Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the budget and intend to address several key issues. I will begin where the last Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, left off three years ago when he was banished to Brussels. Yesterday, we reached the three year deadline for his promise to decentralise 10,000 civil servants. When he made his promise, he said the Government would be judged on the delivery of that commitment, and so it will. The Government subsequently announced that the original timeframe was overly ambitious and it extended the deadline by an extra year. However, when asked about what has happened to that second deadline, the Government claims that decentralising Departments and offices will have a presence in a total of 29 new locations around the country by the end of 2007. It is anyone's guess, however, how "presence" is defined. In my home town of Birr, the presence consists of two FÁS staff, enticingly described as an advance party. We have been promised that the presence in Birr will be increased in the new year to 20 in an office the responsible Minister hailed as having capacity for 30 people. The site purchase arrangements are unclear, with the owner having returned FÁS its deposit in order to sell the site to another developer. We have been told the latter developer will sell the site to FÁS but we do not know whether that is a contractual obligation. Long after we were promised that the entire headquarters of 400 staff would be moved to Birr, staff numbers have reached 5% of the target. The Minister for Finance might outline for the House what he means when he claims to have put in place plans for decentralisation. In the case of State agencies, a more individualised approach has been recommended by the decentralisation implementation group. What will that approach involve, when will we know more about it and when will it be delivered? These are legitimate questions that need to be answered.

I regret the Government failed to use budget 2007 to overhaul vital psychological services in the education system. Figures released to me today by the Minister for Education and Science confirm that the number of primary schools lacking access to services provided by the National Educational Psychological Service increased by 160 between February 2005 and December 2006. These schools have dropped off the NEPS radar because of the failure by this Government to live up to a promise it made almost eight years ago. When NEPS was established in 1999, a target was set to have 184 psychologists working within the service by 2004, by which time all schools were supposed to be able to access the service. However, the Government is short of its target by 60 posts and the fact that the number of primary schools covered by the service is declining is an indictment of the Government's failure to keeps its word. The figures released to me confirm that 51% of primary schools are not covered by the service. In County Longford, 82% of primary schools remain outside the service, which is the worst record in the country. In counties Carlow, Donegal and south Tipperary, 74% of primary schools lack cover. Some 71% of primary schools in County Laois, which I represent, and County Westmeath are not covered by NEPS. I acknowledge that increases were announced in the Estimates but these will be insufficient to address the scale of the problem, particularly given that the service only received an additional €2,000 last year. As the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 begins the process of implementation and the multi-disciplinary meetings to which the Act commits are established, the workload of NEPS psychologists is becoming even more demanding in terms of meeting parents and schools.

I want to addresses the claims made by the Taoiseach that schools have access to private assessment. He is correct only in so far as they have access for no more than two children. Parents will judge that for themselves, as will the school principals who are left to try to decide who most needs the service. I have spoken to principals who have had little choice but to find the extra money needed to allow access for more children through fundraising, juggling their budgets or even dipping into capitation grants. Therefore, when the Taoiseach refers to access, we know he means to say "access for two — tough luck to everybody else". The second assessment these children will need before they leave the primary system must also be met from the limit of two. That, according to Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, is access, so it is no wonder the Taoiseach was shouted down when he made his claims earlier this week. I presume he deliberately confuses psychologists with psychiatrists, whose services are also under funded.

The Government should stop pretending the matter is all right. It is not all right that a child cannot get an assessment because his or her parents cannot afford it and children who are not assessed cannot get the dedicated services they need. An additional allocation of €5 million in 2007, along with the amount set aside in the Estimates, would at least provide funding to cover every school by NEPS. Such funding is needed immediately because access to the service is vital for children and young people with special educational needs.

It is a pity the Government did not use the budget to underpin the development of Ireland's knowledge economy by supporting mathematics, science and information technology in the education system. This Government constantly refers to the amount of money being spent by each Department and in each area but never mentions the outcome. The continued growth of the economy must be enabled. The Government of 2006 must plan for our needs in 2016 and beyond. There is universal agreement in this House that Ireland must move in the direction of developing a knowledge economy. We must recognise that scientific and mathematical understanding will play a significant role, as will developments in information technology. I am concerned that the Government consistently undervalues the role of post-primary education in setting the foundations for these subjects. As matters stand, 14% of junior certificate students do not take science. This year, 12% of students failed ordinary level mathematics. More than a third of our secondary schools fail to offer all science subjects to leaving certificate level and 5,500 school computers are beyond repair, not to mention the substandard science facilities provided in many schools.

The seeds of scientific development are sown at an early age, so the Minister for Finance should have made a clear policy decision to underpin science mathematics and information technology at secondary level by focusing budget resources on these subjects from 2007. He should have begun by auditing and completely overhauling the science infrastructure in all schools and allowing for the recruitment of laboratory technicians on a cluster basis. He should have ensured that the full complement of science subjects is offered at leaving certificate level in all schools and that science is made a core subject at junior certificate level. He should radically improve the information technology equipment in schools and establish an agenda whereby all secondary schools and teachers have access to laptop computers. He should instigate a process of reform of curricular content and development and teacher training, a need which is borne out in reports in today's newspapers that leaving certificate examiners have noted a decline in standards among those taking ordinary level science papers. One of the problems identified by examiners was poor mathematical abilities in pupils who took the combined physics and chemistry paper in 2005, with weaker students unable to complete the required number of questions. The ordinary level standard was lower than in previous levels and there was a strong tendency among candidates at both levels to avoid questions on specific areas, such as electricity and organic chemistry. According to the reports, the examiners stressed the need to improve basic mathematical skills and the understanding of basic chemistry and physics. However, such improvements will not occur by accident.

