthermore it is supported by legislative reforms in the Mental Health Act 2001 and has been allocated substantial additional funding in recent years.

In 2008 we will reap the rewards of that additional investment. I am happy to report that the impact of increased funding in child and adolescent mental health services will be realised next year. The HSE is proceeding with the recruitment of eight child and adolescent multidisciplinary teams, two for Dublin mid-Leinster, two for Dublin north east, two for the south and two for the west. As an interim arrangement 18 additional beds will come on stream in 2008.

The HSE has informed me it will fast-track the appointment of staff to facilitate the commissioning of these additional beds so that, by the end of 2008, there will be 30 beds in place. This represents a significant increase and is a most welcome development for such a vulnerable group. Meanwhile the construction of two 20-bed units will get under way, one in Cork and one in Galway.

In light of the information available around suicide and self harm, it has been agreed with the National Office for Suicide Prevention that an interim target for a 10% reduction in suicide should be achieved by 2010. In addition, a 5% reduction in repeated self harm by the same year and a further 5% by 2016 is the target. I accept that these are ambitious targets but I assure the House that I am committed to doing my utmost to ensure that they are achieved. To do so we must build on the success of the initiatives already in place. This work is ongoing and will continue in the coming year.

In regard to my brief in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment I am delighted to inform the House that in regard to the continuation of existing programmes and schemes to promote FÁS training and employment services for people with disabilities, which include specialist training provision, supported employment, wage subsidy schemes and disability support and awareness, a total budget of €77 million has been provided in 2008 for these purposes.

I thank my colleague the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, for his continued support for people with disabilities and mental health problems.

This is a sensible, prudent and responsible budget which enables us to retain the gains of recent years and to consolidate and build for the future. By following the course outlined by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, our economy will continue to grow to the benefit of all our people. Certainly this is no time for pessimism and I find the negative attitude of the Fine Gael Party extraordinary. There is no basis for such pessimism. It is still unbelievable that after ten years in which 600,000 new jobs have been created, which is more than one in four of all jobs in the economy, Fine Gael should talk about a jobs crisis. Not only is it unbelievable, it is deplorable.

The ability of an economy to create new and better jobs to replace those that are lost is the real test of competitiveness. Last year total employment exceeded 2 million for the first time and net job creation in agencies such as the IDA and Enterprise Ireland was the highest since 2000. When the Fine Gael Party attempts to talk down this reality it is impossible to take it seriously. These are not the words of a Minister attempting to score partisan points. There is a real concern in the business community that we could talk ourselves into trouble. The Small Firms Association said that, "the single most important thing required for budget 2008 is for the Government to instil confidence back into the economy in the budget speech and through prudent economic management going forward". It went on to say that, "We need the Government and its agencies to speak out in support of the economy and mitigate media reporting of us being on the verge of collapse as this the very thing that will bring us there".

This budget will instil the confidence called for by the Small Firms Association. The Fine Gael Party is great to point out problems but very slow to point out solutions or to tell us what it might actually do if it had the opportunity. Last week the Fine Gael Party complained that public spending is at a level equivalent to 31% of GNP as opposed to 25%. This, according to Fine Gael, is a bad thing. Some 6% of GNP is in the region of €10 billion and as we all know the vast bulk of Government spending goes on health, education and social spending. Social welfare spending in 2008 will amount to €17 billion compared to €9 billion in 2002.

The Minister has provided for large increases to carers, pensioners and parents in recent years. Which of the welfare increases would the Fine Gael Party reverse? Where would it take the axe to spending? Would that axe include the respite grant? We did not have one when that party was last in office. Fine Gael attacks on the level of public spending are just hollow rhetoric. We know only too well that whatever Deputy Bruton might say in the wake of a budget he will be contradicted by his front bench spokespersons. For example, Deputy Enright is disappointed that more has not been spent on the welfare budget. Likewise, Deputy Brian Hayes complains of only a 9% increase in primary funding and 5% in post-primary. Deputy Bruton says we are spending too much while his colleagues say it is too little.

This country has a competitive economy and we can be confident in our ability to meet international challenges. That said, I am not complacent either. The world is ever changing and we need to be agile and flexible. Sustaining our economic growth will increasingly be innovation and knowledge driven. The value of this innovation triangle has been recognised at EU level through the substantial increase in funds for the Seventh Framework Programme and the creation of the European research area.

There is also recognition at EU level of the need to intensify the pace of the Lisbon driven reforms and to make the EU more innovation friendly by creating comprehensive framework conditions for exploiting old forms of innovation across the policy spectrum. At a recent EU competitiveness council I fully endorsed the council's conclusion calling for a strong emphasis on the importance of science, research and development, innovation, skills, training policies and better regulations. These are the ingredients of modern competitive economies. We cannot always compete on cost but we can compete on the strength of our knowledge base, innovation culture and the skills of our people.

As a small open economy we are particularly vulnerable to the external factors that weaken our cost base. The solution lies in supporting innovation, improving the productivity of labour through balanced regulation, increasing knowledge and skills and in playing to our strengths by tapping into our innate ability as networkers and for building partnerships. Success does not depend on Government policy alone, it requires a joint commitment by enterprise, society and Government to promote innovation in every sphere of business and public service. As Minister of State responsible for innovation policy, I am determined to build a national innovation agenda for Ireland which will create a greater awareness of a demand for innovation throughout the economy. I will shortly publish a policy statement on innovation which will act as a guide to our approach in fostering innovation demand and an innovation culture in the economy and society. Current research already shows that our innovation levels are rising in terms of, for example, implementation of the strategy for science, technology and innovation, and we are heading firmly in the right direction in terms of meeting our Lisbon targets.

