Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 19 Dec 1997

Vol. 153 No. 7

Appropriation Bill, 1997 [Certified Money Bill]: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome this opportunity, in the unavoidable absence of my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to address the Seanad on the Appropriation Bill, 1997. The annual Appropriation Bill gives statutory effect to the departmental Estimates for the supply services, non-capital and capital, including all Supplementary Estimates which were approved by the Dáil since the last Appropriation Act.

The Bill before the House appropriates to the various services listed in the Schedule the sum of £12,104 million. This total amount comprises the original Estimates of £11,675 million, as voted by the Dáil last May, and Supplementary Estimates totalling £429 million, most of which were approved by the Dáil in recent weeks. In line with the normal practice, the Bill also approves the use of departmental receipts amounting to £1,155 million as appropriations-in-aid of the services listed in the Schedule.

I wish to say a few words about the Government's general policy on public expenditure and to address some of the criticisms of that policy which have been made since the publication of the 1998 Estimates last month and in the context of the budget on 3 December. The Government's policy on expenditure as stated in An Action Programme for the Millennium is to limit net current spending growth to 4 per cent and capital spending growth to 5 per cent on average up to 1999 and to reduce overall Government spending as a share of national output.

The Government's policy on expenditure is soundly based. As the Minister for Finance made clear in his Budget Statement, the Government is not intent on controlling expenditure as an end in itself. This Government is not engaged in a policy of severe curtailment of public services which would do untold damage to the social consensus and progress which we have achieved in the last decade. This Government is fully committed to maintaining a firm control of the public finances. However, it is also committed to ensuring that all sections of Irish society, particularly the most disadvantaged and marginalised, can participate in and benefit from our extraordinary economic success.

The continued strong performance of the economy is providing the resources to improve in a significant way the position of the more disadvantaged in our society. In his budget, the Minister for Finance committed over £280 million in a full year to a comprehensive package of social inclusion measures. This amount, with the £273 million committed in the 1997 budget, more than meets the commitment in Partnership 2000 to spend £525 million on social inclusion measures over the three year lifetime of that agreement.

The Government has adopted a balanced and equitable approach to public spending. It is providing significant additional resources to improve essential public services for the benefit of the most deprived members of the community. It is doing this while at the same time containing the growth in current expenditure within the limit set out in its programme. The Government recognises the importance of building on the social progress achieved to date by addressing the many inequalities which still exist in Irish society. It recognises also, however, that there must be a prudent limit on the amount of resources we can commit to doing this.

Controlling public expenditure is a crucial element in this Government's budgetary policies. It is one of the key priorities which the Government has identified as part of its overall objective for tighter management of the economy so as to maximise the long-term potential for growth, jobs, social inclusion and improved living standards for all. The commitment on limiting expenditure growth is taken seriously by the Government. Past and bitter experience in Ireland tells us that mismanagement of public expenditure can lead to serious problems in overall budgetary and economic policy. The inevitable consequences of spiralling public spending are higher taxation or increased Exchequer borrowing. This Government is determined that this will not happen. The prudent budgetary policies which have done so much for the success of the economy will be maintained, including continued firm discipline in the control of current public expenditure.

Criticisms have been made of the Government's expenditure policy. This criticism has in general been devoid of rational analysis and has focused principally and narrowly on the technical basis on which the figures for the increase in expenditure have been calculated and presented. The charge has been made that the figures for current expenditure have been manipulated in such a way as to present a false view of the increase in 1998 over 1997. Specifically, the criticism centres on the fact that certain payments were made this year which were not expected to be made until 1998 and future years and that this was done to ensure that the increase in 1998 spending is within the limit set in the Government's programme. The implication is that, if these payments had not been made, expenditure in 1998 would be significantly over that limit.

The Minister for Finance has already answered this criticism on many occasions in interviews in the different media and particularly in a comprehensive statement to the Dáil on the 1998 Estimates on 26 November. In that statement he gave a clear and full account of the position. That is a matter of public record and I do not propose to cover the ground in detail again today. However, I take the opportunity to make a couple of important points on the matter to clear up any possible misunderstandings that may still exist.

Nobody should be in any doubt about the Government's commitment to controlling expenditure, which is serious and solid. The expenditure Estimates for 1998, as adjusted for the additional spending measures announced in the budget, do not imply a weakening in the Government's resolve to keep a tight rein on public spending. Net current expenditure, as defined for the purposes of the Government's programme, is estimated to increase by 3.7 per cent in 1998 over the likely 1997 outturn. The emerging trend in expenditure will be closely monitored during 1998 and necessary action will be taken to ensure that the outturn for the year will still be below the Government's target of 4 per cent.

In relation to capital expenditure, the post budget figure for the increase in Exchequer funded capital in 1998 is 19.2 per cent. This is significantly above the limit of 5 per cent growth in such spending on average up to 1999 as set out in the Government's programme.

