Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1997

Vol. 152 No. 17

Budget Statement: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance.

I welcome the Minister to the first ever budget debate in the Seanad on budget day. It is unique that the House will have completed a debate on the budget before some Opposition Members have made their first contributions in the other House.

I congratulate the Minister for Finance on the fact that the budget contained many surprises. I am not aware of any other budget where there were so few leaks and the predictions of journalists, experts and politicians about its contents were so wrong. It was a model of silence and discretion. I welcome the surprises contained in it and it is a great credit to the Minister, the Cabinet and the civil servants involved that those elements were not leaked. It is a long time since a budget was not exposed early. I showed an interest in the budget details last week but I got no joy from anybody. It is difficult sometimes for people to resist the temptation to give such information.

That is great.

The budget is refreshing because there is a new attitude and philosophy on the part of the Minister for Finance. During the last four years the standpoint of the Minister and Government in the context of the budget was what could be taken from people and to whom it could be given. That attitude is not necessarily wrong or immoral but it should not be encouraged. The Minister for Finance took a different stance today. He said we should consider what people are getting and how much they can retain. There was not the attitude of confiscation or that the Government wants to take away money from some people who are too rich and give it to others who are too poor. The stance was to give as much as possible to those in need and to leave as much with those who earn as politically and morally possible.

Morality?

It was refreshing to hear a Minister taking a stance in the other House which did not capitulate to the likes of Senator Brendan Ryan and other politically correct people at every turn. The Minister took a courageous stand which was pro-enterprise and pro-business. He did not give in to the left wing lobby groups——

A back hand to the Independents.

——with which I have come to live on these benches and with whom I must live for the next four years.

I am glad to be back.

Just because the Independents tabled the motion, the House should not expect them to say identical things.

I wish to deal with two areas under which the budget should be considered: the first is spending and the second is the taxation elements. The spending problem has been tackled by the Minister by keeping within his limit of 4 per cent which all political parties and the social partners accepted. It appears his spending target is 3.8 per cent. We should applaud that and I was sorry to hear an Opposition spokesman saying on television immediately after the Budget Statement that the spending level was too high. That is rich from an Opposition which, when it was in Government in times of prosperity, was unable to keep within its spending limits.

The Minister has kept within his limits and he made several courageous points about public service pay. It is unusual for politicians to make courageous comments about this matter. They usually say very little about it and then capitulate. However, I am worried that the Minster has said much but will also capitulate. I hope that is not the case and that he has the courage to stand up to the public service in the future. I hope his words do not come back to haunt him. He stated that it is totally unacceptable that the public service pay and pensions bill of £5.6 billion is expected to increase by 6 per cent over 1997 on top of an increase of 10.5 per cent in 1997 itself. I will nail the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to that cross every year he holds that office because he is right. Public service pay is the key to overspending.

It is a good public service.

Public service pay must be tackled because it is running riot. The Minister recognises that, but is he prepared to tackle the problem? I hope he is and I believe he probably will.

Many people expected the Minister's action in respect of tax in the budget to be symbolic. This is of great importance to the Progressive Democrats because they wanted the higher tax rate to be reduced from 48 to 46 per cent. It means a great deal to the pro-enterprise, pro-business community that this is seen to be done. The Minister had to reduce the tax rates because he was elected to do so on foot of a promise he made. It is absurd for people to bellyache now that he is fulfilling his election promises.

The Government promised to reduce direct taxation. However, if the Minister had gone before the Dáil and stated that while he had promised to reduce direct taxation from 48 to 40 per cent over the years but had decided to leave it unchanged because of pressure from SIPTU or another of the unions which Senator Brendan Ryan supports, no one would respect him. The Minister has done what he said he would do. That is right because the people voted for a pro-enterprise Government. The fact that the higher income tax rate has been reduced does not mean we should have to tolerate the politics of envy practised by left wing elements. There is nothing inherently immoral about a low higher tax rate and people should recognise that.

There is also nothing inherently immoral about what seems to be the most dramatic feature of the budget — no one has yet commented on it — namely, the decrease in capital gains tax.

I foresaw it.

No one predicted or expected that decrease but Senator Ryan foresaw it. He is unique.

I also know who will do well out of it.

Not only has corporation tax been reduced from 40 per cent, it has been halved. It is extraordinary that the Minister had the courage to take such action. Corporation tax, which does not raise much revenue, was imposed on a Fianna Fáil led Government in 1983 by Senator Ryan's left wing friends. They did not care how much revenue it raised because it had the symbolic effect of crucifying those who were doing well, namely, people who had been successful in business and made small capital gains. The left could state that they were looking after the poor and crucifying the rich by making them pay capital gains tax the Minister has had the courage to state that this is nonsense and has, from today, reduced capital gains tax from 40 to 20 per cent. Unfortunately, he also reduced the threshold from £1,000 to £500 which is merely tinkering with small figures.

For those who believe development land should be exempt from the reduction in capital gains tax, the Minister has left the 40 per cent level in place in respect of such land. That is perfectly acceptable. The profits made on development land are so excessive that those who benefit from them should be obliged to pay a larger amount of their windfall gains.

The Minister's concerns about capital gains tax relate to small investors who invest £10,000, £5,000 or less on the Stock Exchange. Taking account of increases in profits — 30 to 40 per cent — on the exchange in recent years, a person investing £5,000 will make £1,500 per year which is not an excessive amount of money and there is no reason that person should have to pay £600 of their profits to the Government. I welcome the Minister's decision to recognise that this is punitive and also to recognise that capital gains tax never raised significant revenue.

I am sorry that one of the predictions made in the newspapers — that the ICC and ACC Banks would have been prepared for privatisation by this evening — does not seem to have come to pass. I may be mistaken but I do not believe they were mentioned in the Minister's speech. However, I hope the Government will reverse the policy imposed by left wing elements in the previous Administration that there should be no privatisation. That sort of doctrine should be thrown out because it is not practised in any other European country. Ireland is the only country in Europe which prevents privatisation under any circumstances.

It is also the most successful.

I hope we will hear more from the Minister and the Minister of State about privatisation.

I welcome the reduction in corporation tax. The Minister surprised us again because everyone believed the top level of this tax would be reduced from 36 to 33 per cent. However, it has been reduced further than expected to 32 per cent which is a bold step. I welcome the fact that the Minister did not yield to the temptation to provide funding to the constituencies of Dublin North and Limerick East where by-elections are due to take place.

He gave it to Wicklow.

No, he did not. Senator Ryan is wrong again.

I am not wrong.

The Senator is 100 per cent wrong. I hope he will be more accurate when he seconds the motion.

We are receiving a confused ideological message from the proposer and seconder of the motion.

I can live happily with Senator Doyle on this side of the House. I welcome the measures introduced by the Minister to give additional money to the elderly, the disabled and the blind, because we must care for those who are poor and underprivileged. However, when the Finance Bill is introduced, will the Minister consider the possibility of reducing stamp duty on houses? This appalling measure introduced by the previous Administration added 9 per cent to repayments on certain houses and 7 per cent on others.

Secondhand houses.

Given current movements in the property market, particularly in Dublin, this imposition has created a new poor layer in society, namely, first time buyers of secondhand houses — Senator Ryan is accurate in that regard. I welcome the budget.

I second the motion. I suspect that not only is the debate unique in its nature but the proposer and seconder of the motion are probably also unique.

There are measures in the budget which must be welcomed. The decision to increase pensions by 6 to 7 per cent is a good way to use resources generated by the extraordinary success of our economy. When comparing our economy with those of other European countries, we must realise that we are better off than many of them and perhaps the measures we have put in place are working better than elsewhere.