We have excellent entrepreneurship capabilities and support and are consistently performing in a top quartile in terms of rates of entrepreneurship. The development agencies provide essential business and other supports throughout the regions and will direct supports towards better exploitation of innovation, including eco-innovation and creativity, in both manufacturing and services.

We have consistently recognised the importance of building strength and capacity among indigenous firms. Consequently, we have helped those with high potential to upskill, invest in research and innovation and use the opportunities of globalisation to internationalise their operations. This does not include the focus on export markets alone, but covers technology acquisition, finding partners and other forms of international collaboration.

Effective networking is also important as a catalyst to change and innovation that is part and parcel of the approach to business supports by our agencies, such as Enterprise Ireland. It also plays a key part in critical EU-funded programmes such as the seventh framework programme, or FP7, that is driving the research agenda across Europe and which will support our ambitious objectives to become a highly innovative and knowledge-driven economy.

I welcome the decision of the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to extend the research and development tax credits scheme for a further four years. This will encourage Irish business and research institutions to continue to build up the research and innovation base and progress towards the objective of the strategy for science, technology and innovation, namely, to put Ireland to the forefront in generating and using new knowledge for economic and social progress. I commend the budget to the House.

I commend the budget to the House. We have had a lengthy debate on what turned out to be a very prudent budget from the Minster, Deputy Cowen. It is a budget for its time and reflects what is needed for the economy as we approach a difficult period in 2008.

Deputy Kenny referred this morning to the public service and then attempted to drive a wedge between me and my party with regard to comments I had made.

Does the Deputy know something?

I remind Deputy Kenny that my party is a broad church of thought and opinion, and that it has the internal flexibility to allow the voicing of one's opinion, including on how one feels different Departments should be directed. His weasel words on my remarks did not work.

In his speech he showed no courage whatsoever with regard to putting forward a vision for this country and explaining where he believes either the Government or Opposition should be going. He said little or nothing of substance, yet he continued to chase lurid headlines and jump on bandwagons in an effort to gain some sort of notoriety for his party.

Deputy Kenny must have rattled the Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, who seems to have listened to him.

I listened carefully because I am not afraid to admit that some of his suggestions with regard to reform of the public service are absolutely necessary, and are similar to opinions I had voiced previously. However, he presented his opinion as if that opinion was only expressed by the Opposition, which is simply untrue. It has been expressed time and again by members of my party——

The issue is the Deputy's party is not doing anything.

——and by Ministers, including the Minister for Finance. We all recognise that. It is a question of who is prepared to take the steps to bring about that reform.

They are not doing it.

I say to Deputy Hayes and his party that my party is prepared to do it. Fianna Fáil and the Minister for Finance have indicated clearly the need for that reform. If all parties in this House were to recognise this and put action behind their words, they would support us in the effort to bring about the change that is necessary to create a dynamic public service that will deliver in this time of need.

This is not a criticism of public servants. It is, in fact, a liberation of those who serve in the public service. It gives them the opportunity to play a central role in the reform of this country. Together with the unions, the Opposition and the Government, we can bring about what is necessary in the context of delivering the policies and spend for this country that will make business prosper and give us a better quality of life.

Deputy Kenny referred to value for money, but he is not the first in the House to do so. It is an issue that has been taken up by the Committee of Public Accounts in the past five years, as Deputy Hayes will know. Considerable change has resulted from the work of that committee. Its members have highlighted the loss to the Government and the State which resulted from contracts not coming in on time, overspending on contracts and so on. Through the work of the committee, we have seen new contracts put in place and major roads infrastructure coming in on time and within budget.

We have also seen changes in the Department of Finance. No longer are the views of the committee simply expressed; they are minuted by the Department of Finance and a detailed, comprehensive response is received on the issues validly raised by the committee.

The Opposition should not be afraid to recognise the valuable work and achievements of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Government. That would take an Opposition which is not only there to oppose, but also to put forward policies and recognise where right is being done in the context of Government policy. In yesterday's debate, no reference was made by the Opposition to the 1,300 net jobs being created. What we had was a litany of misinformation and the misquotation of statistics, which were taken out of context and presented in a way designed to embarrass the Government.

That would be disgraceful.

Outside in the real world there is an acknowledgement of the success of Government policy in regard to, for example, the SME sector. Yet, on the other side of the House yesterday, there was nothing but criticism and no acknowledgement of the achievements of the Government and small businesses, which work to pay their taxes so they can be spent on projects designed for the betterment of the people.

I hope the Government is not taking credit for that.

It is a shame on the Opposition that it would not recognise what is happening and would criticise the constructive work that has been undertaken by the commercial sector in this country.

We have moved from creating 75,000 jobs a year to creating 25,000.

The Opposition criticised the constructive work being undertaken by the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, organisations which go to the coalface with Irish and foreign companies and impress on them the need to do more business in Ireland. Those organisations are successful in their efforts.

