Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste were there but the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform should have been present. It was an insult in the extreme to the shadow spokespeople in that regard.

I welcome some of the measures in the budget such as those for renovating homes, making homes greener and those kinds of points that have been included in order to get people working and encourage people to spend on necessary works on their homes. The measures will be of help and will create employment, which is welcome.

Obviously I do not welcome many measures contained in the budget. I appreciate that is difficult to find consensus on cuts but, in any respect, it is hard to find two people to reach agreement. One wonders how any Cabinet can manage to do so. That said, I must speak in terms of my interpretation of the budget. I am baffled as to why we consistently ignore people who earn over €100,000. The people that I know in that income category were conditioned last year to take a hit of a few per cent and they were conditioned this year to take a hit of a few per cent. That measure would have easily cancelled out some of the more mean-spirited measures in this budget. I say that not just to score political points. I refer to the bereavement grant which I mentioned on the Order of Business, plus the fact that cuts were leaked throughout the newspapers. Indeed, most of the budget was leaked in the media today. I ask the Minister of State to convey upwards that leaks are disrespectful to the Houses of Oireachtas. I do not think there was a measure of surprise in today's speech by either Minister.

A bereavement grant of €630 was introduced in 1999 when the cost of running the country was €25 billion. I understand that the grant is now at the substantially higher rate of €850. Today the grant is being cut completely when the cost of running the country is €52 billion but the average funeral cost is €3,000 outside Dublin and €4,500 inside Dublin. Such a measure is mean-spirited and kicks in €40 million. Would such a cut have been missed by the category of people earning over €100,000 who were conditioned to expect a percentage cut? Yes, it would hurt that income category to pay an extra 3% or whatever but they would be better placed to shoulder an additional burden than most other people.

With regard to the telephone allowance, how much will be saved? We are talking about a minor enough amount considering the impact it has on the lives of elderly people.

There have been changes in terms of eligibility to the medical card.

In recent weeks, Members on all sides of this House have highlighted consistently that while the greater number of people have medical cards, the Government is homing in on people in their 70s and 80s. They are receiving forms in the post telling them to fill out this or that and are losing their medical cards, which is creating a serious and difficult situation for them. Moreover, in the case of those suffering from chronic diseases, on first entering office the Minister, Deputy Reilly, indicated he would deal with this issue by legislating for the provision of medical cards. As this legislation never transpired, are Members to believe the same will be the case for the medical cards for the under-fives for which legislation is required? Members have been told the chronic diseases could not be provided for in legislation because of difficulties. Will it be the same for the under-fives? As for the reaction of the general practitioners, GPs, to it, there has been no engagement with them. This does not surprise me because another aspect of the budget for which there was no engagement concerns the assistance to those who are unemployed and wish to start up their own business but I will revert to that in a moment. One wonders how this proposal will be carried. Last year, I mentioned how, when in opposition, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, asked what the then Minister, Brian Lenihan, had against the third child. In the other House, the question was asked as to what this Minister has against young mothers. This is of critical importance, on foot of the taking effect of additional taxation earlier this year, which now has been followed by an overall reduction in maternity benefit. There certainly seems to be an issue in this regard. To return to the issue of discretionary medical cards, no clinical panel has yet been put in place in this regard. The only panel I can discern to be in place regarding the interpretation of people's eligibility for discretionary cards is that of the bottom line and of saving money. Unless people meet the financial criteria, they will be off the list. Before the Government rushes into the provision of free GP care to the children of the Michael O'Learys of the country, perhaps it should focus on those who have chronic multiple sclerosis, cancer or other serious chronic diseases. What is this clinical panel doing and is it in place? Who is on the panel and how and to what criteria are they operating? Perhaps consideration should have been given to such questions.

When looking through the various booklets handed to Members as the budget speeches were being read out, one sees the headline amounts of savings that were confusing and one in particular jumped out at me. The Minister of State has mentioned specifically additional expenditure pertaining to road maintenance and repairs involving shovel-ready projects and getting people back to work. However, if one looks under the transport section of the speech by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, it states there would be savings of €50 million this year in respect of the National Roads Authority and road surfacing. How can one save €50 million on road surfacing on the one hand while, on the other, there will be additional expenditure? Everyone is in favour of more sports capital programmes, particularly in the run-in to an election. There will be a big hurray from all the counsellors nationwide in that regard. Moreover, the better energy programme also is to be welcomed. However, if the Government was seeking to give respite to people directly into their homes, how could it so do to every single home in the country? Nothing has been done with the price of petrol. The cost per litre is approximately 69 cent and the amount the Government adds on to that amounts to 130% of the cost. In the case of an average family with a mileage of 12,000 miles per year and an average consumption rate of 30 miles per gallon, that costs €240 per month.

If the Government intended to give something back directly to each family in the home, why could such a measure not be considered? Instead, it has come up with ridiculous job activation measures in which it is telling the unemployed that if they are long-term unemployed and if by some fluke of reality they set up a business that manages to make money in the first two years, the Government will give them that money tax-free. I know a little about business and can tell anyone in this Chamber who knows anything about it that one may as well tell the national lottery to announce the first person to come in with both parents who are older than 105 years can have the winning lottery numbers. I predict confidently that no one will qualify for that scheme. Whatever civil servant is responsible knows only the inside of a Department and knows nothing about business. This is window-dressing in the extreme that will do nothing for anyone. As for young people and the cuts to social welfare, what does one really wish to do to get people out there? The Government is making it more difficult for them to get into internships. If they have been out of third level education for a year having already completed a level 5 course, they will not be allowed back in again. All these measures are designed in some way to look less harsh but, in reality, will not apply to anyone in practice. That is my difficulty with these measures. On getting enterprise going again, I would love to see the creation of an Industrial Credit Company-type financial institution. It should be given €200 million, 20 good underwriters should be picked and they should be set to work. People should be encouraged to borrow money, to set up business and fail thrice but succeed once. That is what is needed, not some harebrained design of a scheme for which no one can apply, because that is what the aforementioned €40,000 a year tax-free scheme is.

While I appreciate the Ministers have done their best in a difficult environment and on the basis that I admit everyone would have a different approach and a different set of cuts he or she would make, I believe a number of these measures are extremely superficial. A number of measures needlessly are far too harsh and yet the Government continues to ignore those who are best heeled, that is, those earning more than €100,000, in terms of them taking a bigger hit. They would not flood out of the country and specifically, were they told that an additional 4% to 6% was needed from them for five years to help to look after the relative security and health of the least well-off, the elderly and the infirm, those people would respond. I believe they were conditioned to respond to such a request in last year's budget as well as this one. I only hope this can be effected through the forthcoming legislation to back up these budgetary measures.