Hear, hear.

I am glad that social welfare rates have been increased. I am also glad that there have been some, not nearly enough, increases in child benefits. Every study carried out on poverty has recognised child benefit as the single most effective way to deal with family poverty. We have the second highest level of child poverty in Europe; relative to our average income, not by abstract international standards, approximately 25 per cent of children are living in poverty. It would have been worthwhile to provide further resources for child benefit. My preferred solution would be to increase significantly child benefit and make it taxable income, in which case people like myself would be marginally better off and those who badly need it would be dramatically better off.

The announcement in the budget to make donations to charities by the corporate sector tax deductible is a welcome development. It brings us into line with civilised behaviour in other countries and might prick the social conscience of the corporate sector. However, listening to Senator Ross, I am not sure that such exists.

While many expenditure items in the budget are welcome, the taxation proposals are extraordinarily loaded in favour of the well off. A married couple with no children on PAYE, paying the full rate of PRSI, on a total income of £9,000 per year, or £180 per week, will gain £127 per year, i.e. £2.40 per week but a married couple on £50,000 per year will gain £1,124 per year, i.e. £22 or £23 per week. These figures undermine the increases in social welfare. There is an increase of 1.5 per cent in net income for a person on £180 per week and 3.6 per cent increase for a person on £50,000 per year. That is not just and it does not end there.

For business people who regard £50,000 per year as a minimum income and graduates in their thirties who earn £66,000 per year, this represents an enormous giveaway. On the top rate of tax 2 per cent of £100,000 is £40 a week, plus all the other benefits, will total approximately £3,000 to £4,000 per year. Capital gains tax on share options has been halved, a further redistribution of resources in the direction of the very rich. Many of those who benefit most from share options are not the people who create wealth, they are people who happen to be in institutions when they were converted from building society to banking status. These people did nothing to benefit the economy. They work mainly in the financial services sector, which is a parasite in our society and generates no wealth. It is a matter of great regret that these people are getting an extraordinarily generous handout. This budget will benefit the very rich, not middle income groups.

There has been much nonsense spoken about public sector pay. The reason the country is booming is that we pay teachers properly and the education sector is a success. Multinational executives say that one of the main reasons they base their companies here is our well educated workforce. The Sunday Independent or the Oireachtas does not educate these people.

The Oireachtas provides the money.

The teachers educate these people and society decided to pay teachers properly. Believers in the market economy must realise that if we pay people well, we will get good people to do good work. That is the basis of their ideology except, apparently, in the public sector when you pay people badly and expect them to do a good day's work. We made the right decision in the 1980s and we are making the right decision in the 1990s. It is a bit rich for Senator Ross, the great defender of the nurses, to speak as he did about public sector pay. In fact, in his speech the Minister quoted nurses' pay as the example for the increase in public sector pay.

Electricity in Northern Ireland is privatised and charges are almost 30 per cent higher than they are here. I do not think we should consider privatising electricity. Successive Governments have claimed the right to privatise the TSB. I would say to them that a considerable number of depositors, including myself, would challenge any attempt to sell off the TSB and take the money into public ownership. That is an extraordinary decision of expropriation of resources that do not belong to the State in the first instance.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is an historic night and our compliments to Senator Ross for being responsible for this debate. We had a Christmas cracker of a budget announced today. We are debating the budget in Seanad Éireann when some of the main speakers in the other House have not yet had the opportunity to contribute.

This budget would not be possible but for the prudent management of the economy by Fianna Fáil going back to 1987. I remember the input of the former Minister for Finance, Ray MacSharry, at that time and subsequently the positive negotiations in Europe by Fianna Fáil that brought major benefits to this country by way of Structural Funds. Today we are reaping the benefits of those negotiations and part and parcel of the budget is a positive attempt to maintain the economic growth of recent times. Inherent in the budget are factors that will create more employment and investment.

In regard to the social aspects of the budget, this is the first time a Minister has given an extra £10 a week to an old aged couple, for which we must compliment him. While he has maintained the necessary economic activity, he has not forgotten our large elderly population. An elderly couple will receive an extra £10 and an elderly person will receive an extra £6.50 a week, an increase of between 6 and 7.5 per cent. That is a very positive move.

This budget is, by and large, in line with commitments given by Fianna Fáil in our election manifesto. We have honoured our commitments in regard to tax and investment. The Minister's credibility is very apparent in this budget. The reduction in the top rate of income tax from 48 per cent to 46 per cent and in the lower rate from 26 per cent to 24 per cent is more than my party promised before the last election. That reduction is very welcome. Over the years all parties have said that the PAYE sector was carrying too much of the load and that it is was a disincentive to work. The measures taken by the Minister today are a move in the right direction and will encourage people to enter employment rather than receive social welfare payments. The Minister has also increased social welfare payments at double the rate of inflation.

Another historic aspect of the budget is that the borrowing requirement is just £89 million. In the early and mid 1980s we never thought that was possible. At that time the international monetary bodies were knocking at our door and the country was close to bankruptcy. However, the minority Fianna Fáil Government of 1987 put us on the road to recovery through prudent management of public finances and the national debt so that we could eventually benefit from our good receipts from Europe. All those measures were put in place at that time and we are reaping the benefits today. Our nation is now moving forward in parallel with the other European nations. We are meeting the criteria of the Maastricht Treaty and the reduction in 1998 will be followed by an even greater reduction in 1999. We are on a very solid and safe road to the single currency and a more economically cohesive Europe.

I also compliment the Minister on initiating measures to bring people back to work. The increase in the number of places on the back to work allowance scheme by 5,000 to 27,000 is very welcome. The additional £36.8 million being allocated to the health services is also welcome. I am delighted the farming community has not been excluded on this occasion. Money is being provided for the very worthwhile installation aid scheme and capital allowances for pollution control.

I join with Senator Ross in welcoming the reduction in capital gains tax. We must support investors who create employment. Such job opportunities will not be created unless we encourage people to invest. The Minister seems to grasp what must be done. For the first time in my life this nation is on the road to prosperity. This budget will not inhibit that prosperity; it lays down strict but very positive and far thinking guidelines for a bright future for this country in Europe.

It is great that this House has an opportunity for the first time to discuss the budget. However, we must re-examine the timing of the debate because we would need a little longer to digest the budget to get maximum value from the debate, particularly from an Opposition point of view. I received a copy of the Minister's speech and the summary of the budget proposals on my way to the Chamber. I glanced through them while I was trying to listen to the contributions of my colleagues on both sides. We need a little longer to absorb the details and the small print which is not in the Minister's speech to the Dáil. However, I welcome the opportunity——

The Senator did not have time to eat all the goodies.

——to discuss the budget, which has not been done before in this House.

As my colleague, Deputy Noonan, the Fine Gael spokesperson on Finance, has just stated in the Dáil, this Government inherited the best economy since Michael Collins was Minister for Finance. It was handed it on a plate. It is easy to be wise in hindsight but many of my colleagues and I have often questioned the wisdom of calling a general election last June, given the Exchequer returns which followed, the McCracken tribunal and other matters which would have made for interesting electioneering and perhaps changed the outcome of the election. However, as I said, it is easy to be wise in hindsight, particularly in political life.

The Government has been handed an economy which is in the best possible condition due to the last three budgets. We were expecting a creative budget with tremendous emphasis on taxation policy change but I am afraid that opportunity has been missed. The Government had an all time high tax buoyancy and all the economic indicators were unprecedentedly positive. I must underline that that favourable position was due to our actions over the last three budgets. Everyone will claim credit for what is good but no one wants to know when there are difficulties in the economy.

The Senator's party received the economy in good stead.