I have attended a number of trade missions since my appointment in July. I have worked with many small companies which supply software packages for security systems in world banks. Those small companies are represented in the context of the jobs they are creating at home. With Enterprise Ireland, they are doing a successful job for Ireland. However, there was no mention by the Opposition yesterday of the facts of the case, just distortion.

There was not one word from the members of the Opposition on the latest achievement of the IDA, namely, the investment of €200 million and the creation of 170 jobs at Merck Sharp & Dohme through the development of a 65-acre site in Carlow. They simply talked down the economy in an attempt to talk it into recession for cheap political gain.

That is rubbish. The Government has been afraid to face reality for the past four years, which is why it is in this situation.

The Government has mismanaged the economy.

The members of the Opposition must learn from the facts of commerce. There is a clear story to be told but they did not tell it because they were afraid to do so.

Nonsense. The only fear we know has been generated by the Government, which made promises before the election it will not and cannot keep.

They should have the courage to stand up and give support where it is necessary. They are afraid to do so because they are hurt by the facts. What they seem to forget is that the people know the truth; they know of the jobs we are creating and the tax they are paying, and they know they are successful, against the odds——

The Minister of State should address his remarks through the Chair.

I am making my remarks. Those on the other side of the House refuse to listen to the truth and acknowledge what is happening out there. They do not understand that the people at the coalface——

We do understand. We remember the Minister of State being out on the plinth criticising the Government not so long ago. Does he remember it?

——doing all of this business, are the ones who look at the House and tell us how foolish the Opposition look in the context of what is being achieved.

Is the Minister of State claiming small businesses are not under pressure?

Please let the Minister of State continue.

The Opposition refuses to listen to the truth or acknowledge what is going on. It does not understand that the people who are at the coalface, doing all this business——

We understand it. We remember the Minister of State, not so long ago, out on the plinth criticising the Government.

——are the ones who come in here and tell us how foolish the Opposition looks, given what has been achieved.

Is the Minister of State saying that small business is not under pressure?

The sooner the Opposition starts to acknowledge all that, the sooner we will have better debate in this House. As regards value for money, what kind of example is Fine Gael setting when its Deputies seek electronic voting and then proceed to push everyone through the lobby?

Nobody but a bunch of clowns would try to defend electronic voting.

What example is Fine Gael giving concerning value for money when its Deputies bring ridiculous motions before the House and refuse to acknowledge the truth.

I thought the Minister of State had a modicum of intelligence but I now know that he is trying to defend the indefensible.

Fine Gael displays poor value for money, poor leadership and no vision whatsoever. The party's Deputies attempt to jump on every single bandwagon that is running.

If his defence of electronic voting is like the rest of his speech, God help Ireland.

The Deputy is the man who has most to say about everything, yet nothing to say about anything. I commend the budget to the House and I ask for a more constructive Opposition.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

In the time available to me I wish to concentrate on the social welfare aspects of the budget. I assure the Minister of State that I will not take any of these facts out of context so maybe he will listen to what I have to say. His bombast seems to indicate that he thinks there are no problems. Yesterday's budget, however, is the latest in a litany of budgets that have completely ignored child poverty. I am referring to the poorest children whose parents depend on social welfare. Currently, the official recognition of such children's situation is the qualified child allowance, which amounts to €22 per week. Clearly, somebody in government came to the view that this payment was inadequate and that it needed to be increased. Having been static for many years, it was increased yesterday by the princely sum of €2 per week, bringing the qualified child allowance to a total of €24 per week.

Leaving aside child benefit, to which every child is entitled, the only social welfare payment available for children of adults who are dependent on social welfare is the qualified child allowance, amounting to €24 a week, or €3.43 per day. Will the Minister of State explain how on earth a parent can feed and clothe a child, as well as meeting all the other expenses, on €3.43 per day? That figure is an indictment of this Government. It is a disgraceful response to the problem of child poverty.

The sum of €2, which is the cost of a sliced pan, truly represents crumbs from the rich man's table. I am genuinely concerned that there is failure to recognise the problem of child poverty at political or official level. We are a staggeringly unequal society. Some 96,000 children under the age of 14 are living in consistent poverty — that is, in a low-income household that is unable to afford adequate heat, clothing, substantial meals or other key basic necessities.

Child poverty is increasing. In addition, policy in this area is based on outdated research and perhaps proves that the whole area is over-researched. I would like any academic, social partner, civil servant or Cabinet Minister to show me the value of deliberately keeping the qualified child payment so low. What policy benefit can it possibly have? Has it stopped parents taking up employment? I do not think it has but, if so, where is the proof?

The reality is that one in nine children live in consistent poverty and it is undoubtedly related to this policy. The situation is far worse than those statistics suggest. The basic indicators do not include any measure of key indicators of poverty, such as lack of space to do homework, no washing facilities and foregoing medical visits. From now on the indicators will not even include debt problems, which should suit the Government nicely given that this area has been completely ignored in recent years.

Whatever measure one chooses, how can such a level of deprivation be acceptable, given the amount of State resources at the Government's disposal over the past ten years? I am not suggesting that income support is the only solution to the problem of child poverty but it is one of the principal ones. Welfare improvements for pensioners in recent budgets have shown what can happen when income maintenance measures are directed at specific groups. We should now place the same focus on children.