The provision of £100 million in 1998 for the education technology investment fund, which has been announced by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Education and Science, is one of the main reasons for this large increase. The announcement of this fund has been seen as an innovative and far sighted measure to tackle one of the biggest potential risks on the economic horizon, namely, the emergence of serious short-ages in skills among our young workforce. It would be difficult to find anyone who has questioned the soundness of this decision. It represents a major investment in our education system and in the future economic and social fabric of society. Apart from this significant investment in our educational system, there are justifiable increases in other capital spending programmes, all of which will strengthen the social and economic infrastructure which is essential to underpin Ireland's continued development.

Payments which the Government has been criticised for making in 1997 as a means of manipulating the spending figures are all totally legitimate and are in respect of liabilities which are fully matured and properly due for payment. As the Minister for Finance has already explained, it is wise to use the resources which this year's strong Exchequer position affords to meet these costs now rather than later. The spending commitments involved will have to be met at some stage and it is entirely reasonable to make provision now so as to reduce the burden facing the Exchequer in later years.

Those who have criticised the Government's expenditure policy on the basis of the somewhat facile charge of massaging the figures are not seeing the big picture. They have failed to appreciate that the Government's spending plans for 1998 as set out in the Estimates and the budget, by keeping growth in current spending within the 4 per cent limit, demonstrate clearly the Government's determination to ensure that expenditure policy, as a key element of economic and budgetary management, contributes effectively to the maintenance of a strong national consensus and underpins significant investment in support of this country's future economic and social development.

As the Appropriation Bill is the Government's last item of financial business for the year, it provides a good opportunity to review our general economic performance. Such a review is important also since it provides the context within which budgetary and expenditure policy must be seen.

This is a particularly auspicious time for the economy. We are currently enjoying the benefits of a period of sustained economic growth. Ireland's GDP has grown by about 40 per cent over the past five years, outperforming all of our European Union partners. One of the most important and pleasing aspects of this growth is the extent to which it is being reflected in the reduction in the numbers on the live register of almost 50,000 since August 1996. Furthermore, the number at work has risen by 220,000 since 1993. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous Government to this very good news.

The prospects for further growth are also very bright. We expect investment to continue growing at a high rate, perhaps by an annual average of 12 per cent, over the period 1997 to 1999. This is very important in the context of providing increased capacity and will help facilitate the continuation of non-inflationary economic growth in the medium term at a time in the economic cycle when bottlenecks would otherwise be expected to arise.

We are clearly very much alert to the dangers of inflation in this period of exceptional growth. Increased capacity has been provided through a significant public capital programme. This will help to limit price pressures as a result of constraints in the supply of goods and services. We have to realise also that now in particular is a time for resisting the temptation to seek either wage increases above those provided for in Partnership 2000, or enhancements to our public services beyond those included in the Estimates and budget for 1998. It is clear that there is no head-room for excessive pay claims. In addition, imprudent increases in non-pay public expenditure would undoubtedly undermine our position when we need to ensure that the economy can develop further the necessary economic infrastructure in the years ahead when international transfers may not be on the same scale as in the recent past.

The targets for the relevant economic aggregates are being met in the context of satisfying the Maastricht criteria for economic and monetary union qualification. The corresponding targets for the period to the year 2000 are set at levels which will enable us to enter and participate in EMU from January 1999. We can move into the single currency, confident in the knowledge that the economy is in its most secure condition since the foundation of the State. Inflation is at record low levels and is expected to remain moderate at approximately 2 per cent over the next three years. Adherence to Partnership 2000 will help to ensure that this remains the case. Ireland's competitiveness can therefore be maintained, thus ensuring continued strong export growth on our foreign markets which are themselves forecast to remain favourable over the medium term. The balance of payments is also expected to remain healthy and will likely be in surplus over the period.

The general Government balance has moved into surplus this year and is forecast to remain so for the foreseeable future. The Government debt to GDP ratio, which has fallen from approximately 96 per cent in 1993 to approximately 67 per cent in 1997, is expected to fall further by approximately 5 percentage points per year over the next three years. The Government's fiscal position is therefore fundamentally very sound, and leaves us well positioned for successful participation in EMU.

We can look forward to experiencing the benefits of EMU in advance of the January 1999 start-up date. As the participating European economies continue to converge, we can anticipate a fall in our interest rates which will be a welcome stimulus to business investment and will help to keep inflation low.

In his first budget recently, the Minister for Finance took the opportunity to build on the foundations for our current economic success which have been laid by his predecessors, particularly through the successful transformation of the public finances, with the support of the social partners and the community at large. We can see today the fruits of this co-operation in practically all the main economic indicators, most notably in the numbers of people at work.