Yesterday's budget effectively ignored education. I welcome the increase in the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, which was badly needed. Every year, I am approached by families who simply cannot afford to kit out their children for school. The thresholds for these allowances need to be investigated because many families in genuine need are refused, advised to apply for exceptional needs payments, which they are also frequently refused, or given amounts so paltry as to make them irrelevant.

Some 30% of children from disadvantaged backgrounds have serious literacy problems and almost one in five young people leave school without a qualification. An unacceptable number of buildings are substandard, with exceptionally poor science labs, computer facilities and sports infrastructure. Absenteeism is rife, with 7,000 children missing more than 20 days per year, which is equivalent to a full year of school during the primary cycle. Some 111,000 primary school children are in classes of 30 pupils or more despite promises to the contrary.

This is not just a matter of spending money. Budget 2007 should have set out priorities in education for the coming year and funded them accordingly, such as improving literacy, keeping children in school and equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they will need as adults. Instead, education is overlooked, showing where the real priorities lie.

It was interesting to hear the Government recommit to Transport 21, which is behind schedule in its first year. Transport 21 ignores some of the most important roads, including in my constituency, which I share with the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance. At a committee meeting last month, I raised the issue of the conditions of the N52, N62, N80, the Laois orbital route and the Tullamore bypass with the National Roads Authority. The development of those routes is vital to the opening up of counties Offaly and Laois to investment and new and better opportunities. The NRA stated clearly that it must work within the remit of Government policy, which effectively begins and ends with Transport 21.

The CEO of the NRA stated: "Given that we have been set certain objectives which we will achieve, there is a limit to the funds available to pursue other projects at the same time." Regardless of the position of Athlone-Mullingar-Tullamore as a regional gateway town in the national spatial strategy or of Portlaoise's designation as an inland port, we must wait. We do not know for how long we must wait, but the date will be after 2010 at the earliest due to Government policy. The CEO also stated: "If more money is made available, we will gladly take it and do more".

I cannot stress enough how important the upgrading and improvement of those major secondary routes are to the development of the midlands as a whole and not just my constituency. The N52, N62 and N80 are the main links to the N6, N7 and N8 national primaries. The major towns on those routes are being hampered by the lack of progress. Likewise, the lack of progress in respect of the Tullamore bypass and the Portlaoise orbital route are affecting the development of towns.

I wish to impress on the Government the need to develop our rail infrastructure, which is part of Transport 21. All stations in my constituency need more car parking facilities. While some are receiving necessary improvements, others such as Tullamore are not. It is beyond belief that several train stations do not provide proper disability access for customers of Iarnród Éireann. How much is it to ask to support the basic right to use a train service with dignity and ease? When one of the Ministers present or the Minister of State is next in my constituency, I ask them to watch how someone in a wheelchair must get on and off a train. The situation is disgraceful and disgusting in this day and age.

I remain disappointed by the Government's attitude towards farmers whose lands have been compulsorily acquired by the NRA for the building of our national road network. No farmer wants to see the NRA call to his or her door because it wants his or her farm and, sometimes, home. While the improvement and upgrading of roads is part of life, the abolition of roll-over relief in the first budget after the last general election was a considerable blow to many farmers.

The reality of life under the CPO system is that one is deprived of the use of one's land and of one's livelihood, but one does not receive compensation for a considerable period thereafter. One is compensated at the value of the land when notice to treat is served, not when the money is received, which is several years later in a number of cases, and one pays capital gains tax of 20%. If one is lucky enough to find replacement land, one has lost 20% of the amount one can spend and must pay stamp duty of up to 9% on the new piece of land. Consequently, one cannot buy a parcel of land of the same size without losing 29% of the compensation. It is a financial impossibility.

It is a pity that a farmer cannot set himself or herself up as a company like National Toll Roads and treat his or her payment as profits, thus avoiding capital gains tax or being able to opt for the lesser corporation tax rate of 12.5%. Allowing farmers to avail of farm consolidation, which was improved somewhat by the budget, would have been a good start.

The Government has failed to understand the problem of child care and seems to believe that last year's token gesture was sufficient, but it was and is not. Increasing the income disregard might encourage a few more people to care for children in the home, which I hope will be the case, but that is all it will do. Increasing maternity leave by four weeks will be welcomed by some, but many women cannot afford to take the full entitlement. Their mortgages and other costs are so high that they cannot meet them if they stay out on maternity leave. For many women in that position, the extra four weeks, although sounding lovely, will be of no use.

The increase of €2.50 per week in the child benefit payment can only be described as paltry and does not recognise rising costs across the board. Hard-pressed families will remain so. It is difficult to believe that the Government ignored the under 18-year-olds who, despite being children, care for their parents. It would be difficult to find a more vulnerable group and children deprived of real childhoods due to family illnesses need special attention.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs stated that he is committed to an even stronger and more focused campaign in an all-out commitment to end child poverty in 21st century Ireland. Effectively, he is committed to a commitment. It is a pity that he did not press himself to name a year in the 21st century because there are 93 years to go. After listening to a representative of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul last night, I worry about how long we must wait.

The Government missed an opportunity to do something imaginative in respect of stamp duty. The Tánaiste, who is present, has not spoken about much else in recent months. Perhaps he did not want to be denied the opportunity of running a single-issue campaign in the next general election. The Government has had ten budgets in office, but if it has not done something to date, no one will believe that it will do it next time, which is hopefully a long time away.

See this speech in context