Budget 2008 has been found wanting on several other issues affecting children also. The rate of increase in child benefit in respect of the first two children is less than the current rate of inflation. The improvements in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance were paltry. They show a complete disregard for the costs faced by low-income families. Even within available resources, surely it would have been possible to match the qualifying criteria to that of the family income supplement. Is it any wonder that so many low-income children drop out of school early when such little support is available to them? Teenage children may eat like adults and the cost of clothing them is the same as clothing adults, yet a mere €3.43 is being provided per day. This puts pressure on teenage children in low-income families to leave school early to earn a living.

Paternity benefit was not mentioned in the Budget Statement despite promises to do something on that front. Like so many other promises in the programme for Government, it seems as if nothing will come of this proposal. The increase in the early child care supplement does nothing to make up for the fact that the boom is over and we have no State-funded preschool services.

Budget 2008 also fails to tackle the critical issue of refundable tax credits. This is a critical policy area in respect of taking low-income families out of poverty. It is an instrument that could be used to good effect, given our system of tax credits, but it has been ignored by the Government. The move to calculating income tax on a tax credit basis instead of a tax allowance basis has made no appreciable difference to workers. The standard rating of some tax credits could have been done quite easily under the old system. The Government has basically changed the method of calculating income tax rather than changing the calculation itself.

Without applying tax credits on a refundable basis, the move to tax credits has been largely meaningless. Without a refundable tax credit system, people outside the tax net, typically those on low wages in part-time, seasonal or term-time work, lose out on every euro in tax relief available to those inside the tax net.

Taking minimum wage earners and low-paid workers out of the tax net is not enough. Figures published last week show that 30% of all households at risk of poverty today are headed by a person with a job. The working poor need and deserve State assistance and the absence of a refundable tax credit system is preventing that from happening.

Tax credits are not the only elements of this budget that deserve our attention. Budget 2008 proves, for the few left who doubted it, that Fianna Fáil's 2007 election manifesto was a complete con job. Having had in its possession a detailed report on the social insurance fund, which clearly showed that the surplus was running out fast, it promised €645 million worth of cuts in PRSI rates and up to €2 billion worth of spending on contributory pensions. Those two promises simply could not be kept and, of course, they were not. What really should be happening on PRSI is tackling the poverty traps for low-paid workers. The Minister should be using some of the money gained from increasing the earning ceiling to introduce far better tapering arrangements for low earners, as suggested by the Combat Poverty Agency.

Budget 2008 represents another missed opportunity regarding supplementary pensions. This issue was not mentioned once in the budget, indicating an alarming lack of urgency on the Government's part. In spite of all the talk and hype about the pensions time-bomb, it is quite incredible that there was no reference at all to pensions in yesterday's Budget Statement. The Government published the Green Paper in October. Many of the issues raised in that paper warrant detailed consideration but there are some issues that require urgent reform. Chief among these is the rich man-poor man approach to pensions policy, whereby the more one contributes to one's pension, the more the State gives one back.

The Government should have indicated clearly in the Budget Statement that, from next year, the pension tax relief system would be replaced with whatever is proposed at the end of the Green Paper process. Considering this budget is supposed to be concerned with securing our future, it is astonishing that pension provision does not deserve one mention.

Figures on RACs and PRSAs released to me in response to a recent Dáil question suggest there is a great pension divide. Of those earners who availed of tax deductions on their pensions in 2004, the top 17% took 64% of the tax relief available. The very highest earners gained 33 times more than those on average wages. On average, top earners reduced their tax bill in 2004 by more than €20,000, which is more than the value of two full State pensions. By contrast, the average worker reduced his tax bill by a mere €627. This system is completely unfair. It makes no sense in respect of either fiscal prudence or tax equity.

If the basic aim of pensions policy is to ensure that everyone has enough income during his retirement, why are we spending so much Exchequer funding on those who need it least? Current pension policy over-relies on tax relief. The Government should not be sponsoring a system that affords more help to a Michael O'Leary or a Seán Quinn than to the average taxpayer. Budget 2008 should have sent a clear signal that the system of tax relief would be replaced by much fairer arrangements. Unfortunately, it failed to do so.

Social welfare rates have generally been increased by €12 which, perhaps unsurprisingly, is only approximately half of the increase provided for in budget 2007. I cannot agree with the Government or the social partners that benchmarking the lowest social welfare rates to 30% of gross average industrial earnings is in any way sufficient. To do so is to suggest that €197.80 is enough to live on if one is single, suffers from a disability or is otherwise out of the workforce. It quite simply is not enough. In an Ireland in which grocery inflation rests at 4.4% and fuel costs are rising at a rate of 17% per annum, and in which the average electricity bill is approximately €150, it is simply not enough to expect one to survive on less than €200 per week. Could any of us in this Chamber really envisage being able to live on that sum?

I welcome the increase in the qualified adult allowance for pensioner spouses. This is an important issue and I acknowledge the generosity of the increase. However, the general increase in pension rates is much lower than expected. It seems the Government has ignored pleas from groups representing the elderly to front-load the promised rate increase. If the increase were to be spread evenly over five years, it would amount to €18.14 this year. In other words, the Government has short-changed pensioners by more than €4 per week.

