Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the main provisions of the recently published programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13615/02]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Programme for Government.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in implementing those areas of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16387/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a statement to the House on An Agreed Programme for Government between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. Our programme for Government is both clear in intent and specific in detail. It is the agreed agenda for this partnership Government over five full years.
Since 1997 Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in government have worked extremely well and productively together in providing good government for the country, but now for the future much more remains to be done. A five year programme for Government is by necessity an ordered series of priorities and An Agreed Programme for Government 2002-2007 sets out further objectives to build on the success we have achieved as well as the important issues remaining.
In implementing the commitments in An Agreed Programme for Government we will bring forward and progress the most ambitious legislative programme in the history of the State. Given the large number of specific commitments set out in the agreed programme, it would be impossible in the time allotted to detail each of the important elements of the programme.
The cornerstones of the agreed programme are based on our desire to build a better Ireland for everyone and our promises at the last general election to protect and expand prosperity for all; strengthen peace and reconciliation; guarantee improved pensions; reform and develop our health services, and invest in better public services. The programme sets out an agenda for all major aspects of Government activity and is divided into five major parts.
Part One contains sections on peace, defence and international affairs. As I said in the Dáil on the day I was re-elected Taoiseach, building a lasting and just peace on this island is the Government's great political goal, the priority that I have and will continue to put above all else. The agreed programme also repeats the clear commitment of both parties in their election manifestos to hold a new referendum on European enlargement. This campaign is taking place.
Part Two deals with a range of economic issues. It reflects the great task of not only extending prosperity in time but also expanding it in scope to reach all our people. All promises in the Government's action programme are predicated on the need to keep the public finances on an even keel. The economic section in the Government's action programme states:
The EU Stability and Growth Pact provides the overriding framework for our budgetary policy. Under the pact Ireland has given a sovereign commitment to keep the finances of general government close to balance or in surplus and to take corrective action when there is an actual or expected divergence from this objective. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will respect this commitment.
Over the past five years in government we have been true to our word and worked towards this objective. We will be in a strong position to accelerate rapidly when the international economic outlook improves because of the prudent approach of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in government over the past five years. Since mid-year it has become apparent that there are strong pressures on expenditure in certain areas, particularly on demand-led schemes in the health sector and capital expenditure on roads. Contrary to the allegations that the Government has been rowing back on the commitments made before the general election and in An Agreed Programme for Government, extra funding is being provided for these priority areas.
In the health area, for example, we recognised the need to respond to pressures on demand-led spending. Government has agreed a projected outturn for the Department of Health well ahead of the original allocation for 2002. Similarly, we have provided additional money for the roads programme. In order to live within the expenditure levels set out in the approved Estimates it has been necessary to review our priorities and reallocate resources within the total expenditure level.
Part Three deals with the broad heading of ensuring balanced regional development. In particular, the national spatial strategy will be published and the Government work to make sure all parts of Ireland see real progress will be a central priority for the new Government.
Part Four deals with a strategy to build a caring society, and in particular a commitment, as resources permit, to reach a minimum €200 per week for pensioners and €150 for all social welfare payments and the implementation of the health strategy.
Part Five is called, Supporting Civic Life, and deals with good government, sport, culture and the Irish language and includes, in particular, the Government's wish to negotiate a renewed partnership agreement. I have outlined publicly my views on the importance of this challenge.
Given that the Taoiseach and the Progressive Democrats have been true to their word, how does the Taoiseach relate this to the extent of the truth of the mismanagement of the public finances? Given that the programme for Government does not contain costings or timetables, and that the Taoiseach and his partners in Government are true to their word, does the Taoiseach now propose to introduce a revised programme for Government with realistic timetables and costings? The current programme is merely a list of aspirations.
If, arising from the programme for Government, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are committed to sustaining economic growth and see investment policies as central to this, how does that tally with the reality of €900 million in adjustments or cutbacks?
Cutbacks of €1.7 billion.
How is that compatible with the highest inflation rate in the European Union and a national development programme that has ground to a halt?
The Government action programme is predicated on the need to keep public finances on an even keel. The economic section in the Government's action programme states that. All our policies must be governed under the EU Stability and Growth Pact that provides the overriding framework for budgetary policy. Under that pact, Ireland has a commitment to keep the finances of general Government close to balance or in surplus and to take corrective action when otherwise occurs. Preparations for the Book of Estimates for next year are predicated on that basis. As I said in reply to Deputy Howlin last week, all of the commitments set out for 2002 in the budget and the Revised Estimates of February 2002 will be honoured. The expenditure commitments outlined, which the Minister for Finance increased by 14%, will be honoured in full. There will be adjustments in some areas to deal with additional amounts on top of that 14%. The Minister has not managed to control the commitments at 14% yet, but we will see the final figure at the end of the year.