It was thought this Minister could not get it wrong because he had so much money to play with without overheating the economy. However, he has got it wrong in many areas, the most important of which is his missed opportunity to radically change policy rather than patching and mending and being politically sexy by introducing little changes here and there to capture the public's attention. This has put progress at risk. Expedient measures decrease economic confidence in the marketplace and among the public. There are no clear medium term objectives, which are needed.

Great opportunities present themselves only every four or five years and they must be grasped. There was an opportunity this time to create a fairer society where everyone would share in the fruits of economic growth. That did not happen. There were some excellent points in this budget but the opportunity to allow everyone share in the fruits of growth was missed, which I regret.

Mention has been made of the Minister's commitment to controlling public expenditure. I share that commitment but this is not just a crude matter of keeping numbers and pay levels in the public service down. We must employ the best and brightest people in our public service and we must pay them to join it. Once people are within the public service we need greater flexibility so that when there is a need for extra personnel in a particular area or when new services are required, people will be able to move across the service. We must be able to introduce skills on a short-term basis, on contract if necessary — perhaps they are needed in a certain area or for a short time. We must ensure that we deliver a proper service to the public as we enter the next millennium because the years ahead will be critical. We would not have the kind of buoyant economy and the Exchequer returns we have today if we did not have a public service which underpins governance in the way ours so excellently does. Problems exist and they must be sorted out through up-front negotiation. We need increased productivity and we must pay for the best and brightest people to deliver that with greater flexibility.

We should not get into ideological straitjackets here and in the few moments available to me I cannot take the middle ground between Senator Brendan Ryan's and Senator Ross's ideological views. This debate is not all about privatisation and nationalisation but we must do what is best for the individual. I am not hung up in any ideological straitjacket and I am not opposed to privatisation or to the State running the service where that is required.

Everyone has an ideology.

We must take what action is needed, where it is needed, and avoid being constrained by tired and jaded ideological standpoints.

The Minister made much of public expenditure and he spoke about increasing current expenditure by 7 per cent or £520 million. If Senator Ross had had time to do his sums he would realise the Minister subsequently went on to outline £1.5 billion of expenditure; those figures do not add up.

(Interruptions.)

Rhetoric must match what is delivered in practice and there is something wrong here.

The cousins are falling out.

A mere half page of the Minister's speech dealt with the food and agricultural industry.

It is more than they got last year.

The Senator should check his facts. We received great commitments from Fianna Fáil in their election manifesto in relation to the restoration of an installation aid grant for young farmers. That was not restored; the only funding for which provision was made was for those whose applications were already in the system. There is a long list of election promises which have been reneged on, for example, Sunday trading, zero tolerance, the Electoral Act——

There will be a debate on zero tolerance in this House next week and I hope the Senator will be present for it.

Acting Chairman

The Senator without interruption, please.

The EU refused to accept 10 per cent corporation tax so the Government accepted our level of 12.5 per cent. In relation to corporation tax, we are not told to which sectors the 12.5 per cent will apply. Will it apply to the banking, farming and service sectors? We do not know as it is not mentioned anywhere in the literature.

What about child dependant allowance? We have been told by all the relevant commissions and bodies that the way to reduce poverty for the lower paid and those on social welfare is to ensure our children are not left in poverty. By today's standards, 25 per cent of our children live in poverty, yet there is nothing in this budget about child dependant allowance. Parents are entitled to an additional £1.50 children's allowance in respect of their first and second children and slightly more for third and subsequent children, but there is nothing about child dependant allowance. That is an enormous anomaly; the budget was unjust and unfair in that sense.

I welcome the reduction from 40 per cent to 20 per cent in corporation tax provided it frees up capital for greater investment in jobs. That is the thinking behind this measure but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

In relation to hospital waiting lists, £4 million has been allocated to alleviate this in spite of all this Government had to say on the matter in Opposition. The Government failed to deliver on most of the election promises which caught people's imagination. This budget is a missed opportunity, although it does contain some excellent elements to which we do not have time to do justice here this evening. However, there has been no overall policy change.

As a former Member of this House I am delighted to be here this evening on this historic occasion of a budget debate taking place in conjunction with the Lower House. I compliment the Leader on organising today's affairs in such a manner as to allow this debate to take place and I also compliment those who tabled the motion.

I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the Seanad on the financial statement my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has just presented to the Dáil. As Members of the House are aware, the Minister has just finished making his speech and by now I am sure you are aware of the principal elements of the budget. While I do not intend to repeat what the Minister has already said, it is important to set out the economic background to the budget, the overall strategies it addresses and the main policy decisions which have been agreed in the 1998 budget.

This year has been another year of strong growth for the Irish economy. GNP growth this year is now expected to be 7.7 per cent, the fourth year in succession of growth of this magnitude. We are broadly acknowledged as being Europe's economic success story of the l990's with increased prosperity, stable prices and a level of employment growth — more than 50,000 this year — which is the envy of many larger countries. In spite of continued strong output growth and employment increases, inflation has remained moderate at around 1.5 per cent. The Exchequer borrowing requirement for this year is expected to be approximately £280 million or 0.7 per cent of GNP, compared with the budget target of more than £600 million. The general Government balance is likely to show a surplus of approximately 0.4 per cent of GDP. This is based on a number of factors which I would like to outline.

The reasons for the continued success of the Irish economy are the subject of some discussion. However, it must be acknowledged that it has resulted from the confluence of a number of significant developments. These include: prudent management of the economy which led to lower interest rates and increased investor and consumer confidence; the consensus approach in successive agreements with the social partners which resulted in moderate pay increases, industrial peace and the maintenance of competitiveness; the reduction in the debt burden; an increasing labour force; investment in education and training over a number of decades; strong foreign direct investment; the contribution of EU structural and cohesion funds to improving infrastructure and productive capacity and, reform of tax regimes for individuals and business.

These reflect a policy focus on the longer-term benefits of getting the fundamentals right. It is important that we should bear this in mind in our approach to policy development. I will illustrate how this thinking underlies this year's budget.

This Government's Action Programme for the Millennium outlines the main fiscal objectives for the next five years. Today's budget addresses these objectives. A significant current budget surplus is projected each year until the year 2000. By the year 2000, even when account is taken of a significant capital deficit, Exchequer borrowing will be eliminated. Over the period to the year 2000, Government spending will decline as a proportion of GNP. This will be achieved while providing for the investment needs of our developing economy.

At this stage of the economic cycle we must use the opportunity of strong growth to run surpluses and reduce the debt burden. Ireland's debt is still very high. The key to reducing the debt, and thus to putting the economy in the best position to meet the challenges of the future, is to run a budget surplus when the economy is doing well, as at present.

This approach is consistent with the terms and with the spirit of the stability and growth pact which is an integral part of EMU. The stability and growth pact states that budgets should be kept in balance or in surplus in normal economic conditions. By any standards, current economic conditions are better than normal and the case for running a budget surplus in these favourable circumstances is compelling.

I will now set out the economic background, some of the key factors which have influenced the budgetary strategy and the main budgetary provisions announced by the Minister today.

As I have already stated the economic outlook remains favourable. GDP is expected to grow by 8 per cent in 1998 and GNP by 7 per cent. This will be reflected in employment with the number of people at work projected to increase by 48,000. Unemployment is expected to fall by about 15,000 as continued high rates of labour force growth take up a significant proportion of the new jobs created. Inflation is expected to remain moderate at about 2 per cent.

The budget presents clear evidence of the Government's intention to deliver on its commitments under Partnership 2000. Taking the 1997 Budget and the measures announced today into account, the overall resource commitment to reduce personal taxation by £900 million on a full year basis over three years and to spend £525 million on social inclusion and equality measures over three years will have been largely delivered in the first two years of the three year programme.