For the 14th year in a row, the living alone allowance has not been increased. Traditionally pitched at around 7% of the maximum State pension, it is now at less than half of this. If it had have kept pace, the weekly payment would now be approximately €15.50, or roughly double the current rate. Claimants are effectively losing out on almost €8 per week in addition as a result of an unspoken, hidden Government policy. Almost 160,000 people receive the living alone allowance. Their costs are substantially higher than those for couples because the same heating, maintenance and electricity bills must be paid from one income instead of two. The Government has abandoned its policy in this regard by stealth and has abandoned the affected individuals in the process. It is long past time this issue was put back on the agenda.

In the programme for Government, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party promised to award the over-80s allowance to pensioner spouses. The cost of this is minuscule, and amounts to less than €3 million per year. However, the Government has failed to deliver on that promise in budget 2008. It is yet another broken promise.

The lack of progress in providing supports for lone parents is equally disappointing. The recent EU-SILC statistics show that one in three households in consistent poverty is a lone-parent household and that the level of poverty among this group is rising. Members of lone parent families have the highest deprivation levels, at almost 65%, and almost 41% of lone-parent households have experienced problems with debt.

While the Labour Party has some concerns about the Government's proposals on supporting lone parents, it supports their general thrust. We want to see activation measures for lone parents and a tougher line on maintenance payments. We also want key support services put in place so it will be possible for lone parents to move from welfare to work. To this end, there is a need for much-improved mentoring services involving key workers who would facilitate lone parents in their transition to training and education and in gaining employment. This latter area is particularly under-funded and nothing more than lip service is being paid to it at present.

Crucially, the Labour Party wants to see an end to the cohabitation rule. It makes no sense for the State to be actively encouraging parents to live apart. The Minister will be introducing a Bill in the Dáil next week to deal with budget changes and there is no reason he cannot tackle this issue in the process. Lone parents should be encouraged to move towards family formations that will be more supportive and helpful to their children. At present, ridiculous circumstances obtain whereby parents are penalised financially through the tax and welfare system if they choose to live together or get married. I am concerned over the lack of progress regarding training and child care services. The Minister talks frequently about pilot programmes but it is over 18 months since the Government's proposals on supporting lone parents were published. It is not good enough that lone parents have had to wait so long and it seems they will have to wait until well into next year before any improvements are made.

Why does the Government continue to drag its heels regarding rent supplement? Government policy is to transfer claimants from the rent supplement scheme to the rental accommodation scheme, but there are already massive waiting lists for the latter scheme. Dublin City Council tells me 1,200 people are already waiting, while another 5,500 individuals may meet the eligibility criteria. Therefore, individuals will be stuck on rent supplement for quite a while. Some 33% of current claimants have claimed for longer than 18 months, so they are entitled. It is only the Government's foot-dragging that has prevented them from being taken out of the poverty trap in which they find themselves.

The situation of carers is only very marginally improved by this budget. Carers are still waiting for the great leap forward. The Government has already reneged on a commitment to publish a national carers' strategy by the end of this year. If carers truly were a priority for the Government and the Minister, then why has it not acted sooner?

The recent figures produced by the CSO highlighted a number of issues in regard to carers which are not currently being addressed by income maintenance policies or by services. I call on the Minister to introduce that promised strategy as soon as possible. I do not know whether any work has been done on it, but there is no sign of it being produced.

A number of carer issues have not been addressed, such as carers who care for two people and who continue to be discriminated against. The means test for the back to school allowance counts carers allowance as part of the qualifying material whereas FIS does not count in the same calculation. People who move to carers allowance are not awarded credits on that allowance.

The central message from this budget is that the poor must wait. As usual the poor will face the brunt of the downturn in the economy. I very much regret that during a time of plenty over the past ten years, the Government missed the opportunity to end poverty for good, particularly child poverty. It seems the poorest of the poor will pay the price for the Government's ineptitude.

Once again I record disappointment primarily at the failure of the Minister to include a number of essential measures in this budget, the 11th presented by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats with the Green Party now added into the mix.

This budget is undoubtedly a bitter disappointment to those who were promised by this Government that more families would be entitled to the medical card. In the programme for Government, the Government parties promised to double the income limit eligibility for parents of children under six and treble it for parents of children with a disability. They have reneged on those commitments. To try to cover this broken promise, the Minister for Health and Children is supposed to be reviewing eligibility for the medical card. Why is a review needed to implement the commitment made in the programme for Government? If such a review is needed, why was the commitment made in the first place? The programme for Government promises first to index income thresholds for medical cards to increases in the average industrial wage; second, to double income limit eligibility for parents of children under six; and third, to treble the limit for parents of children with intellectual disability under 18. None of those things have been done. In fact, the medical card threshold is now lower than the lowest rate of social welfare. That is an inexplicable situation. Why it will take until next autumn to make a determination in regard to this area baffles me and many people across this State.

The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health and Children did not need a further study to cost these commitments. In October 2005, the Minister for Health and Children was able to tell me in answer to a parliamentary question that it would cost €223 million to extend the medical card to everyone under 18. As a first step towards universal, single-tier health care, that has been Sinn Féin's demand for several years. However, guess which party demanded that in its 2007 pre-budget submission? It was demanded by the "add on" party, the Green Party. It called for the introduction of medical cards for all under 18s, rolled out to children of six years and under first. The symbol of the Green Party is a tree but sadly I note its policies are blowing away like autumn leaves.