It is not a question of resources being cut in any of these areas, resources are extensively over the provisions. The House does not need me to quote the figures again but across health, education and infrastructure, more money is being spent than was in the Book of Estimates. Social welfare spending is up by €1 billion, or 25%. It is incorrect, therefore, to say there have been cutbacks. Even though there were enormous increases in the last year, because these are demand-led schemes, they still must be paid for and the Minister must provide resources in addition to those large increases. That is why there must be some reductions and the Minister will continue to seek them. The real difficulty with this year's public finances is that income, particularly corporation tax, is far lower than was expected.
Does the Taoiseach accept that one of the key areas in the agreed programme for Government for which his Department is responsible is working towards a new social partnership agreement? Does the Taoiseach accept that that objective is at odds with the statement made by the Minister for Finance at the weekend when he implied that workers got too much money from the last agreement and that was one of its liabilities? What is the Taoiseach's attitude to yesterday's IBEC statement indicating that it would seek wage increases in the new agreement below the rate of inflation?
We are just about to issue invitations to commence discussions. As happened in the five previous rounds, all of the social partners will set out their negotiating positions and, as always, those positions will not be compatible. Over the five agreements, we have sometimes had increases which were below inflation and were very good at reinvigorating the economy while at other times we have had increases that became a floor for discussions with people moving toward ceilings which created great difficulty. All of those things happened over the past 15 years and it is clear to anyone looking at the economy that we must be careful in the negotiation of this agreement. We must stay competitive and squeeze the inflationary pressures that are still there because in everyone's analysis we are very near to full capacity and there have been price increases in service areas, which has created difficulties. The main thing is to stay competitive to maintain existing jobs. While world economic conditions remain as they are, we must keep our export markets open and strong to be ready to pick up as soon as we get through the global downturn. That has to be the broad basis.
The attitude of the Minister for Finance to a new partnership agreement is one of hostility. Does the Taoiseach want to state that it is not the Government's position? Has he discussed the matter with the Minister and what, specifically, is his understanding of the Minister's attitude to a new social understanding?
The Minister for Finance has set out his support for social partnership agreements many times. A Minister for Finance also has to set out the economic reality that obtains and in this case the income base he believed he would have at the end of the second quarter he does not have at the end of the third quarter, not to mind what he had on budget day. Corporation tax is down to 28%.
We blame the workers for it though.
It is corporation tax, not workers. We have to enter these discussions as best we can, and as always, try to see how much of the agenda of the social partners we can fulfil. It has to be done based on current economic realities. The last time around the same Minister for Finance was in a more lucrative position and could offer not only favourable percentages, but percentages which were used as a basis for discussion to achieve higher rates. That has created many difficulties.
How does the Taoiseach reconcile his claim that the Government is true to its word and the commitment in the programme for Government to reform and develop health services with the reality faced by my community which has witnessed the ongoing loss of critical services at Monaghan General Hospital? Is the Monaghan approach a template for this Government in terms of the undermining and diminution of acute hospital services at other sites throughout the jurisdiction?
Regarding Deputy Ó Caoláin's questions, the Government's commitment to reform the public health services and the Taoiseach's response to the previous question regarding e-Government, will the Taoiseach explain why the Government is withdrawing the funding for information technology within the health service? Is it not the case that while funding is committed under the national development plan, projects are not being delivered upon? Will we see a revised plan and what projects will be delivered on during this Government's term of office?
The Taoiseach spoke about the objective of a lasting peace in Ireland. Does he accept that the way to achieve that is the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement?
As regards the health strategy, is the Taoiseach aware that there are 345 families on a waiting list for residential care at St. Michael's House and that the parents of seven of those families are terminally ill? Does he accept that the health strategy is in tatters?
The Deputy's first question anticipates a debate later this afternoon and his second is more appropriate to the Minister for Health and Children.
Will the Taoiseach concede that the Government has gone backwards in relation to education given the cutbacks of €36 million? Will he clarify to the House – there is much speculation on the issue – if the Government intends to reintroduce third level fees to tackle disadvantage in education, as outlined in the programme for Government?
That question is more appropriate to the Minister for Education and Science.
There is division in the Government on the issue.
I am sure the Taoiseach will reply fully to it.
As regards health, while I cannot discuss individual health areas, more than €1 billion extra was budgeted for in the health Estimate. In addition, there are demand led schemes in a number of areas. The Minister has had an increase of 18%. The capital health programme is still at a high level. The difficulties highlighted by Deputy Ó Caoláin in his area are related to many matters, but not to public expenditure.
That does not address the reality of the dark cloud which hangs over the community.
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to speak.
Enormous resources have been given. That is not the difficulty.
As regards the NDP, the Minister for Transport will answer questions tomorrow. While I cannot see all the projects outlined in the national development plan fulfilled by the end of 2006, more resources will still be spent this year and next year than previously under the national development plan.
I will talk about the issues raised by Deputy McGrath later and agree with what he said. As regards Deputy Enright's question, it is a review. I am sure questions have been tabled to the Minister for Education and Science. It is not a decision, but a review.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. We now move on to priority questions to the Minister for Health and Children.