There are, however, still many challenges to be faced on the economic and social front, and this budget addresses these. It sets out to create the right conditions to sustain strong economic growth so that more people get jobs, and to ensure that inflationary pressures are contained. It also aims to position the public finances to address investment needs of the economy, reduction in the tax burden, social inclusion, preparation for economic and monetary union, post-2000 Structural Funds, long-term demographic changes and reduction of the national debt. The conclusions to be drawn from this view of our longer term needs are clear. We must adopt more ambitious budgetary targets than have been achieved over the last decade so we can address longer term needs from a position of financial strength.

On the basis of taxation and expenditure measures announced by the Minister for Finance, the targets for the 1998 budget are a current budget surplus of £1,109 million, a capital deficit of £1,198 million, an Exchequer borrowing requirement of £89 million and a general Government surplus of 0.3 per cent of GDP. Control of public spending will be central to the achievement of the budgetary targets. The Government is committed to ensuring that, over the lifetime of the Government, the growth in net current expenditure will be limited to an annual average increase of 4 per cent. Controlling current expenditure is a key element of our budgetary and economic policy.

A balanced approach is adopted in the budget which takes account of the need to improve social inclusion measures while at the same time keeping control of public spending and creating an environment in which business can flourish and which encourages investment.

I wish to focus on some of the key measures announced in the budget. The range of social inclusion measures is designed to deliver on the undertakings aimed at combating disadvantage set out in the Government's programme; to make further progress towards meeting the commitments on social inclusion in Partnership 2000; to continue the reorientation of the social welfare code in a work friendly direction and to contribute towards the achievement of the strategic aims of the national anti-poverty strategy.

Last year's budget allocated £273 million in a full year for social inclusion and this budget allocates a further £282 million on a full year basis. Resources which had been promised over three years in Partnership 2000 will now be more than provided in two years. This illustrates the Government's commitment to ensure that economic growth is accompanied by real social advance for those in need.

The social inclusion measures include the following. In general, personal rate social welfare payments will be increased by £3 per week while qualified adult allowances will increase by 3 per cent from the first week of June next.

What about children? Can they not be socially included?

The increases in personal rates are well above the expected rate of inflation of 2 per cent.

In line with our election commitments to the elderly, the full personal rate of all old age and related pensions will be increased by £5 per week, giving increases ranging from 6 per cent to almost 7.5 per cent or at least three times the expected rate of inflation. This is one of the substantial and important highlights of this budget. In a household where both partners have pension incomes, there will be an increase of £10 per week. Where there is only one pension income and a dependent spouse, there will be an increase of over £6.50 per week. That provision will be greatly welcomed.

Child benefit rates will increase by £1.50 per month for the first and second children and by £3 per month for the third and subsequent children, with effect from September 1998.

What about child dependant allowance? The Minister delivered that script in the other House. The Minister of State should answer the question.

Acting Chairman

The Minister of State without interruption.

That script was delivered in the other House. Could the Minister of State answer our question?

On a point of order. Can the former Minister of State afford the same courtesy that was afforded to her when she was in the same position in this House?

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

That is the point I am making. When I came to this House I answered questions. What about child dependant allowance? Why is there no increase?

Acting Chairman

I ask Senator Doyle to obey the Chair.

The Senator knows me well enough to know I will not be put off by heckling.

Just answer the question.

Family income support is important for families in low paid work. In line with the commitment given in Partnership 2000——

Children are ignored.

——FIS is to be calculated on a net income basis with effect from October next. In addition, current family income thresholds are being increased by £7 per week from June 1998.

Pending the outcome of the current evaluation of community employment, an additional 1,000 places on the part-time jobs option and 1,000 places on the jobs initiative are being provided. The gross cost of these places is £11 million in 1998 and £17 million in a full year. The allowances payable under community employment are being increased in line with the social welfare increases at a cost of £6 million in 1998 and £10 million in a full year.

The Government's programme makes clear its commitment to reduce the burden of personal taxation in order to reward effort and to improve incentives to work. The changes announced in the budget are not confined to tax reductions but are designed to ensure that all taxpayers pay their fair share.

The 1997 budget committed £400 million on a full year basis for reductions in personal taxes. This budget commits over £500 million to the main personal tax reductions. Standard rate of income tax and the higher rate are reduced by 2 per cent to 24 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively, from 6 April next. Personal allowances are increased by £250 to £3,150 per annum for single persons and by £500 to £6,300 per annum for married couples. There is an increase of £250 per annum for widowed, single parent and widowed parents allowances. The standard rate income tax band is widened by £100 for single persons to £10,000 and by £200 for married couples to £20,000 per annum. The budget limits the amount of capital allowances for buildings that passive investors can claim against non-rental income.

To assist the long-term unemployed back to work a special tax allowance is being introduced of £3,000 plus £1,000 for each child for persons unemployed for one year or more who take up a job. The allowance will be tapered down over a three year period. Another measure announced is double tax deduction for wages for employers who employ a person who is long-term unemployed. The deduction can last for up to three years provided the former long-term unemployed person is still in employment. It is hoped that these initiatives will go some way to encouraging the long-term unemployed back into the labour force. This is another significant and imaginative part of the budget.

The budget also focuses on business tax measures with the aim of promoting the expansion of business and employment and releasing additional resources for investment. Corporation tax is a key element of our business and employment strategy. From 1 January 1998, the standard rate will be reduced from 36 per cent to 32 per cent, while the rate on the first £50,000 of profits will be reduced from 28 per cent to 25 per cent. A time-table is set out for the further reductions that are needed to reach our target rates of 12.5 per cent and 25 per cent on trading and non-trading incomes respectively.

The aggregate amount that can be raised by a company under BES is reduced from £1 million to £250,000 from today. This is to facilitate a better targeting of BES relief on smaller companies who find it difficult to raise equity from other sources.

A single capital gains tax rate of 20 per cent is being introduced except for disposals of development land, which will remain taxed at 40 per cent. I acknowledge what Senator Ross and Senator Finneran had to say in this regard. This change will release pent up investment funds and create an incentive for the acquisition of further capital assets. This will encourage investment and growth in the future. Changes in capital allowances for building, including hotels, tax credits on dividends, capital gains and capital acquisition tax are also being introduced.

In conclusion, I hope Senators will agree with me that today's budget pursues a mix of polices designed both to achieve fiscal discipline and maintain the right conditions for sustained growth. Central to that mix is a policy of personal tax reductions linked to wage moderation designed to encourage investment and job creation. The budget rewards effort and provides for our key investment needs while also promoting social inclusion.

Is 37p per week social inclusion for our children?

This budget will ensure that our nation's pursuit of increased prosperity for all our citizens will continue.

Do not give me that.

I know it is difficult for the Senator. An improved economy will generate more jobs.

Social inclusion at 37p a week for a child?

The Minister of State must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

It destroys the good parts of the budget. The Minister for Finance has neglected children completely. The children of this nation are not cherished by this Government.

It is not in order to interrupt the Minister of State.

This Government is giving children 37p a week, yet it talks about social inclusion. It is appalling.

Senator Doyle has already spoken. She should show some courtesy to the Minister of State.

The Minister of State has refused to answer my question about the child dependant allowance.

The Minister of State without interruption, please.

Will he answer the question?

Senator Doyle's badgering style has not changed, but her respect for people who hold office seems to have, seeing that she was in this position as a Minister of State.

In conclusion, an improved economy will generate more jobs and additional resources for investment and will allow us to make progress in taking care of those who are dependent on the State. I commend today's budget to the Upper House.