Sinn Féin warned that the budget would contain hidden cuts and charges and we did not have long to wait to see that. The Minister for Finance was hardly off his feet before the Minister for Health and Children was over in Government Buildings announcing a package that will further penalise health service users. The 10% increase in hospital charges is disgraceful. The change in the drugs payment scheme will mean that non-medical card holders will have to pay more than €90, an increase from €85 per month, for medicines before benefiting under the scheme. Once again low to middle income families have been let down and are bearing the brunt of the inequity in our health services.

There is nothing in the budget to help create greater equity in health care and it does nothing to address the health crisis. The cap on the number of people employed in the public service remains. That cap hits the health services badly, especially in front-line care. There is no special additional allocation to phase in the 3,000 extra hospital beds required. There is no special allocation to provide additional single rooms and isolation units in our hospitals to combat the spread of MRSA and other virulent hospital-based infection.

The Minister for Finance left tax breaks for developers of private for-profit hospitals in place and the shameful co-location scheme will go ahead, funded by taxpayers' money and reinforcing the two-tier system. The Government claims that it will provide 1,000 public beds through the co-location scheme but it cannot, or will not, tell us how many per hospital. We know this figure is fiction anyway because many of the private patients it hopes to transfer to the co-located hospitals will not be suitable for transfer or for initial admission to private hospitals because those facilities will not be able to provide the full range of care they require.

The biggest percentage increases in health spending are interestingly enough 146% for inquiries, legal fees and settlements and 42% to the State Claims Agency for payouts in cases of clinical negligence. This reflects the crisis in our health services and its cost in monetary terms, let alone the massive human cost.

As my colleague, the Sinn Féin finance spokesperson, Deputy Arthur Morgan, said yesterday, this is a minimalist budget. The Government is hoping that successful lowering of public expectations will allow it to present this budget in a positive light but I warrant that the public will not be fooled. It is plain for all to see that this budget bares little or no relation to the promises made by Fianna Fáil in advance of the election. What has been given with one hand has been taken away with the other. It will make little difference to the vast majority of people struggling with increased costs of living.

While cutting taxes Fianna Fáil promised to increase spending. Sinn Féin argued that it simply could not be done. We pointed out that there was every reason to believe that the slowdown in the property and construction sector would result in a significant drop in the tax take. We highlighted the fact that this concern had been raised in the tax strategy papers presented to the Minister for Finance in advance of budget 2007.

This Government has a bad record of managing the public finances. It has a bad record of planning for the future needs of the people in terms of the increased capacity in public services that are needed and the revenue required to meet those demands. It has abdicated its responsibility to manage the economy and has allowed it to develop in an unsustainable manner.

There are many reasons to be disappointed by this budget, and it is not only in the area of health care and child care needs. These include the increase in stealth charges; the failure to increase the qualifying adult social welfare rate to make it equal to 100% of the claimant's rate; the failure to increase the fuel allowance — all we have is a paltry increase of one week in the period for which fuel allowance is paid which is a shameful situation; the absence of a focus on retraining and up-skilling workers; the failure to introduce a cost of disability payment; and the failure to introduce a universal pre-school session of 3.5 hours per day, five days a week for all children in the year before they go to school.

There are many things in this budget that deserve to be criticised. What has been gained from the widening of the standard rate tax band, while welcome, will be lost again as stealth charges are increased. I have already alluded to the increased costs for health care access in terms of the drugs refund scheme and hospital accident and emergency attendance charges. Let us not forget that last night we saw the passing of a financial resolution that allowed for a 9.5% increase in motor tax for cars up to 2.5 litres and 11% for cars in excess of that. These are all stealth taxes hurting families struggling to make ends meet. It is shameful that these measures have been included.

Cash strapped local authorities will, inevitably, seek to increase service charges and fail to take estates in charge, leaving new residents with the additional burden of management charges. The Government seeks to give the impression that the budget will deliver on housing, but nothing could be further from the truth. We have no indication of the extent of the commitment in the 9,000 units promised as to what number will be direct build by local authorities and how much is dependent on Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The universally paltry increases in children's allowance and the early child care supplement do not go far enough for struggling families. The only way to solve the child care crisis is to build an accessible and affordable model akin to what is offered in many other European states, starting with free pre-school provision. That is an essential step and I commend it to the Minister for Finance in advance of next year's budget in the hope that he will yet realise the importance of this measure.

With the permission of the House I will share my time with you, Acting Chairman, and Deputy Michael Kennedy.

This is my first budget as Minister for Transport and I am delighted to announce such favourable funding news for 2008. More than €3.8 billion is being provided to my Department, which will continue to deliver on the commitments made by the Government to further develop our transport infrastructure and services. The funding being provided is unparalleled and the outlook is very positive for 2008.

Prior to this budget, the pre-budget outlook had already set the groundwork for maintaining existing levels of service in 2008. It had also provided for certain increases in funding, even prior to budget day. An additional €1.8 million was provided to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to help meet an increased workload arising from the new mandatory alcohol testing. There was also an additional provision of €8 million for operational/unitary payments in respect of public private partnership road projects such as the M8 Rathcormac to Fermoy bypass and the N4 from Kilcock to Kinnegad. Increases were also included in the pre-budget outlook for CIE subvention, road maintenance and maritime transport and safety.