The approach adopted in the budget, which will, I believe, prove to be a successful formula, was driven principally by a need for the continued maintenance of healthy public finances; the introduction of work-friendly policies in both taxation and the social welfare code; the development of a social inclusion package with particular emphasis on the elderly, the numbers of whom will double in the first half of the next century; and the provision of further investment, especially against a background of changes in European structural funds and the emerging capacity constraints, both of labour and capital, in anticipation of continued high growth levels.

Meeting these requirements will address the objectives of our Action Programme for the Millennium and will deliver on the promised resources in Partnership 2000 for tax and social inclusion. It also will ensure that we create the right conditions for continuing our strong economic growth performance, thus maintaining progress in reducing the numbers on the live register.

The tax measures introduced in the budget, coupled with the initiatives under the family income supplement and the back to work allowance scheme, are designed to reward effort and to improve incentives to work. These will increase take home pay and make it more attractive to work, thereby minimising pay cost pressures and helping to keep inflation under control.

The overall limits on increases in current spending of less than 4 per cent, along with the prudent tax initiatives, will maintain the general Government balance in surplus. Government debt will continue to be reduced. Inflation will be maintained at the moderate level of 2 per cent. In general, the budget is enterprise oriented and will ensure that our new found and well earned wealth is maintained through strong non-inflationary growth well into the future. This balanced approach is the initial step in the implementation of a five year programme which will see us comfortably positioned for entry into Economic and Monetary Union in 1999 and for successful participation beyond in the new millennium.

I now want to outline briefly some of the details of the Appropriation Bill before the House today.

Section 1 of the Bill gives statutory effect to the Departmental Estimates for the supply services, non-capital and capital, including all Supplementary Estimates which were approved by the Dáil since the last Appropriation Act.

On 15 May 1997 the Dáil approved the original 1997 Estimates for Departmental expenditure, which totalled £11,675 million. Since then the Dáil has approved a number of Supplementary Estimates for various Departments which, in total, come to £429 million. This extra amount brings the total grant for supply services expenditure in 1997 to £12,104 million. Section 1(1) of the Bill appropriates this total amount of £12,104 million to the various supply services or Departments as listed in the Schedule to the Bill.

In addition, section 1(2) of the Bill provides for the application of a total amount of £1,155 million in Departmental receipts as appropriations-in-aid of the grants for the supply services listed in the Schedule.

I will outline briefly the main factors which have given rise to additional expenditure and the requirement for Supplementary Estimates this year. lt is important to bear in mind that the actual outturn for expenditure is likely to be lower than that implied by the Supplementary Estimates as additional savings begin to emerge towards the year end.

The total net current expenditure approved by the Dáil in May this year was £10,222 million. This included £72 million in respect of Hepatitis C compensation payments, which was not included in the revised Book of Estimates published earlier. The latest best estimate is that net current expenditure in 1997 will be some £10,400 million, £178 million higher than the original Estimates approved by the Dáil.

This year the Government has had to meet a number of significant costs on some important economic and social programmes.

I want to turn now to section 2 of the Bill. The bringing forward of the date of the 1998 budget to December this year raises certain difficulties for the first time as regards adherence to Article 17.1.2º of the Constitution. Article 17.1.2º requires that the Financial Resolutions of each financial year must be enacted into law by the end of that financial year, that is, by 31 December 1997 in the case of the Financial Resolutions passed on budget night, 3 December. However, Article 17.1.2º also allows for the 31 December deadline to be deferred if an Act to that effect is passed before the end of 1997.

This section makes provision for this deferment option to be invoked. The alternative to this approach would have been to rush through the Dáil and Seanad in the two week period between the budget and the Christmas recess detailed tax legislation which could at times be complex. The approach being provided for in this section of the Appropriation Bill will maintain the normal statutory deadlines for passing budget measures into law, that is, 84 days for the completion of the Second Stage and four months for enactment of the Finance Bill.

Ireland's economic achievements are largely due to prudent budgetary policy and to the consensus between the Government and the other social partners. The broad national consensus on economic and social policy has underpinned our competitiveness. In turn, sound fiscal policies have allowed the Government to reduce taxation and to increase spending on key social programmes.

It is essential that budgetary policy remains on track, that the consensus remains strong and that a significant investment is made to support Ireland's future development. The Government's expenditure policy will maintain that sound approach.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I wish you, a Chathaoirligh, and all your colleagues a very happy Christmas.

I thank the Minister of State for his outline of the Appropriation Bill to the House and matters pertaining thereto. We could take such latitude in addressing a Bill like this that two hours per speaker would hardly do justice to it. While that much time is not at our disposal today, I understand we will have another opportunity to debate the contents of the Bill in detail.

I do not think that point has been made, but it is my understanding that we will and that those of us who speak today will not be precluded from speaking on a Second Stage type debate on another occasion.