The sum of 37p a week for the child dependants' allowance could not possibly be considered as social inclusion.

I call Senator Quinn.

On a point of order, with respect to the Minister of State's position, he came in here with a speech that was thrust into his hands and which plagiarised the Minister, Deputy McCreevy.

How does the Senator know that?

There is nothing new in it and he has answered none of our questions.

The Senator does not know that.

I do know that because I listened to every word of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy's speech and I have now listened to the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen's speech.

On a point of order——

This is not a point of order and this is not question time. Senator Doyle has had her opportunity to contribute.

It is a pity that the debate has been thwarted by the Minister of State's lack of opportunity to answer my questions.

The Senator saw the Minister of State's script before he came into the House.

No. I saw his script but not the detailed measures.

The Senator saw it.

That is not what I said.

Yes it is.

The Senator is being disingenuous. I listened to Minister McCreevy's every word, but I only got the copy of the detailed measures, to know what was in the small print, when coming into the House.

Senator Doyle is bringing the Seanad into disrepute.

We are not a rubber stamping Chamber. We should have some initiative.

We must proceed in an orderly manner.

I accept that.

Anything I say will sound dull and boring after the last few minutes.

Thirty seven pence for children. Maybe the Senator will get an answer that I did not.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and I congratulate the Senators involved. As Senator Ross said, we had an opportunity to speak about the budget within minutes of the Minister's speech in the Dáil. I am delighted that the Leader of the House was able to accede to that request. Like Senator Doyle, I am speaking with very little foreknowledge of what was to be debated here because we heard the Minister's speech only in the last hour.

The Minister posed two questions — does this budget show financial discipline and does it show steps towards sustained growth? I would like to examine this budget to see whether it achieves those matters. Let us look at the Minister's objectives. No former Minister for Finance has had the opportunity the current Minister has. The Minister himself has acknowledged that. Since no Minister has had a better opportunity than this one, our objective is to see whether the today's steps have continued the objectives that have been sustained for ten years by all Governments.

The Minister was correct in telling the Dáil that "Ireland has in this decade undergone an economic transformation". Admittedly, for a change, the Minister does not claim all the responsibility for that. He gives credit to the social partners and to previous Governments.

The Minister said we have to do three things. First, we must ensure that we create the right conditions to sustain strong economic growth so that more people get jobs. Second, we must take steps to ensure that any inflationary pressures are contained. Third, we must prepare for the problems we face in the decades ahead. Let us concentrate for a few moments on those points to see if the budget achieves them.

The Minister also noted the budget was characterised by three things: control of public spending, correction of tax inequities and overdue acknowledgement of the elderly.

Does the budget take the long-term rather than the short term view? It is easy for a Minister for Finance with a lot of spare cash to solve many problems and to distribute goodies in a way that will please almost everybody. I would be more anxious to see if it takes the long-term view to protect us in future, which is what the Minister set out to achieve. Will the economic miracle continue because of the steps taken by the Minister?

Is it a caring budget? Does it take into account the caring society we wish to have as a nation and that we have attempted to achieve in the 75 years since independence? Does it encourage investment by those who invest in creating enterprise as well as those who invest their labour, enthusiasm, effort and drive?

Taking the first point, as to whether the budget takes the long-term view in encouraging investment, there are some definite steps which were the right ones to take. There is little doubt that corporation tax will not win the votes of the vast majority of citizens who do not pay such a tax. The vast majority of citizens, however, depends on enterprises that do pay corporation tax. The steps taken on corporation tax constituted a brave decision by the Minister because while they are not necessarily all that popular, they do take the long-term view. I congratulate him for that.

Similarly, there is little doubt that capital gains tax does not attract the attention of individual voters because the average taxpayer does not pay that tax. It is, however, the very seed upon which future enterprises will succeed. They will succeed if corporation tax and capital gains tax help those who are going to invest in the future — and nowadays such people are not individuals, they are to a large extent pension funds — to decide whether this country is the right place to invest in and which industry should they invest in.

Any reduction in income tax is obviously a help in that direction. It is tempting not to give reductions at the higher level and I can understand why. However, for those who are investing, that is a step in the right direction.

One sting in the tail of those three areas that will encourage investment is the tax credit on dividends. It only gets a couple of lines in the Minister's speech and it received very little attention. I am not quite sure of its effect, but if it will cost the State £60 million in a full year this is a clever little hook the Minister has inserted. I am not sure of the immediate effect but it must have some disincentive to those considering investment if the tax credits which were installed in order to encourage investment are taken away.

Is it a caring budget? Yes it is. It has to be a caring budget. In spite of what Senator Doyle says, the steps taken with regard to social welfare have to be admired. This is not necessarily an investment in the future but that is not what we look for in a caring budget. Is it a caring budget in regard to the elderly? It has to be. The steps that are taken in this regard go a long way in the right direction.

Does this budget encourage work? Does it encourage those who are not working at the moment to go to work? What we call the economic tiger is leaving some people at the bottom of the pile. The gap between the haves and have nots in our society is larger than in the average European society. Figures published by the EU recently showed that the average of those who are classed as have nots in the European Union is 17 per cent. In Ireland the most recent figures show 21 per cent although this figure is not quite as bad as Britain. Does this budget do anything to lift those who are stuck at the bottom of the pile? I suggest that not enough has been done in this area.

I cannot help but welcome the initiative to help the long term unemployed referred to by Minister Cullen. Let me just touch on it. To assist the long term unemployed back to work a special tax allowance has been introduced of £3,000 plus £1,000 for each child for persons unemployed for one year or more to take up a job. This is quite innovative. The allowance will be tapered down over a three year period. Another measure announced is double tax deduction for wages for employers to employ a person who is long term unemployed. This is innovative and is to be commended but is it enough? I do not think we have done enough in the budget for those who are at the bottom of the pile, many of whom are now into that area where they have never worked and their parents have never worked. If we talk about a caring society we must talk about caring for people in the future. I saw a man on television the other night saying that he had turned down a job which paid £280 per week because it would not pay him to go to work. This man was the father of four children. If we cannot encourage a man such as that to go to work then we have failed in the budget to grasp an opportunity that was open to us.

We must note the strong points in this budget, but its weak point is its failure to lift those at the bottom of the pile off the bottom of that pile.

I congratulate Senator Ross on proposing this motion. I did not expect to discuss the budget speech so early in my political career. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the budget so soon after its introduction, although it is a disadvantage not to have time to examine the facts and figures in the budget statement. I am aware that I am taking part in a historic occasion. Few Senators know that Minister Mc Creevy and I were classmates in the Franciscan College in Gormanston. We played on the same football team and he has shown today that he has lost none of the attributes that he had in his college days. He has proven to be a generous and a fair man. He is a member of the same profession as myself and as an accountant he is cautious and, as he said today, prudent.

The Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrat joint Programme for Government recognises the need to reduce the burden of personal taxation in order to reward effort and to give people incentives to take up work. The three important areas in the Programme for Government have been covered by the Minister for Finance. The first is the area of personal taxation. The Minister has delivered to the hard pressed PAYE worker. This is not just a once off budget but is part of a plan for at least the next four years. After the next general election, we hope, the same Minister will be in office. The budget also gives social inclusion to those who are long term unemployed and disadvantaged. Above all this, it curtails public spending to the 4 per cent promised by the Government.