Budget 2008 provides for additional increases over the pre-budget Estimates of €599 million in current and €404 million in capital funding. These amounts reflect both the transfer of certain new functions to my Department from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the honouring of previous commitments under our agreed capital envelopes.

In 2008, the main spending areas will be €1.3 billion for public transport, nearly €2.3 billion for national and non-national roads and almost €48 million to support maritime safety and the vital work of the Irish Coast Guard.

Of the €599 million increase in current funding, €565 million relates to the transfer of non-national roads functions and the associated provision from the local government fund. Some €12.7 million in current funding is being provided for vehicle and driver licensing expenses, another new function for my Department.

Budget 2008 provides an additional €20.7 million to the Road Safety Authority. Of this amount, more than €11 million is being provided towards the reduction of the driving test backlog. Following on from the recent changes to the driver licensing laws for learner drivers, the RSA and I have confirmed that all 122,000 applicants on the waiting list at the end of October 2007 will be tested by early March 2008 and that by the end of June 2008, all driving test applicants will be able to get a test on demand, that is, within ten weeks. This does not mean, obviously, there will be no waiting list at the end of June 2008. The increase in funding for the RSA will also provide an additional €5.9 million towards road safety promotion campaigns and programmes. The overall budget for the RSA in 2008 is almost €40 million, nearly double the provision in the pre-budget outlook.

The budget also provides for an increase over the pre-budget outlook of €74 million on national roads, bringing the total provision in 2008 to almost €1.6 billion. This will allow the pace and momentum already achieved in the national roads programme to continue. In particular, it will provide for the continued on-schedule delivery of the major inter-urban routes linking the country's main cities to Dublin, as well as important progress on other key national routes.

Progress will continue in 2008 on the inter-urban motorways, with the completion of the Kilbeggan to Athlone scheme on the N6 and the Carlow bypass on the N9. Further progress will be made on the N6 Galway to Ballinasloe scheme, the N7 from Nenagh to Limerick, the Limerick tunnel, the M7/M8 from Portlaoise to Culahill/Castletown, the N8 from Cashel to Mitchelstown and from Culahill to Cashel and the N9 from Waterford to Knocktopher. Today, more than 70% of major inter-urban routes are either open to traffic or at construction and all projects have completed statutory procedures.

On the M50, work will be completed on phases 1 and 3 of the upgrade project and work will advance on phase 2 during 2008. Barrier-free tolling will also be introduced in 2008. Other major schemes that will be brought to completion in 2008 will include the N4 Dromod to Rooskey scheme and the N51 Navan inner relief road. Work will continue on the M3 Clonee to North of Kells scheme and the N25 Waterford city bypass. The following schemes will commence in 2008: the N7 at Newlands Cross, the N7 from Castletown to Nenagh, the N8 from Mitchelstown to Fermoy, the N9 from Carlow to Knocktopher and the N9 from Kilcullen to Carlow.

Overall, the National Roads Authority is currently overseeing the construction of 23 major national roads projects, 21 of which are due to finish on or ahead of time. An example of the exceptional delivery now being achieved by the NRA is that of the five major road projects completed so far in 2007 all have come in on budget and on or ahead of time. For example, the N6 Tyrellspass to Kilbeggan scheme opened in May 2007 on budget and six months ahead of schedule.

Capital Exchequer funding of €53.8 million is being provided for the non-national road investment programme. This is only a small element of the State investment in non-national roads. In addition to Exchequer capital, almost €565 million will be provided from the Local Government Fund for the improvement and maintenance of the non-national roads network.

Budget 2008 provides almost €262 million in additional funding for public transport capital investment over the pre-budget outlook. This funding guarantees continued progress on expanding the Luas network. The extension of the existing tram fleet on the Tallaght line will be completed in mid 2008, bringing a 40% increase in passenger capacity per tram. Construction will continue on the Cherrywood and Docklands extensions. Construction may commence, subject to the grant of a railway order by An Bord Pleanála, on the Citywest extension and public consultation and planning work will continue on the planned Luas lines to Lucan, Liffey Junction and the Bray area. Planning and design work and the public private partnership process will continue on Metro North. An application for a railway order for the project will be made during 2008. Public consultation and design and planning work will continue on Metro West.

The transformation of the Iarnród Éireann network and services will continue. The Portlaoise train care depot will be completed and construction work will continue on the Kildare route project and on phase 1 of the western rail corridor. Main construction work will start on the Cork to Midleton rail line. The introduction into service of the 183 new intercity railcars will pick up pace in 2008 and will transform the intercity service. Planning and design work will continue on the Navan rail line and detailed design work will begin on the interconnector and associated electrification works.

Bus capacity will continue to be enhanced with the introduction of new buses and further bus priority measures through an expansion of the QBC network in Dublin and the introduction of new measures in other cities.

The budget also provides for a continuation of the regional airports capital investment programme to facilitate further progress on the roll-out of the €86 million multi-annual capital grant programme for these airports, which was approved by the Government under the Transport 21 framework. Total Transport 21 investment for 2008 will be more than €2.6 billion, which will ensure the programme will continue to be rolled out and that the transformation of our transport system will continue unabated.