On that understanding, I will keep my remarks brief. I wish you, Acting Chairperson, the Minister of State and other Senators present a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year, lest I forget to do so when I have concluded.

As the Minister said, this Bill is routine annual legislation which gives effect to departmental Estimates for 1997. We are inclined to think we are dealing with future spending whereas we are really rubber-stamping what has already been spent in the past year. These are Estimates which were drawn up and put before the House by my Government, which limits my ability to be very critical of them in any specific way. This is a joint debate, therefore, between the two sides of this House on the 1997 Estimates and their impact. We ought to be critical about different areas and complimentary about others, but time does not allow such detail.

As the Minister pointed out, this Bill also gives effect to the Supplementary Estimates which have recently been passed and to the recent budget. It is the first time there have been two budgets in one year, with the 1998 budget being passed in 1997. Article 17.1.2º of the Constitution requires any budget day Resolutions to be passed into law in the year the budget is passed. It is fortunate that the same Article also provides for a deferral of the enactment of budget day Resolutions and that is the aspect being taken on board in this Appropriation Bill which tidies up any outstanding financial matters of 1997. Last year the extension of the scrappage scheme was dealt with in a section of the Appropriation Bill. This Bill wraps up matters as well as dealing with departmental and Supplementary Estimates.

The Minister briefly mentioned the Supplementary Estimates. The most interesting debate, if we had time for it, would perhaps lie in the area of the Supplementary Estimates. In total, £429 million gross Supplementary Estimates were passed in the past few weeks. That is quite a high percentage of the overall current spending of different Departments. I know the net figure was something less because there were savings in the Votes of some Departments. Some £429 million more had to be provided under certain Votes for different services to ensure Departments had authority to overspend in those areas.

Perhaps one of the most controversial in terms of the size of the overrun was the Department of Education. We are skirting over this slightly because it might not be politic to question what is spent on education. However, the Minister said that the commitment to limiting expenditure growth is taken very seriously by this Government. Some £150 million extra will be spent on education and it must be asked immediately where, and if it was justified.

Some £100 million was spent on two specific items in the Department of Education. One was bringing forward spending from 1998 into 1997 because of the especially strong Exchequer returns this year — I do not criticise it, but I am not sure it is understood by commentators — and consequently that much less will be spent next year, if there is any logic in the Minister's statement about the limiting of expenditure growth being taken seriously by the Government. A figure of £68 million is given for this.

Part of that £68 million interestingly includes bringing into the current year payment to local authorities of third level grants. Those of us who have been members of local authorities remember the amount of money it cost local authorities to have to wait 12 months to recoup third level grants. They were acting as an agency for the Department of Education in handing out and managing those grants. Some £7 million or thereabouts will be saved by local authorities in placing third level grants on a current year basis and they will welcome that. I thank the Minister on their behalf for a job well done.

Another great chunk of the Department of Education overrun relates to the salaries of second level teachers, the payment arrangements for which are being changed. At the end of December this year, £33 million will be paid which might not have been due until the first week in January. It is only a week at the end of the year but it adds to the overrun by £33 million. Again, I do not criticise it; it is mainly a bookkeeping exercise, but it adds enormously to the appearance of a huge cost overrun in the Department of Education.

There are other matters, such as the currency exchange rate losses suffered by the Department on ESF student grants and some £12 million extra had to be provided for that. This was also part of the overrun.

The Supplementary Estimates provide £65 million for pay and local bargaining deals. This includes paramedics and prison officers. Today's newspapers state that Ireland is the most expensive country in which to imprison people. The main reason for this is the cost of prison officer overtime. This chestnut has not been grasped by successive Governments. We need to tackle this matter in consultation with the public service unions as it is making our prisons the most expensive in Europe, and, perhaps, the world. There must be a balance between excessive overtime and an efficient service. If overtime is too excessive there comes a time when the service is no longer efficient. Overtime is perceived as part of normal pay and this is making negotiations difficult. However, we need to proceed with those negotiations.

Extra money has been provided for hospital consultants and various CPSU grades. A Supplementary Estimate voted an additional £32 million for gardaí and prison officers. Gardaí were involved in extra operations such as Operation Dóchas, which we cannot criticise. They were also involved in Operation Freeflow, even though the traffic was not flowing freely in Dublin this morning. The capital will be deprived of 200-300 Oireachtas Members' cars for the next week. If for no other reason I am sure that the public will be delighted to see the back of us. The traffic is very bad, Operation Freeflow or not.

The gardaí were also involved in anti-BSE measures. I am not sure that patrolling the Border for illegally transported cattle is the best use of gardaí. There must be better ways of managing this important problem. We need gardaí in uniform patrolling our cities, towns and countryside to restore confidence in the elderly, single women and young people so that they can walk home from school after dark. The most important factor in restoring the public's confidence in the justice and Garda management systems is for increased visibility of gardaí in uniform. That is not too sophisticated a request.