How is all of this possible? In the last week the economic commentators and journalists were writing that the Minister was going to be curtailed to about £350 million in tax cuts. Later they suggested £400 million and the figure sat at that. The Minister, however, has managed to give £517 million in tax cuts while at the same time keeping spending under control. It is no wonder, having listened to the commentators on television this evening, that the only people who have nothing good to say about this budget are the members of the Opposition parties. I can see why Senator Doyle is so disturbed. The Opposition see that the Minister intends to remain in office and to guide the ship for the next four years.

As an accountant I pay particular attention to the area of taxation. There is no easy way of dealing with this issue. The Minister cannot deliver on the three aspects: tax rates, personal allowances and tax bands. He has made a fair attempt by giving serious tax cuts which are in line with the Programme for Government and with the hope of reducing the low rate of tax to 20 per cent and the high rate to 42 per cent. If the economic climate allows, this will be reduced to 40 per cent, as is the situation in our nearest neighbour.

There is also an increase in the personal tax allowance for widowed parents after a bereavement. People in this situation are very vulnerable and I have met people in my own practice who could not survive financially.

I pay particular attention to the promise that cross Border workers will receive tax concessions. These are to be detailed in the Finance Bill. I hope to see the day — and I think the plan is in train — when our tax rates will be the same as in Britain. People are separated from us by the Border and people on both sides of the Border pay different rates of tax. We live and socialise together and I hope that eventually the rates on both sides of the Border will be the same.

Fianna Fáil Governments have reduced income tax at all stages. In 1984 the highest rate of income tax was 65 per cent. Some people may not remember that; but I remember how complicated it was to deal, not alone with the high rate but with the various rates between it and the lowest. Fianna Fáil Governments have, since 1987, reduced the top rate from 58 per cent to 48 per cent so that we are down now to 46 per cent with 42 per cent in sight. The standard rate of tax has reduced since 1987 from 35 per cent to 27 per cent. Last year, having been given an economy that was very succesful, the Rainbow Government could reduce the tax rate by only 1 per cent. That is all they could do in their years in power. The Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party can feel very proud of his achievement.

I am glad that corporation tax rates have been reduced, although many people will not be happy with the reductions. An anomaly existed in this area over the years because there was relief for companies which exported goods and for manufacturing companies which only paid 10 per cent tax, while small businessmen with limited companies paid 50 per cent tax, which was subsequently reduced to 40 per cent. As Senator Quinn said, these people create employment so they should get tax relief.

Although the Minister has cut taxes, he has also shown caution. The ESRI report states that this boom will not last forever. The Minister has recognised that by not allowing the economy to overheat as happened in Britain. I have great faith in his ability to ensure that our economy remains successful in the years ahead.

It is important to put on the record that we have never had a debate on the budget at such an early stage in the Seanad and Senator Ross should take credit for using his Private Members' time to do so. There is no reason such a debate could not take place every year and I ask the Leader to bear that in mind. That is the last point on which I will agree with Senator Ross.

Thank God for that.

Senator Ross took grave exception to the negotiations on Partnership 2000 because he felt the authority of the Oireachtas was being undermined by trade unionists and other people sitting in Government Buildings who were making decisions with IBEC, with whom he has a love hate relationship, and determining the direction of the economy. While other changes could have been made in this budget, the commitment to give tax relief to the PAYE worker, which amounts to under £1 billion, has effectively been met with a year still to go in the agreement. That is good for the stability of the country. However, I regret that the Minister chose to do so on the basis of reducing the tax rates rather than widening the tax bands. This was done for obvious political gain because that is what the punters in the pubs will recognise as an improvement. We now need to examine the thresholds at which people pay the higher rate of tax and at which they enter the tax net rather than the five year plan to reduce taxation to 20 per cent and 40 per cent. Those two thresholds must be brought into line with other economies in Europe.

The Minister did not spell out how he intends to improve the income tax position of cross-Border workers which causes serious difficulties. Many people, including teachers, live on one side of the Border and work on the other side. Over the past two years I made representations to Deputy McCreevy when he was in Opposition and as Minister for Finance. I look forward to seeing how he will resolve this issue. People must pay their taxes but we must decide if they should be paid where they reside or where they work. They should not have to pay on both sides of the Border. There will be winners and losers no matter what the Minister decides to do. Perhaps an allowance could be introduced which might deal with both situations.

I do not understand what the Minister said about tax breaks, tax concessions, tax shelters and tax avoidance or evasion. It is unfair to say they are synonymous because they are not. I do not agree with reducing BES funding from £1 million to £0.25 million. It was a good idea to increase it from £0.25 million or £0.5 million to £1 million three budgets ago because businesses which were trying to develop could not raise funds. Everyone, not least Senator Ross, knows that banks know nothing about risk capital as they do not take risks. People invested in BES schemes, although many lost money. Tipperary Crystal and Tintawn Curragh Carpets, for example, are in trouble. There were risks from the time banks gave guarantees, but that was eliminated five budgets ago.

The BES scheme is a good opportunity for people, such as PAYE workers, to understand how industry works and to invest in the economy. There is nothing wrong with that because it is an investment in the country's future. To develop an industry is the same as marketing tourism abroad at a cost of £3.5 million to the State, as outlined in the Minister's speech. I did not hear a good explanation why that was done.

There is something funny about the scheme of tax reliefs for hotels. I listened to debates on tourism over the years and I heard strong pleas to build a hotel in Leitrim. County Roscommon could also do with help in that area, although it has a few good hotels. Why is County Donegal included in that scheme? One cannot compare Leitrim with Donegal in terms of tourism. There are many hotels in Donegal and new ones will continue to be approved there. During the last debate on tourism I proposed that tax breaks should be decided on the basis of projects rather than geographical areas, such as Dingle or Westport. There is something wrong if someone in Belmullet cannot get a grant to build a hotel but someone in Westport can get a full tax allowance to build one. The project, not the area, should be considered for tax relief. Someone can build a new hotel in Downings as long as they get people to invest in it. I am not impressed by this old fashioned approach.

I regret the Minister did not take on board proposals I made to him about increasing the capitation grants to managers of primary schools. The minor move towards helping the disadvantaged is only a pebble in the water which will not cause a ripple. I guarantee that the partners in education, parents, management and ourselves, will pressurise the Government to give proper grant aid to primary schools. This money is not for teachers but for those who run schools, with whom we share an interest.

The budget failed to bring the people into the economy in a more effective way. It is good that capital gains tax has been reduced from 40 per cent to 20 per cent, except for disposals of development land. I welcome the changes in corporation tax to bring it into line with Europe. I would have liked the Minister to make changes in employees' PRSI but, perhaps, we could consider that in the future.

The Government identified seven main concerns in its Action Programme for the Millennium, of which taxation and the need for an inclusive society were two. The Government recognised the need to reduce personal tax in order to reward effort and give people the incentive to take up work. It stated that we would seek to establish an inclusive society where all citizens have the opportunity to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country — everyone should have the chance to contribute to the wealth of the nation and to share in the benefits of economic growth.

The Government identified the following areas as priorities: people with disabilities, people benefiting from social welfare, carers looking after people at the home, and the need to tackle long-term unemployment. Today's budget shows that this Government was not paying mere lip-service to these needs and priorities. This Government is taking action.

The Minister has produced a budget which addresses the key issues, as one would expect from a prudent yet farseeing individual. They are the control of public spending, the correction of tax inequities and an acknowledgement of the role of the elderly and the reward which is due to them.

The challenges which face us are the creation of the environment to allow for continued job creation, the containment of inflation and careful preparation for the future. Nothing is certain and the economy must continue to grow and develop to ensure the creation of wealth, which will allow us to maintain the lifestyle to which we as a nation are slowly becoming accustomed. This budget address specifically these key issues.