As mentioned previously, the total allocation for the maritime safety sector in 2008 amounts to €48 million, comprising €8.8 million capital and €39 million current. This is a reflection of my commitment to modernise and develop the Irish Coast Guard and maritime administration. This will require a sustained effort within the Department of Transport over a number of years but my target is to ensure that we have a modern maritime administration on a sound legal footing and equipped to meet the needs of a 21st century maritime nation. In 2008, this will involve commencing the upgrade of our radio communications infrastructure and implementing the first phase of a Safe Seas Ireland project, which will meet our EU obligations in relation to vessel traffic monitoring and reporting. The Safe Seas Ireland project will provide a foundation for a single window for electronic delivery of services. The funding also underpins the emergency response capability provided by the Coast Guard helicopters and the national network of local volunteer units who work in close partnership with other agencies and services.

This continued level of heightened investment supported by the 2008 budget demonstrates our commitment to the ongoing transformation of our transport systems and services. The high quality transport network being developed under Transport 21 is contributing significantly to national competitiveness, job creation and the achievement of more balanced regional development.

I am delighted to contribute to the debate on the budget and on this financial resolution. This budget is a positive demonstration of the competence and management ability of the Government under the stewardship of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen.

The world and his wife knows these are challenging times, particularly in areas of climate change, the cost of energy and interest rates, all of which are outside our immediate control, yet in a masterful and calming way the Minister has addressed these issues as well as the national economic and budgetary matters that affect us all. It is generally accepted that the 2008 Budget Statement is crafted in a masterful way as befits the reputation of the Tánaiste. It has been very well received by the majority of the population, mainly because it addresses so well the issues in the minds of citizens. The Tánaiste has previously said in debate not too long ago that the Government represents the citizens, not the vested interests. The 2008 budget is a financial plan as a result of which the country and its citizens will benefit, not only in 2008 but in the years ahead.

There is no doubt that the major item of discussion and importance in the budget is the fundamental change in the stamp duty regime on residential property. Looking at the various media reports on television and radio and in the press, there has been an excellent response from all the stakeholders, from the sellers and buyers of houses and from agents and financiers. I look forward to all these stakeholders engaging in a very active housing market that I hope will re-emerge in the not too distant future.

The elderly have been particularly well looked after again. The term "qualified adult allowance" is near the end of its useful life, and not before time. It is hoped that next year it will be gone and that every person — this applies in particular to women — will be entitled to their pension in their own right, not because they are the spouse of another person. People, men and women, will receive a pension because they are over the age of 65 years.

In regard to the budget, it has always been the mantra of the Government that we must maintain and sustain the economy to continue in the direction it is going and not do anything that would in any way put it off track. In regard to the changes in income tax this year, the Tánaiste, in ensuring that the various increases, the widening of the tax bands and the increase in personal credits are in line with inflation, has done what is required and necessary in this economy, particularly when there are items outside our control which could influence matters.

The Tánaiste has always shown particular care and concern for the disabled. In that regard the exemption for the incapacitated child, which has increased from €3,000 to €3,660 is welcome. In the area of interest rates, we have no direct ability to change or differentiate in regard to what is charged. That is now largely a matter for the European Central Bank. I am delighted that the Minister for Finance has substantially increased interest relief for first-time buyers by 25% from €8,000 to €10,000 for single people and from €16,000 to €20,000 for married people. It is not difficult to see the necessity for this, given that €20,000 is practically equivalent to €2,000 per month for a mortgage repayment in respect of interest alone, and that is not uncommon today.

The tax allowance in respect of rent paid by certain tenants has not been taken up to the extent it could be. More publicity is needed so that more people will take up the allowance they can get in respect of the rent they pay. The rent a room scheme is particularly attractive now in that the threshold has been increased from €7,500 to €10,000. I am particularly interested in publicising the rent a room scheme because in the constituency I represent, Dublin South Central, there are a number of areas where a significant number of elderly people live on their own in three or four bedroom houses with large gardens. Many of these people would benefit greatly by having a lone parent and their children or some other people living in the house with them. There is a possibility for the owner of a house to accrue rent of up to €10,000. Many people want to live on their own and have no desire to have other people living with them. However, for many senior citizens who are living alone there is an option that should be publicised, which could be made attractive. It could be suggested by both the HSE and citizens information centres to try to generate more housing of this type for people who need it and at the same time benefit senior citizens. I am also delighted that citizens information centres are getting more finance in this budget to enable them to give more information to citizens on an ongoing basis.

The question of VAT registration thresholds for small and medium enterprises has been increased by a very small amount, from €35,000 to €37,500 for services and €70,000 to €75,000 for supplies. In the UK the figure at the bottom level for supplies and for services is well in excess of €100,000. I cannot see why we do not have similar figures for that here.

There are two items I want to mention before I finish, one of which is the differentiation between non-contributory pension, contributory pension, disability payments and deserted wife's allowance. By 2017 we should aim to have one State payment of €400 for all these people, which would be sufficient to cover all their needs. This would reduce the bureaucracy in regard to State payments. We are moving towards a citizenry-type of republic and if a citizen earns income he or she should pay towards that whereas if one does not earn an income one cannot do that. I am delighted to have contributed to this debate.

Debate adjourned.
Barr