Considerable savings were made in social welfare payments. Thankfully, increased PRSI buoyancy as a result of the increased numbers at work has meant that we have kept net social welfare spending down. There was a 9.5 per cent increase in current supply services between 1996 and 1997. There was a 9.3 per cent increase between 1994 and 1995. However, there was only a 4.4 per cent increase between 1995 and 1996. It is critical that we watch current and capital public expenditure.

The Civil Service plays a central and pivotal role in advising and supporting Government and delivering the services for which this money is being provided. We must look at what changes can be made if we are to maintain our proud record of civil and public service. That service has been second to none. It has an ethos and integrity which is the envy of many democracies. However, we must not be afraid of change and we must face change in the new Millennium with the demands of a young invigorated generation. If our public and Civil Service is to serve the country and future Governments to the best of their ability they must face that change. The Leader agreed to a full debate in the new year on the current state of the strategic management initiative and Delivering Better Government, which is an excellent document. The programme of change is included in that document and I recommend it to Members.

The strategic management programme was started by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds and adopted enthusiastically by the next Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton. The current Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, to his credit, is progressing it with the same vigour. There is all-party support for the programme in addition to support from the public and Civil Service unions. They are the two main differences between the present programme of change in terms of the management and provision of services by the public and Civil Service and the value for money audit, and previous occasions on which proposals to change the public service were mooted and which met with limited success. The secret this time is the acceptance of the Civil Service and public service that change is needed in order to deliver quality services and to respond to the public within the overall criterion of value for money. That acceptance is linked to all-party agreement to the change.

During the general election campaign there was no mention of what could have been a contentious political issue, the prospect of radical change in the management of the public and Civil Service. The Public Service Management Act has been operational since 1 September and it has hardly been noticed even though it involves enormous change in the governance of Ireland. The success of our public service for the last 75 years has meant that we have never really thought about how it happened. The services have simply been provided. We might question their efficiency or overspending in certain areas, for which Governments have been responsible but, generally, the public service has been enormously successful in underpinning our economy. Such is this success that when the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, which served the country extremely well since the foundation of the State, were superseded by radically different legislation, the Public Service Management Act, it did not merit a headline. Perhaps nobody noticed and perhaps that is an indicator of excellence. There was no hiccup or major difficulty in the transition.

Consultation is taking place, although not sufficiently vertically within Departments, and it will be extended further as management change progresses. From 1 January 1998, management of performance in the Civil Service will be implemented. If one had suggested five years ago that a performance management system would be introduced into the public and Civil Service, one would have expected the country to be brought to a standstill. The Government would have been at loggerheads with the civil and public service unions, while the Opposition would have supported those unions and caused as much damage as possible.

The climate has changed radically and we must recognise and congratulate the three successive Administrations concerned and the public and Civil Service unions for their insistence on the programme being implemented. Of course, there is emphasis on equity and consultation, and it is true that career paths within the public and Civil Service must be examined. However, change, and in certain areas radical change, is necessary. Greater flexibility is the single most effective factor to be introduced to this debate.

There are excellent and well qualified personnel in the public and Civil Service, from top management to the young recruits from schools and colleges. New skills will be required in those services. A sum of £12 billion has been spent this year and we will need the best and brightest of our young people to serve in the public and Civil Service. The points system should have a position in the public service near the top of its table, such should be the demand for a career in that area. There was huge demand for such careers some decades ago and the wheel is turning in that direction again.

Cynicism and scepticism grew in more recent decades and we did not sufficiently defend public and civil servants, even though politicians are public servants, albeit elected rather than appointed and, in many cases, their positions are more temporary. Security of tenure is the one argument which engenders less sympathy among politicians than the public service believes it should. That issue is currently under discussion, as is the issue of contracts and recruiting personnel to carry out specific skilled jobs on contract. No decisions have been made in that regard but it is an exciting time to be part of the public and Civil Service.

The fact that this Government, like the previous Government, is committed to control of public expenditure does not mean there will not be increases in expenditure in certain areas where there will be demand for extra services in an evolving society. However, it does not mean that spending cannot be reduced in other areas in which, perhaps, the public and Civil Service should no longer be involved and where the private sector might provide a better service. We must put the entire package on the table and endeavour to get the best results from our excellent public and Civil Service. We must accept change as the norm, give a quality service to the customer and, above all, get value for taxpayers' money.

I thank the Minister for coming into the House this morning and look forward to a more wideranging debate on the changed programme in the public and Civil Service early in the new year.

I welcome to the House the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who gave an excellent broad outline of the expenditure for the year. We are passing a Bill that will give statutory effect to expenditure in 1997. This is somewhat unique because for the first time we are debating an appropriations Bill when the other House has passed the budget for the following year. The Bill also contains a provision that fulfils the constitutional requirement that certain guidelines and time limits must be met. We are making history by introducing the budget at the end of the year to bring us into line with the activities of other European states.

The Minister painted a rosy picture of our economy and of the future. We can take pride in the work of this and previous Governments. Decisions taken by the minority Government in 1987 are bearing fruit today. Some harsh financial medicine was dished out at that time, but we now know it was necessary because the creditors were at the door. The people who took those decisions were also conscious of what would be happening ten years later. We are now in the happy position of being able to meet the EU criteria for joining EMU and the single currency in the first round. That is a major achievement in ten years. Since 1987 the economy progressed in such a way that we are now capable of being part of the first group to form the single currency. All those involved since that time must take the credit.

The figures for 1997 show that employment has increased by more than 50,000 and that the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by approximately 17,000, a major achievement. It is expected that employment will increase by a further 40,000 in 1998. These figures give confidence and hope to young people going through our colleges. Money spent on education during the past number of years is currently bearing fruit for our economy. Many of our young graduates who went abroad during the past ten years are slowly drifting back and playing a major part in the development of our economy.

There has been some criticism from the Opposition in recent weeks about the way the Minister for Finance explained the expenditure. Some people believed the payments made in 1997 were made for reasons other than those given by the Minister. The Minister must be complimented for his prudent approach in this area because many such payments would have to be met either in 1998 or in subsequent years. For example, the Minister decided, because of the strong position of the economy, to put £150 million aside for An Post and Telecom Éireann pension funds. Some £158 million will be needed for the small savings reserve fund. The Minister is right to pay debts due in the future.

Local authorities have been strapped for cash over the years, particularly as they did not recoup the money for the higher education grants until the end of each year. That is no longer the case as a result of the Minister's decision to provide £68 million for it. Local authorities can now get the money as they spend it.

The Minister has also provided £35 million for secondary teachers. Why should they wait five days more than anyone else for their pay? They will now be paid on a fortnightly basis. The Minister should not be criticised for making such prudent decisions. He would be foolish to put off the day of reckoning. This happened in 1986-7 when we had serious financial problems and harsh decisions had to be taken. The Minister is looking ahead and cutting his cloth according to its measure. He must be complimented for spending this money prudently.

The stability of our economy as we move towards EMU is on everyone's mind. There is a consensus that we should pull together to ensure we are a prosperous nation in Europe. People are afraid that if we decide to join EMU without Britain it will have a knock-on effect for this country. The ESRI estimates that we could lose up to 22,000 jobs if Britain does not join EMU at the same time. I take comfort from the recent statement by the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, that he supports the single currency but that his country is not ready for it at present. I am sure that will improve confidence in this area.

The single currency will have knock-on effects on other areas. We have not fully thought out the costs involved, particularly for small shopkeepers and those in business. The changes required to cash registers will be a burden for some of these people. We need further debate on the single currency. There is a convergence committee but I am not sure of the detail involved, how it will affect the small punter in the high street and whether it has been thought out fully. We should protect people building up businesses and I do not want to see a situation where they find themselves with excessive implementation costs to become part of the single currency. It would be unfortunate that people putting a big effort into family or small business would find themselves having to meet excessive costs because Ireland was joining the single currency. I hope that will be addressed a year from now.

Regarding employment, I read a report recently where more young people finishing college are obtaining employment. That gives confidence, not alone to parents and the country generally, but to students to participate to the fullest in education knowing that there will be something there for them. I recall a debate seven or eight years ago where parents wondered what business their children had in college because there were no jobs for them when they finished. I do not hear such debate now as people are more confident of getting a job and that confidence has spread through the population.

Comments were made on the Order of Business regarding a section of society who do not seem to have got on to the back of the Celtic tiger and a number of sections have not caught on to either its back or tail. Reference was made to the fact that there are so many homeless people in Dublin and it is black mark against all of us. I hope Members will home in on this when we debate the issue during the next session and will come forward with constructive proposals and ideas for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and local authorities. It is inappropriate not to provide a roof over everybody's head considering the economy is going so well.

Many people on the margins are not getting the benefit of the improved economy, such as those in poor housing in rural areas with bad access to their houses and cul de sacs. There is a lack of infrastructural development.

Deputy Healy-Rae will sort that out.

He is from the Senator's homeland and he will look after that. Both Members are committed to Kerry and will work together on it; but there are places other than Kerry, such as in the west, that also need attention. We must get back to the thinking in Europe three or four years ago. I worked there a number of years ago on a consultative council and at that time thinking was geared towards the regions and communities. We must not lose sight of that and keep focused on the idea of keeping people in the regions and maintaining communities.

Rural decline eventually causes urban decline in so far as people are crowded into already overcrowded areas which do not have the services and facilities for those already living there. How we will move people about is important when we look at economic parameters. They should move on the basis of maintaining the fabric of society in towns and villages. We should not allow a gold rush where everybody ends up in the same place, with the resultant overcrowding and the knock-on effects of crime and so on. We do not have an opportunity to have a full debate on the Appropriations Bill today but we shall have it in the next session. Given that we would all wish to dwell on the detail of expenditure for 1997, I am pleased that those who contributed today will not be excluded from the debate on the next occasion.

By and large this is a sound economy and the decisions taken have proved to be worthwhile. This points to a better future. Let us hope the economy does not overheat, that the inflation rate is maintained and that our citizens will benefit from the next stage of our involvement in the EU, as part of the single currency.

I express my best wishes to all concerned with the House for a happy Christmas and every good wish for 1998.

Since I became a Member ten or 11 years ago I have done this shift every year with the exception of one year due to an election. When giving my pep talk to the members of the group on the Appropriations Bill, I invariably tell them they can speak about everything but tax. That had always been my description of it until this year.

Due to the change this year to bring us into line with the rest of Europe by having the budget in the first week in December, we have been required to pass the enabling legislation before the end of the year. Consequently for the first time ever we are allowed to mention those aspects of the Bill which are covered in section 2(2).

In regard to deferment of a decision, under the Constitution we are required to pass the budgetary provisions by the end of the calendar year, 31 December 1997, unless an Act deferring that decision is passed by both Houses. A section has been inserted in the Appropriations Bill. Is it appropriate that a section of a Bill, which under the Constitution should be an Act, will do what is required? I am sure it is correct but perhaps the Minister could clarify the issue in his response.

The point raised by Senator Finneran, that we will be able to have a more detailed debate in January, gives us some leeway. I shall confine myself to commenting on section 2(2) and the budget. The budget met many demands but also left many people unhappy. There has been a mixed response to it. In terms of balance, teachers, the people I represent, fared well in this budget. Those of us in the Chamber did reasonably well in that we are a net 4 per cent better off. Under Partnership 2000, close on £1 billion in terms of the tax improvements to be given back to the PAYE worker over the three year period, that has, in effect, been met over two years. The method by which it was done has caused some difficulty.

This budget did not help the disadvantaged. This is not a crude political cut, I am being clinical about it. There is nothing particularly wrong with items A to H in the new Revenue changes. I do not find anything specifically wrong with them and I am being honest. I have heard many other trade union leaders say this was a bad budget. I do not go along with that but it has flaws. It has helped those of us on average to above average incomes. The Government claims it is the first of five budgets. If so, the next budget should be weighted in favour of the low paid and the disadvantaged.

There would be nothing necessarily wrong with reducing the lower tax rate, although there is a level below which it should not fall. This would be of help to the low paid as everybody would get something but it would be a small step. The Minister should consider widening the tax bands so that fewer people pay tax at the higher rate. On budget day he said that eventually more than two thirds of taxpayers would pay tax at the lower rate. There is a need for movement in that direction.

The lower tax band threshold should be raised to create a gap between those on social welfare and those in employment. People should not lose out in taking up employment. The lower tax band should also be widened so that taxpayers do not enter the top tax band as quickly. That is far more important than reducing the lower tax rate to 20 per cent. The commitment to reduce tax rates won the Government votes in the general election but, as any fair-minded person would have to agree, the approach of widening the tax bands would be fairer. The electorate, apparently, did not want to know and made their choice. I accept the Minister's point that the Government has a democratic imperative to deliver on its commitments.

Senator Finneran mentioned that post-primary teachers will be paid fortnightly commencing in the last week of this month. A similar arrangement was made for primary teachers when Mr. MacSharry was Minister for Finance. I welcome the change.

I can find no reference to the scientific and technological education fund, to which the Minister of State referred, in the Schedule to the Bill. In the period l992-4 Deputy Noonan, the Fine Gael spokesperson on Finance, constantly referred to the accounting that took place outside the mainstream, although it was above board.

Lack of transparency.

The Book of Estimates incorporates the various budget lines which are increased. Where in the Book of Estimates will the scientific and technological education investment fund appear?

The class A rate of PRSI should be reduced by a number of percentage points in line with commitments given by the Government and its predecessor. This would be a good way of giving something back to those on low incomes, although most public and civil servants would not be affected.

The measures I have proposed, if accepted, would mean that the next budget would be loaded in favour of the disadvantaged and underprivileged in society. That should be the objective. Let us now persuade the better off and "middle off", if I might so describe them, or less well off to agree that next year's budget be loaded in the opposite direction.

The Taoiseach was in Europe during the week endeavouring to reach some agreement on a common approach to the levels of corporation tax. I should like to know the implications of that agreement over forthcoming budgets since we rely on the yield therefrom.

I take it that section 2 (2)(b) — Financial Resolution No. 2, which relates to excise on hydrocarbons, refers to super grade petrol. I should like the Minister to explain why super unleaded petrol was levied with the same tax as super leaded which would appear to go against Government policy and that of previous Ministers.

We shall be returning to this Bill and, since there are important events like Christmas parties to be attended in the course of the day, far be it from me to deprive the Minister or anybody else of their enjoyment.

I might respond to a few technical points and confirm that the Scientific and Technological Education (Investment) Fund is provided for in the 1998 Vote for the Department of Education and Science. Senator O'Toole also inquired about the overall thrust of the provisions of section 2. The Attorney General has advised that they meet the requirements of Article 17.1.2 of the Constitution, so there is no necessity for a separate Bill.

I listened with interest to all comments made in the course of this debate, including those of Senator Avril Doyle on the strategic management initiative. I welcome her forthright views and acknowledgment of the input of former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, and confirm that the present Taoiseach is determined to make further progress thereon. I should also like to acknowledge her work thereon while serving as Minister in that area. As somebody who served as a Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, I am very conscious that Senator Doyle was very keenly involved and made a major contribution to that overall debate.

It is understandable that the general thrust of this debate has been broad. Senator Finneran, as is only natural, commented on the many favourable aspects of our economy, expressing the hope that it would not overheat. His was a prudent assessment of its present state and the direction in which it is moving.

In response to Senator O'Toole I will be frank and say: yes, there were benefits for all in this latest budget, honouring commitments given in the course of the general election, representing a direct response to the electorate within our democracy.

It is important to dig deep into those latest budgetary proposals and ascertain its signals for the future. Senators have suggested a number of valuable proposals, if not words of wisdom, to the Minister for Finance on how he should proceed henceforth. The overall thrust of the budget on the general subject of social inclusion must be acknowledged and I might place on record the thinking behind it. One of the great advantages of our electoral system is that being in Opposition affords one an opportunity to consider policies, visit residents of estates in one's constituency, a sentiment often repeated to me by many of my European counterparts when I was involved in European affairs and again within my present remit with responsibility for labour matters. As public representatives we have a unique system of consultation with our people. That is important because we are not detached from them.

Speaking for myself and my own party, those of us who have had time to consider in some detail the way in which we should direct our policies were of the strong view there are areas of disadvantage and that there are special needs in our community, particularly in regard to the handicapped. In many estates there are high unemployment rates and a major problem with drugs. That is accepted by all parties, and nobody has a monopoly of wisdom in this area.

The figure which the Minister for Finance committed in the budget was £280 million in a full year to a comprehensive package of social inclusion measures. That is in addition to £273 million committed in the 1997 budget and it more than meets the commitments in Partnership 2000. I know Senator O'Toole was involved in that whole process. The total figure amounts to £525 million on social inclusion measures over the three year lifetime of the agreement. That is a sizeable figure, although I appreciate figures do not mean a great deal to the ordinary person. I did not get involved in the Croke Park issue, which was debated in this House and in the media, but in my view that concentration on Croke Park versus the rest took away from the serious messages that underpinned this budget. I say that as somebody who is involved in a concrete area of policy in relation to employability and trying to reach those people who, as Senator Finneran said, have not managed to jump on the back of the Celtic tiger. I am beginning to hate that term; we will have to find a new one next year.

We must reach out to these people and I accept the views put forward here across party lines. I am conscious of the work done by successive Governments on this partnership at grass roots level and bottom up development. There are many schemes operating in the areas of local employment service, partnerships, community enterprise centres, etc. Ministers in various Departments have tried to do something about this matter but we must use these mechanisms to reach out to those people who have been disenfranchised.

The Government of which I am a member will do its utmost to deal with these areas in a real way. The figures on unemployment are very encouraging. It has been acknowledged that they are coming down. We have not yet reached certain sectors in our society and the whole process of targeting must be refined and intensified. We will do that but I must acknowledge that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, allocated moneys to deal with these issues across a wide range of areas. I reaffirm, on behalf of the Government, our commitment to advance this whole process. I am aware the Taoiseach is personally involved in the process through Cabinet sub-committees, etc. in ensuring that these areas of need are addressed. We must work together on that.

Senator O'Toole raised a question on super unleaded petrol. This petrol is regarded as harmful to the environment and that is the reason the increase in the budget applied to it as well as to the harmful leaded petrol.

I fully agree with the Minister of State.

There is no increase in the price of standard unleaded petrol or diesel which accounts for some 70 per cent of sales.

I thank Senators who contributed to this short debate. I came in here at short notice to replace a colleague of mine——

Rent a Minister syndrome.

——but I always welcome a debate in the Seanad. I wish you, a Chathaoirligh, and the Members present a very happy and peaceful Christmas. I also wish for peace in our country in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Committee Stage now.
Barr
Roinn