All proposals on public service pay must in future outline the implications for the pay bill. Surely that is the way to govern any country or run any company. Nobody I know in business would take on a proposal without knowing how it would affect the bottom line. Everybody will accept that public service pay must not grow out of all control. Spending in this area reduces the money which is available to all other areas of expenditure.

Taxation is another area which impacts on a huge number of individuals, single persons and married couples, part-time workers, old age pensioners, professionals, lone parents, high flyers, employers and the Government. This budget reduces the personal tax rates to 24 and 46 per cent respectively. Personal and PRSI allowances are increased, the standard bands are widened, exemption limits are increased, the widowed parent bereavement allowance is increased, the threshold for levies is increased, the allowance for the blind and incapacitated is increased, withholding tax is reduced, DIRT is reduced and tax relief for carers looking after family members in the home is being critically examined. Let us be clear. All of these measures mean one thing: more disposable income in everybody's pockets.

In particular, I welcome the additional tax free allowance for the long-term unemployed returning to work and the allowances which are available to employers. This imaginative measure is a serious move in the fight against long-term unemployment, one of the main problems facing us as we move into the new millennium.

Another important issue for employers is the reduction in corporation tax from 36 to 32 per cent, while the rate on the first £50,000 is being reduced to 25 per cent. As a person with a small business, I know that all of small manufacturing and services companies will welcome this. It will continue to provide businesses with the incentives necessary to make profits as they will benefit more and more from each extra pound of profit.

In the area of social inclusion, I want to focus in particular on child income support, family income support and employment support services. Child benefit is increased and, where a parent has twins, it is paid at 150 per cent of the normal rate, nearly enough to make you want twins. The grant payable on the birth of three or more is to be increased to £500 and a new grant introduced when the children reach the ages of four and 12. This can only be welcomed by anybody who has received money in that particular situation.

Family income supplement will be assessed on earnings net of income tax and income thresholds will be increased by £7 per week.

The number of places available on the back to work allowance scheme will be increased by 5,000. This is another measure which is geared at assisting the unemployed to return to work and it is extremely welcome.

Carers will receive their own free travel passes, with the carer's allowance being extended for six weeks after the death of the person being cared for.

The Minister has also allocated £7 million to a programme for people with a mental handicap, £3 million to people with a physical or sensory disability, and £1.5 million to the psychiatric services. He has allocated £4 million for the hospital waiting initiative, an additional £3.5 million for dental services, £5 million for new acute hospital units, £5 million for cancer treatment and £2.5 million for accident and emergency services.

While I must admit disappointment that child care tax relief is not included yet by the Minister, I welcome his continued commitment to this issue and his acknowledgement that it will, and must, be dealt with in the very near future. The importance of dealing with this issue in a pragmatic and operational way is second to none and I am happy to wait until our next budget to ensure all angles are covered in this vital area. I applaud the Minister's courage in ensuring that he does not approach this complex and difficult area in an emotive and bulldozer fashion as outlined earlier this evening here.

The Minister hopes to increase jobs, investment and tax revenue and he has introduced a clear manner of doing so in today's budget, all the time continuing to reduce the tax burden and tax rates on the PAYE sector and on earned income generally.

This budget is well thought out. It is proactive rather than reactive. It delivers on tax reform, and recognises and rewards effort. It helps us prepare for the future, ensuring that the economy will continue to grow and everybody will benefit from the continued and deserved prosperity of the nation. I commend the Minister and the Government on their work.

I call Senator Costello.

I welcome the Senator at 7.40 p.m.

Senator Costello, without interruption.

Is that a generous welcome or did I detect a——

The first member of the Labour Party arrives at 7.40 p.m. to a budget debate.

Senator Cassidy, it is not in order to make that kind of comment.

I apologise.

Is that the Leader of the House who is welcoming me in such glowing terms? I thank the Senator.

I thank the Independent Senators, the proposers of the motion, which, I am sure, was tabled with the wholehearted agreement of the Leader of the House and Government Senators.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words about the budget which has just been put before the other House. It would be nice to contribute a little earlier but, as the Leader will be aware, due to the rota of speakers the Labour Party spokesperson does not contribute until the tenth speaking position becomes available.

That is his side's problem.

It is not; it is the agreement of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

We cannot debate that matter.

The Leader knows well that I have harped on the issue at every meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is the Leader of the House who has brought this upon us, a Chathaoirligh, not I. It is unfair that the leader of a group of Senators or spokesperson on an issue is tenth in line to speak.

It would be better if Senator Costello addressed the motion.

I was about to do so until interrupted by the Leader.

It is good that we have taken the initiative to have a debate on the budget at the earliest possible moment. It was anomalous that while the budget was discussed in the other House, we could not debate it until well into the new year. We now have an opportunity to discuss it at the same time as the Dáil.

I compliment the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, on those aspects of the budget which I found attractive, but a number of other features were disappointing. He had an opportunity to present the best budget of all time. The economy has been exceptionally well run by successive Governments in the nineties. It is now on a stable footing and for the first time we have a budget surplus and a large amount of money available for distribution. I am glad that certain categories, such as old age pensioners and widows, have been granted a hefty increase. I am not satisfied with other social welfare increases or the tax changes.

There has been a deviation from the direction taken by budgets in the last few years, including those of the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil/Labour Coalition in 1993-4. The thrust of those budgets was to make money available to the less well off, people in poorly paid or part-time employment, and participants in community employment schemes. The idea was to create as much equity as possible in the distribution of surplus money, but that has not been maintained — it seems this is what the Progressive Democrats call "payback time". Previous budgets in the nineties did not alter the top rate of tax, currently 48 per cent, although the standard rate was decreased in the last budget. Those other budgets broadened the standard rate band, the threshold at which tax is imposed; last year it was widened by £500 but this year the increase was only £100, which is tiny. The thrust has been diluted considerably and Fianna Fáil's promise has been broken. This is essentially a PD budget——

The Senator is negative as usual.

——which puts its emphasis on the top rate and corporation tax. Another commitment was broken in that area. The proposed lower rate of 20 per cent has not been introduced. The present Minister for Finance virtually staked his reputation on retaining the corporation tax rate of 10 per cent but he has now done a U-turn by agreeing to raise it to 12.5 per cent, the rate struck by the previous coalition Government.

I am also disappointed that the increases in child benefit and family income supplement will not be paid until the autumn, almost 12 months from now. There has been no attempt to improve the lot of the less well off. For example, there is no provision for adult literacy, a subject we discussed earlier. There is no provision for the socially excluded; there is merely a promise to look at child care and to establish a committee on care in the community. The income tax take will increase by 6.3 per cent but the capital tax take will decrease by 10.4 per cent, which gives a good idea of the thrust of the budget. The Minister had a great opportunity but he has squandered it.

I wish to share two minutes of my time with the Leader.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is evident from this debate that the Minister has got the balance right, since both Senator Ross and Senator Ryan, who are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, are complimentary about the budget. I am sad that my colleague from Wexford has abandoned the Chamber as I hoped she would be here to listen to me. Like Deputy Noonan, she mentioned that the Government had the best set of financial results since Michael Collins. It shows an abysmal ignorance of history to infer or suggest that Collins inherited a benign economic position from Britain when we gained independence.

Also, a degree of short-sightedness is shown in these comments in that the foundations of the present economic boom were laid in 1987, following the disastrous growth in public expenditure under the coalition Government led by Dr. Garret FitzGerald. The social partnership agreements, which have contributed so much to underpinning our economic growth in the last decade, were also initiated during Mr. Ray MacSharry's term as Minister for Finance.

Both Deputy Noonan and Senator Doyle overlooked the profligacy of the last Government, which did a great deal of damage to public expenditure during its two and a half years in office. But for the recent correction made by the electorate, we could have had a similar scenario to that inherited in 1987. The Minister drew attention to one aspect of this increase — public service pay grew by an alarming 10.5 per cent between 1996 and 1997 and a built in 6 per cent is leading into next year.

The Minister has balanced this by ensuring that the marginalised who have not yet enjoyed the benefit of the growth in our economy — the Celtic tiger — are catered for in this budget. The socially inclusive aspects of the package are to be commended. As he pointed out, the taxation increase of £282 million will ensure that the partnership target of £525 million will be reached within its first two years. The social welfare increases are to be welcomed, particularly the £5 per week increase in the old age pension, which is three times the rate of inflation. That is a measure of the commitment to care for our elderly and marginalised.

The family income supplement will now be calculated on net rather than gross income, which is a long overdue amendment of the scheme. The basic allowance will increase from £11 to £15 per week. An unheralded aspect of the budget is the extension of free travel to carers, which is to be welcomed. The introduction of free travel for the elderly was one of the great initiatives introduced by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Haughey and it has done much to enhance the lives of the elderly at very little cost to the Exchequer.

The package of £3 million for people with physical or sensory disabilities has already been mentioned. We should also welcome the 1,000 extra places on the part-time jobs option which will cost £70 million in a full year.

Widows deserve special recognition. Widows with children will get an increase in the tax free allowance from £1,500 to £5,000 in the first year after bereavement. Given that many women work and have an income this is a welcome development. The Minister should be commended for tapering this relief over five rather than three years. All these tax exemption limits will remove 15,000 people from the income tax net.

The initiatives for helping the long-term unemployed, especially the tax free allowance of £3,000, are innovative and welcome. Unemployment is the one economic indicator that has failed to move as we would wish.

I welcome the measures on taxation, including the reduction in the income tax rates from 48 per cent to 46 per cent and from 26 per cent to 24 per cent. However, the Minister might have considered retaining the 48 per cent rate for high earners, especially for those earning between £100,000 to £200,000 per year.

Will the Minister reconsider the figures for the BES scheme? The reduction from £1 million to £250,000 is alarming and may not be a sufficient quantum of money to kick start a business. Perhaps it could be increased to £500,000.

I compliment the Minister on the budget. It cares for the needy, rewards effort and risk takers and sets out a strategy to preserve our economic growth for the future.

I welcome the budget, especially the social welfare provisions. I also welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Wallace, to the House. She started her Oireachtas career in Seanad Éireann. Given that this is European Day for the Disabled, I congratulate her on her new appointment. She must be pleased that funding of £24.15 million is being made available by the Minister for Health and Children for services for people with disabilities. The Government is committed to enhancing opportunities for people with disabilities to achieve independent living and community integration. I congratulate the Minister of State on this achievement so soon after taking office. I also welcome the provision of £100,000 for the Irish Hospice Foundation and £100,000 for that great lady, Sister Consilio and her Cluain Mhuire hospital, which she has been running on pennies for years.

The allocation for tourism is to be welcomed. The Ryder Cup will be staged in Ireland in a few years and the Tour de France will be launched here next year. These events help to bring people to Ireland and maintain tourism numbers. I also welcome the substantial allocation of £20 million for the development of Croke Park over the next three years.

As the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is present I will concentrate on some aspects of the budget which are of importance to women. I am disappointed that the tax exemption thresholds have not been further increased. Women are paid less than men — they get approximately 70 per cent of the average industrial wage. Any increase in that area would have meant a great deal to them. I regret that the tax exemption threshold still stands at approximately £4,100. It is an exceptionally low figure for elderly retired women. For example, women over the age of 85, of whom there are far more than men, on occupational pensions of not much more than £100 per week will still pay tax. It is most unfortunate that a bigger effort was not made to exclude them from the tax net. While the tax rates are lower, it would have made a bigger difference if an additional few hundred pounds had been added to the tax exemption thresholds.

I am glad that marriage counselling and mediation services have been given much needed funding. Money must be put into this if we mean to tackle the problem of marriage breakdown. I am also pleased that back to work schemes have not only been increased in terms of numbers but also in terms of the areas to which they apply. This is another area of importance to women.

The extension of free travel to carers is important. However, more money should have been provided for respite care. Perhaps the Minister of State will promote these areas. Respite care has been given very little funding over the years; indeed, there are some areas where no respite care is available.

We are inclined to introduce legislation without adequate concern for its funding. I therefore applaud the Government for at least providing additional funding for the child protection services. These are much needed services and I hope this funding will be directed towards them.

It is important that the funding for people with disabilities is wisely spent. However, no provision is made for personal care assistance or allowances. Senators have applauded the allocation of £20 million to the GAA. I am glad Sister Consilio was allocated money. However, what about Sister Mary Joseph in the Dublin south inner city area, who asked me to try to get money for sports facilities in that area to try to help juveniles who become involved in drugs? She sought only £3.5 million to set up a huge complex. Yet £3 million has been allocated for sports facilities. How much of this will be allocated to tourism? Can we not spend money in areas where sports facilities are urgently needed? A sum of £3.5 million would have enabled Sister Mary Joseph to do a huge amount of work which could make a major difference towards the culture of dependency in our inner city areas. I am very disappointed that this has not been addressed.

I am pleased that increases in social welfare benefits have been provided. They are badly needed. While I am glad that increases in tax relief are being provided to charities, we are doing nothing about providing tax relief for private sources and corporations in respect of contributions to funds of the kind proposed to be established under the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund Bill.

I thank Members for contributing to the debate. Understandably, it has been used by Members to make special pleadings. With regard to the remarks of Senator Henry on my soft left and Senator Ryan on my hard left, I do not disagree with what they said, nor with the special pleading which other Members have made on behalf of their pet projects. However, that is easy to do. Let me make a special plea to them. If Members request more money for various projects they should tell the House how the money will be provided. That is what the Minister for Finance did today. He outlined how he proposed to take money from one source and give it to another. However, those making special pleadings for good causes never say from where the money will come. It is one of the luxuries of not being in Government, but it is an obligation of which they should be aware.

I resent the accusations that believers in the free market do not have a social conscience — a phrase which has been bandied about in the House. Social consciences do not belong exclusively to the left; they belong to everybody. However, some people are a little more realistic about their social conscience than others. These people share the sympathy for the poor, for women and for other groups in society, but they concede that others feel that way and they do not believe that changes can be made overnight.

A budget is about saying where the money will come from. I agree with those who called for more money for the elderly, the disabled and the blind. I applaud the Minister for Finance for the measures he has taken for those groups. However, we cannot give money to everybody without saying where the taxes will be increased to fund it. That is a message which does not come from Opposition parties, but that is the nature of politics.

With regard to capital gains tax, I agree with what Senator Brendan Ryan said about share options.

Who benefits from them?

The point he made was absolutely correct. They are a problem in the free enterprise sector in which I work. In certain cases they are immoral and unjust and they should not be granted in such circumstances. However, capital gains tax was punitive to those who made small gains — not those who made hundreds of thousands of pounds, but to those who made a couple of thousand pounds. That is why we should welcome the reduction. It is not welcome for those who make millions on share options and I have no sympathy for them.

They will benefit.

I agree with the Senator that they should not benefit.

It is easy to misrepresent those who tackle public service pay, who maintain that we have a good public service and who ask why the public service should be victimised. I do not disagree with those who maintain that on the whole we have a good public service. However, let me not be misinterpreted — public servants are privileged to have security of employment, to be well paid and to have received pay increases in excess of the private sector.

Some sections of the private sector.

Public servants should make some sacrifices for those who are less privileged.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn