Because we have lost four or five minutes it is proposed that we conclude Private Members' Business at 8.35 p.m.
Private Members' Business. Financing of Local Authorities: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Gilmore on Tuesday, 18 June 1991:
That Dáil Éireann, deplores the failure of the Government to honour commitments given by Fianna Fáil in 1985 to
(1) abolish local charges and to repeal the legislation under which they were introduced, namely the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1983,
(2) put local authority financing on a sound basis by the introduction of new legislation to provide that local authorities would receive a guaranteed statutory contribution each year;
noting that the failure of central Government to provide adequate finances has led to a further erosion of local democracy and
(a) the virtual ending of local authority house building,
(b) the deterioration of existing housing stock,
(c) pot-holed roads,
(d) cutbacks in a whole range of local authority services, and
(e) a general deterioration in the environment;
believing that service charges are unjust and represent a form of double taxation, calls for their immediate abolition; further calls on the Government to ensure the provision of a fixed proportion of central funds for local government to be allocated on a fair and equitable basis; and conscious of the appalling unemployment crisis now facing the country, believes that properly funded local authorities could play an important role in job creation through joint ventures with public, private and co-operative companies, using the skill and enterprise of local authority staff.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann notes the positive achievements of the Government in relation to local government policies and delivery of services and calls for the continued implementation of the policies and programmes being pursued by the Government in these important areas."
Acting Chairman
Is it agreed that Private Members' time be extended from 8.30 p.m. to 8.35 p.m.? Agreed. Deputy Cotter is in possession and he has some ten minutes left.
Last evening I mentioned that while out canvassing during the past few weeks I found people to be very cynical and that they tended not to believe what politicians have to say. This is hardly surprising. It is now six years since I first entered politics and since Fianna Fáil gave the electorate the run around. On that occasion I had to face a barrage of criticism on the doorsteps which had been trumped up by the Fianna Fáil Party and those who canvassed on their behalf. They told the people of Ireland then that following the election they would abolish water and local service charges. However, when returned to power they did something else entirely.
They managed to gain control, by winning an extra seat or two, of Monaghan Country Council and unbelieveably councillors who had been elected on that issue when discussing the Estimates decided quite casually that they would not abolish the charges. That marked a new low in politics in Country Monaghan and, indeed, this country. Is it any wonder therefore that politicians find people to be very cynical on the doorsteps? I do not know whether that was U-turn No. 1. No. 69 or No. 84—I do not recall what the priorities of Fianna Fáil were at that time — but it was one of many and did nothing for democracy.
The Fianna Fáil Party deserve no credit for the approach they adopted while in Opposition during the period 1983-87. During that period they supported, incited and encouraged pressure groups, wherever they could find them, to rise up against the Government and create as much trouble as possible for them. They made no attempt to have any regard for the underlying difficulties in the economy. This is in stark contrast with the position adopted by the Fine Gael Party following the 1987 general election. The Fianna Fáil Party gained in the short term from that behaviour as it took time for the electorate to come to the conclusion that they were insincere and that their attitude amounted to no more than pure unadulterated politicking. I presume this is the reason the Fianna Fáil Party failed to get a clear mandate from the electorate in both 1987 and 1989.
Fine Gael are strongly opposed to the Government amendment and join with other parties in condemning the failure of the Government to provide adequate funds for local authorities. We also condemn Fianna Fáil for breaking their promises in this matter. However, we would not support any measure that would force local authorities to abolish charges immediately without taking local circumstances into account. This is clearly a matter that would lead to division at local level and Fine Gael have advised their candidates of this.
The blanket abolition of these charges will lead to large-scale job losses at local authority level and this would be unacceptable given the present level of unemployment. Fine Gael do not want local government in Ireland to reach the point which has been reached in parts of Britain where thousands of employees of local authorities are being laid off this week nor do we believe that local people should be deprived of essential local services by such a precipitative step.
We want to make it clear that we do not support any proposal that would lead to immediate redundancies and cutbacks in local services. That is the Fine Gael position. It is quite clear and implicit in the legislation that local authorities have an option in this matter. Local authorities may levy local charges at whatever level they wish or they may choose not to do so. This is real power at local authority level. As that is the situation and local authorities have the right to levy charges or not, there is no advantage whatever in The Workers' Party proposal to repeal the legislation. It is a matter for decision at local level and we think that is good for local authorities. It is good that local people have the power to vote into positions of authority people who are willing to exercise that authority. It is very important that local authorities should have that option and power. That is our position. When the bell rings for the vote tonight we will be opposing the Government position for all sorts of reasons.
The Minister came in here last night and cobbled together a glowing statement of the achievements of his party in power with regard to the housing programme. He made some very complimentary comments on the new programme he put before the local authorities. He did not say that this programme was a cop out and that he was withdrawing from providing local authority houses. Mind you, he was not going very far from the position he adopted last year when the number of houses provided by his Government was minimal, and was somewhere around one-sixth of the housing stock provided by the Coalition Government of 1983-87. This goes nowhere to meeting the demand. I do not have the exact figures but there are suggestions that the number on the housing waiting list is greater than ever. The waiting list is huge.
The Minister chose to try to justify his position last night and tried to cover over the cracks by presenting a set of proposals which would, in effect, remove the Government and the local authorities from any direct responsibility for providing houses. The Minister is providing a couple of million pounds here and there. He has made £2 million available so that private individuals can avail of £10,000 grants, maximum, to bring accommodation which is unfit for human habitation up to standard. He has decided also that the allocation of an additional £10 million will bring about some sort of miracle. That policy is a cop out and will be seen as such as the year progresses.
There is hardly need for me to say anything about the state of our roads. We are the laughing stock of Europe. People are writing songs about the potholes in our roads. The television cameras take pleasure in rolling down to parts of Cavan and Meath and other counties and taking pictures of our roads, as if there was any need to show the people that there were very bad potholes in certain parts of the country. The situation is the same almost everywhere. When the Minister took office in 1987 he issued a statement, which I remember very well, that potholes would go from our roads by 21 March.
Acting Chairman
Will the Deputy bring his contribution to a conclusion.
I am very happy to do that. I have been very happy to state the Fine Gael position. We will be voting on it tonight.
With the permission of the Chair, I wish to share my time with Deputies Roche and Wallace.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I have listened with interest to the contributions to this debate. It is quite clear to me that the tabling of this motion before the local elections is a mere political ploy by The Workers' Party. They are entitled to put down a motion for discussion, but this motion lacks substance. I want to tell Members of The Workers' Party that there is a new sense of reality in the country, and people accept that we can only provide the level of services we can afford.
When the Government took office in 1987 it was clear to everyone that action had to be taken to narrow and eventually close the gap between what we spent and what we could afford to spend. The Government had the courage to take action in the interests of the country and the future of our people. We were unable to borrow any more money.
The Government strategy since 1987 has been successful. The economy has grown each year. Exports have grown and the balance of payments is in the black, our inflation rate is among the lowest in the EC and the trend in interest rates is downwards. We have stable industrial relations. These are the measures of the Government's performance over the past four years. All of these improvements have come about because of the Government's willingness to tackle the thorny question of public spending. It is against this background that we must view the role that local authorities have played in correcting the public finances.
Local authorities will spend almost £1,350 million in 1991 between current and capital spending. By any standard that is big business. It is big money but it is also public money, and it is important that it is spent in the most cost efficient way.
The local authorities are far more efficient now in the way they spend money. They are running a tighter ship. Let us compare the financial position of the local authorities in 1987 with their present position. Up until 1987 they were spending more than they were collecting. What did the last Coalition Government do about it? Nothing. They allowed them to run up major overdrafts. You know the position then.
The Minister of State is a gas man.
It is then the responsibility of the banks. We had to take action in 1987. We told the councils to draw up their estimates before the start of the year and to stick to them. We said we wanted to restore order to the public finances and that the local authorities must do the same. We helped them by lowering interest rates and giving them grants for capital works instead of their having to raise loans. The position now is that local authorities are far better organised and continue to provide all the essential services. We take a lot of these services for granted because they have always been there.
The Workers' Party motion states that local authorities should play an important role in job creation through joint ventures between the public and private sectors. Local authorities have been successfully doing this but, as usual, The Workers' Party are busy calling for more and more spending. Where is the money to come from? There is no use coming into the House and looking for more spending without stating where the money is to be found. I have heard many Opposition speakers calling for expenditure on the roads network, housing and other matters connected with the local authorities, but nobody has spelled out how this expenditure is to be funded. Is it to be taken from the health and education budgets?
Since I have special responsibility for urban renewal, I am pleased to inform the House that the policies adopted by the Government have been a wonderful success and I have received the co-operation of many local authorities who have played a very important role. Urban renewal projects worth millions of pounds are in progress throughout the country. This is a joint venture programme involving the local authorities, the private sector and financial institutions.
When we came into office the local authorities owed approximately £80 million. That debt has been substantially reduced and they are in a position to run their affairs in a proper manner. If the Opposition favour increased spending on roads, housing and so on, they will have to spell out to this House and to the people where the money is to be found. Only a clear explanation will be acceptable. Time constraints do not allow me to elaborate further but my colleagues will have more to say on other areas where the Government have been successful.
The main thrust of The Workers' Party motion is that we should abolish service charges and at the same time pluck millions of pounds out of the hat to provide more and more services.
That is what Deputy Wallace's party promised.
Deputy Ferris will have a chance to make his contribution. A person could be forgiven for wondering why any politician or political party would ever want to be in Government because people charged with responsibility for running the nation's affairs never experience the sheer luxury which those in Opposition enjoy. I sympathise with Deputy Cotter in view of his Leader's record in relation to the funding of local authorities.
The Deputy is standing on his head.
Acting Chairman
Let the Deputy continue uninterrupted.
A great deal of time is taken up in this House by Opposition Deputies who propose a host of measures without specifying how they are to be paid for. Coming up to elections this can make for lovely headlines calculated to win the votes of people who have not time to examine closely what they mean. I suppose we should treat The Workers' Party as we would a mischievous child. They have never been, nor are they ever likely to be, in Government, unless the arithmetic of some disastrous future election results in their being invited into Cabinet by Fine Gael, who are prepared to do anything to get back into Government. They are free to indulge in all kinds of fantasy in an effort to gain a few more votes but they are grossly under-estimating the intelligence of the electorate.
We will see.
The Workers' Party have recently been wooing the Labour Party in an effort to form an election package. They regard them as their natural bed fellows. Bearing this in mind, they should have consulted their would be partners before tabling this motion because it was the Labour Party with Fine Gael who introduced service charges in July 1983. I opposed those charges from the Opposition benches and advised the then Tánaiste and Minister for the Environment, Deputy Spring, exactly what he was doing in taking the easy way out. He replied that the charges were introduced "for the moment".
They are entirely optional.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Cotter had his say uninterrupted. Please allow the same courtesy to the Deputy in possession.
Deputy Spring has been very silent on this issue. I have publicly referred to him in the context of these service charges. It is very easy for the current Opposition to talk about promises we made. We found when we came into the office that these charges had been introduced because finances were in such a bad way.
Where were Fianna Fáil for the previous four years?
Deputy Cotter was not then a Member. The country was bankrupt and we ended up being receivers in a rescue effort. We opted for tax concessions. Among many things we would have liked to do was to abolish service charges but the legacy we inherited from the previous Government made it impossible. That legacy will never be forgotten by the people.
People have a long memory when they are reminded.
We were determined to halt the growth in taxation by turning our attention to wasteful expenditure. The imposition of service charges was a means of taxation. The results of our policies are there for all to see. The economy has been transformed while both income tax and VAT have been cut. This process is continuing. The argument has been made that taxation has increased. The reason is that many thousands of extra people are at work and thereby contributing to the tax take. The key question is what percentage of gross pay is deducted in tax. A single worker in 1987 had 42.5 per cent of his income deducted, this dropped to 35.3 per cent in 1991. Likewise a married couple with one spouse working dropped from 28.1 per cent to 22.5 per cent. Similar reductions will be noted throughout the tax system. The examples I have quoted do not take into account mortage relief or other such allowances.
This supports the Minister's argument that in effect the double taxation complained about in 1983 has now been removed. Meanwhile the Minister has been proceeding apace with the task of bringing local authority financing into line with all others. He has outlined a number of statutory demands on councils which have been eliminated, thereby reducing their financial burden he has already referred to, and I am confident that the study he has commissioned on equalisation will lead to a completely fair method of allocating funds in areas according to their needs.
I acknowledge that the fact that charges are not paid in Dublin causes a problem in other parts of the country. I am confident that we will achieve equalisation that will be acceptable to all the country. The Workers' Party's motion states that the continuance of service charges has eroded local democracy. This contradicts their argument we have heard so often that a vital component of local democracy is the power of councils to raise funds as they see fit. No council are compelled by Government to impose charges. This is purely a decision for local elected representatives. It should be remembered also that if domestic rates had not been abolished people would be paying now on average eight to ten times more in rates on houses. That is a fact and The Workers' Party can nod their heads as long as they like.
Please do not stray from the script.
(Interruptions.)
I am not quite sure what Fine Gael's attitude is to the financing of local authorities.
(Interruptions.)
Let the Deputies stop interrupting. They will have their opportunity.
Acting Chairman
Please let the Deputy proceed uninterrupted.
I am not sure what Fine Gael's attitude is to the financing of local authorities although I know that in the past few days my fellow Corkman, Deputy Allen, who has now arrived, has spoken against service charges. At one time he was for them, another time he was against them. When there was talk of a local election they voted for them.
(Interruptions.)
The same can be said of the other Deputies' colleagues as well. Of course, the Minister has reminded us of Deputy Bruton's statement in 1989 calling for the system which would allow local authorities to raise a significant portion of their own resources. Perhaps the Deputy will explain tonight how he was thinking one thing and his leader was saying something else. A hefty property tax on homes and goodness knows what else is The Workers' Party's policy.
The Labour Party has been much more specific though they are not spelling out their policy during the current election campaign. Their method of financing councils would involve wealth tax, land tax on farmers and a property tax on homes. As if these were not sufficient, they propose to abolish mortgage interest relief together with other measures. That would drive everyone on middle incomes into the poverty trap.
Do not forget the Shannon. We are going to drain that.
Let them be very clear in what they are saying. The people out there know they want to abolish mortgage subsidies.
(Interruptions.)
The motion before us is riddled with falsehoods, notably in the allegations about reduced services in virtually every area. These simply are not true. I urge the House to treat this motion in the fashion it deserves.
I have listened to The Workers' Party's hypocrisy particularly from one of their candidates in Cork the other night who said at a meeting that they opposed the charges at local level and at national level. It is typical of The Workers' Party that they oppose everything. They do everything in their power to destabilise the economy and this country, but while we are here they will not succeed in that. The motion is a sham and we oppose it.
That is a hard act to follow.
What about Kilcoole?
Did the Deputy mention Kilcoole?
I did, yes.
I will deal with him on that in a few moments. The motion by The Workers' Party is one of the more hypocritical that has come on the Order Paper of Dáil Éireann for a long time, like much to do with The Workers' Party, for example Deputy Gilmore whose local representatives in County Wicklow did everything they could to destroy and run jobs away. For him to mention Kilcoole — shame on him.
Tell the truth.
Let him tell the truth himself. We have long memories in Wicklow.
So do other people.
We remember the track of Deputy Pat Rabbitte in Wicklow and the destruction of VEHA. We remember the cowardice of a councillor of The Workers' Party who said one thing at closed meetings and another thing at public meetings. The Workers' Party want better and more services and they just do not want to pay for them. They argue that we need more local government, then they argue for less autonomous local government. As the last Fine Gael speaker said, it is fundamental to local government that local representatives establish what services are to be provided and then establish how those purely local services should be funded.
On RTE this morning the spokesperson from The Workers' Party on "Prime Time" said the shortfall to the local authorities in terms of grants they receive from central Government was £250 million. I think I have the figure correct.
That is true.
He said central Government should now hand over this £250 million to the local authorities. That is a fairly hefty sum of money. It represents about £250 per PAYE taxpayer. Do The Workers' Party suggest we increase PAYE tax to the tune of £250 per taxpayer? Do The Workers' Party advocate we put our hands into the pockets of workers and take that additional amount out? I do not think so——
They are the only ones paying tax at the moment.
——but The Workers' Party never propose anything when it comes to raising the funds. Do they suggest we should cut other public services, prime services like health, social welfare and education or economic services which aid the provision and creation of jobs? Is that what The Workers' Party stand for? We all know The Workers' Party would like to create the chaos that would achieve, because out of the chaos The Workers' Party try to achieve their electoral success.
I come to the issue of job creation. We know The Workers' Party's record in that. They put their hand on companies like Lett's in Wexford, for example, and we know what they did with O'Hanlon's. Everywhere The Workers' Party have had influence there has been destruction. That has never been the history of the trade union movement or the labour movement. They have a proud, creative history. That is more than can be said of The Workers' Party. Everywhere they put their dirty hands there is destruction, and so it would be in public finance and local government finance if anybody were fool enough to follow their advice. Would The Workers' Party like to borrow more money? Would they like to put another £250 million debt around the necks of each and every taxpayer? Would they like communities to be destroyed and the youth to have their futures mortgaged? Is that what The Workers' Party stand for? Would they like to create an endless cycle of debt and debt repayment? Is that what they stand for? Do they wish to introduce some new additional tax? We come closer to the truth when we look at this. The Workers' Party propose a series of taxes, as Deputy Gilmore said in an aside tonight, on the wealthy, but he never defines where the wealthy start. Would the wealthy be people who have betrayed the ideology they espouse by buying their own homes? Whom are they going to penalise with this £250 million?
The Workers' Party have a secret agenda, which is to create the politics of envy and politics which are fundamentally destructive. In spite of the veneer they have taken on in recent years, they fool nobody. Their ideological basis emerges each and every time they espouse a move like this. We would all like to abolish service charges and to introduce a system of local government where the local authorities could stand on their own, be independent and decide what has to be done. However, those of us who know anything about local government and local government politics know The Workers' Party's history in this matter. Not a council in any part of this country have had their estimates supported by The Workers' Party councillors in the last few years.
As Deputy Gilmore mentioned Wicklow, I will mention a few things they reneged on. Councillor McManus and her followers in Bray, for example, argued that we needed to create a community centre in Fassaroe, an area with which Deputy Gilmore is familiar. When it came to providing support from the local services the Labour Party said it was a good idea and supported it, Fianna Fáil said it was a good idea and they supported it, the Progressive Democrats also supported it but The Workers' Party councillors made a phone call to head office and said they accepted that the idea was good but, as Deputy Kavanagh who has joined us knows full well, they reneged on it. When it came to providing funds from local service charges — a small amount of money which nobody in Bray or in north Wicklow would deny — for land for recreational facilities, for facilities such as the Wolfe Tone Youth Club, they reneged also. The reality is that they have never had anything positive to contribute in local government terms. The legacy of The Workers' Party is fundamentally one of destruction, a hollow legacy indeed.
While councillors from Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats can point to things that were done or while Deputies from these parties can point to things that were done while they held sway, The Workers' Party can point to nothing but destruction. That is the reality of that party. They have nothing to offer the electorate but short term solutions. There is no substance to their policies. The experience we have had of The Workers' Party and their policies, not only in Wicklow but in other parts of the country, is not unique. People in eastern Europe lived for 40 years with the same kinds of policies and ideologies, with the concept of centralised democracy, but they have rejected them.
I think the Deputy read that script before.
Those of us who watch television, read a newspaper or who have any consciousness of what it has been like on the far side of the Iron Curtain, know what your policy stands for. It stands for misery, for degradation and, in terms of local government, it certainly does not stand for progress. I have a minute or so to spare and I would like to give that time to Deputy Leonard, if that is agreed.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I would like to make the best possible use of my time and to support the amendment in the name of the Minister.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has two minutes.
It is regrettable in this debate, and particularly at local elections time, that we do not have a greater opportunity to make comparisons between the performance of our Minister since 1987 and the performance of the Coalition Fine Gael-Labour Minister during the 1982-87 period. I would like to preface my remarks by commenting on the remarks of my fellow constituency Deputy. This is the first time I have ever had to do so. He came in here last night and again today and was critical of our party, accusing us of retaining support and gaining seats by guaranteeing——
By deceit.
That is wrong and I defy Deputy Cotter——
Will I read it to the Deputy?
Acting Chairman
Deputy Cotter, could we please have some order in the House?
In the last local elections, in 1985, I secured the highest vote ever recorded in County Monaghan and I did so by saying that I supported the local authority service charges. I was the one man who stood up at county council elections and in every other place in that regard.
Who supported you?
I do not like hypocrisy, I do not like lies, I do not like fictitious statements. The Deputy stated in an article that appeared in The Sunday Press that 55 per cent of our funding for roads was going to workers when in actual fact it was 25 per cent. He also made inaccurate statements regarding our yield from taxation. I would like to get back to comparisons.
Get your feet on the ground.
Prior to our returning to office in 1987 the previous Minister for the Environment introduced a scheme for road strengthening where the weaker and poorer counties got only a meagre amount because they related it to the water charges. Counties such as Monaghan, Mayo and Cavan where there were very few——
That is where the potholes came from.
——group water schemes.
Acting Chairman
I must ask the Deputy to conclude.
When the Minister returned to office he changed to a per road mileage system. He has a good record during his term of office compared with that of the Coalition Government.
At the outset, I seek the permission of the House to share my time with Deputy Quinn.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Labour Party support the motion put forward by The Workers' Party. We regard it as very timely, coming as it does one week before the local elections that finally, in this House, we should have a general debate on local government, and more specifically on the funding of local government, an issue that was specifically excluded from debate in the much talked about and vaunted local government reform that was presented to this House of late.
It is said that attack is the best form of defence. When you are on a sticky wicket and do not know what to do, the best thing to do is to bluster your way out of it. We have witnessed a lot of that type of tactic this evening and also in the Minister's script last night.
The Playboy of the Western World.
To note the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, substituting bluster and wind for anything of substance, or for any action or any provision of service and to have it added to again tonight by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Connolly, and his supporting team, really defies belief. The one fear I have in relation to the local elections next week is of apathy, that people are so sickened by political hypocrisy that they may well stay at home.
Not the Fianna Fáil voters.
They may well say, "a plague on all your houses." Because of the performance we have seen tonight, coupled with an abysmal performance by the man charged in this House and before this State with responsibility for maintaining local democracy in this country, I will not be surprised if there is apathy and a rejection of the democratic process by a great segment of our population. We tried in recent times to restore some semblance of order by putting an Ethics in Government Bill before this House. I did not expect the main party in Government to follow that but I thought the minor party might have twisted the arm of Fianna Fail on this issue as they did on others but that was not to come to pass.
The Deputy's performance in local government is something to write home about. The Wexford People summed it up.
The Minister should look at himself for a minute, he is charged with responsibility for national affairs. He clutches at straws to talk about anything——
I am looking at the way the Deputy treated those in his own constituency.
——but what he is responsible for. I will deal only with the criteria for achievement put forward to this House last night by the Minister. He puts before us a nice list of achievements, local government reform being the first of which we are supposed to applaud. He dealt with that at some length but what he has achieved is the subversion of national democracy by guillotining through this House a Bill that was parachuted in a matter of days before. A copy was supplied to the Whips a matter of days before it was pushed through by way of guillotine. That was a measure designed to centralise power in the hands of the Minister and his Department. It flies in the face of any attempt at devolving powers to local communities. We dealt with that issue as best we could despite the guillotine action of this Minister and this Government. The notion of local government reform or any semblance of it is a farce and a nonsense and the Minister for the Environment knows that full well.
The next achievement on the Minister's list as presented to the House last night was local authority finance. He said:
when I took office as Minister for the Environment in March 1987, I was appalled at the state of local finances.
The reality was that the local authorities who were overspending then were all dominated by his own party. They forced moneys through and spent willy-nilly. Their actions at local level were matched by the Minister — who was then the Opposition spokesman — demanding that more should be spent on health boards, councils and corporations all round the country. No matter what they spent it was not enough for Minister Flynn and his colleagues who were in Opposition at the time. He has a brass neck to put before us the sort of tripe and drivel to which we must listen. The Minister, Deputy Flynn, and his colleagues have made more U-turns in regard to this issue than a hula-hoop. His main achievement in relation to local authority finances has been to impoverish all local authorities. If he wants to clap himself on the back for that he is welcome to do so but no local councillor of any hue would applaud him for his actions. He was described by an independent councillor in Wexford as the worst Minister for the Environment in the history of the State. I mentioned that because an independent said that, someone well known to Deputy Browne, sitting behind the Minister, and who would normally be a supporter of your party.
Deputy Howlin, please address the Chair.
I will endeavour to do so.
All abuse is to go through the Chair.
Deputy Howlin has an uncharacteristic leaning towards the right.
We accept that he is a bit lopsided.
The next issue in the Minister's speech, which we were supposed to applaud, was his achievement in relation to capital grants. He had the audacity to specifically mention housing in which his record is nothing short of scandalous. I tried to find out the number of people on the housing list by way of parliamentary question but the Minister's response was that the information was being gathered and that I would get it in due course. I have no doubt that I will get it after 27 June. Somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 families and individuals are on the housing list. Because the Minister did not seem to hear me when I made this point in the past I produced a graph for him dealing with the record of his Government, not only this year but over the last 25 years.
Last year the Minister built 768 houses, that number was not just the worst in history but the pattern of Fianna Fáil in Government, who are consistently at the bottom of the heap in relation to building local authority houses. When my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, was Minister for the Environment he built 8,794 houses in one year. The Minister may bluster as much as he likes but he should face the facts in this regard. His gratuitous twisting of reality is an insult to the 30,000 people waiting for houses.
It has been said that the Minister has done a great job in fixing potholes. The Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, specifically mentioned that he was happy with the Minister's record, but I am not. The highest county road grants per kilometre is in the Minister of State's county and the lowest is in mine and in Deputy Browne's. It may well satisfy the Minister of State's constituency but he is responsible and accountable to the electorate of Wexford as well as to his own constituency.
There is a lot of bog in my constituency.
You cannot take the bog out of the man.
We must exclude natural resources.
Wexford is not happy with the position. I want to focus very briefly on the main issue before us and we could talk at length about the bankruptcy of the policy of the Government in relation to local government reform and their brass neck in putting up a case here. Of course they are well known for their brass necks.
The Deputy displayed a fair bit of neck himself.
On Committee Stage of the Local Government Act I sought to repeal the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983. The then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Spring, brought in those charges immediately following the GUBU years of Fianna Fáil Ministers falsifying projections, bugging one another and Ministers being dismissed. The proposal for charges was contained in The Way Forward, a Fianna Fáil document. The Bill was put forward as a temporary measure because of the deficit which had to be met. I do not applaud the fact that that was done but the reality is that Fianna Fáil fought the 1985 local government elections on a clear pledge of abolishing those charges. The document is signed by Deputy Charles Haughey, now Taoiseach, and by Deputy Robert Molloy, then spokesperson for the Environment, who is now a Progressive Democrat Minister. I will not quote from it because I am sure the Minister is embarrassed enough but it included a pledge to abolish that legislation. However, they did not learn in 1985. In 1987 — on Fianna Fáil headed notepaper — the director of elections, Paddy Lalor, MEP, very clearly said that Fianna Fáil were committed to the revocation of the 1983 legislation which gave power to levy charges. It is there in black and white on two occasions signed by senior Fianna Fáil politicians who said they would do away with these charges. They have reneged on their promises which should embarrass any party or politician capable of being embarrassed.
The position of the Labour Party is quite clear. We want these charges to be abolished. I want to make it quite clear for the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, who obviously has not read it but I will give it to him later as I do not want to quote from it now. The Labour Party have produced a very comprehensive document, not only in relation to local authorities, but on local authority funding. It is called All Things are Connected and I will give the Minister a copy to study at his leisure. We are consistent, clear and straight in regard to where we stand on this issue. I urge the Minister, for once, to try to live up to the clear and firm commitment which his party and Ministers gave to the public.
It is vague.
The Minister for the Environment and his colleague were Members of this House in 1977. Indeed the Minister — as I did — entered the House in 1977 and I can distinctly recall him proclaiming that the 1977 manifesto was the most important document since the Bible. He regarded its significance in terms of reviving the national economy as of such impact to be on a par with the Bible.
In what volume of the Official Report is that remark?
I will find it because I have never forgotten the remark.
I can remember a few classics. Genesis.
The Sermon on the Mount.
I remember Deputy Wallace talking about the tragedy of the abolition of rates in 1977. The Minister was destined after the little coup de'état following which Deputy Lynch retired prematurely in December 1979, to his eternal delight, to be a Minister in a Government which had the misfortune not to get an overall majority despite going into the election with 20 seats.
The Deputy is going well now.
Deputy Flynn was subsequently a Minister in a Government which prepared a little document called The Way Forward. I know he hates to be reminded of factual things like this.
Do it anyway.
It was a dreadful document and when Fianna Fáil were out of office they abdicated responsibility for it. The Labour Party and Fine Gael came to office in December 1982 and the Custom House and all the other Departments contained a copy of the document The Way Forward. It had been published at great expense by the Government and distributed round the country. Indeed it became the slogan of the Fianna Fáil Party. You campaigned on it yourself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but in your referee position you cannot comment on such matters.
When I sit here I do not——
You are prone to silence which I trust you will observe.
——support any interested party and I resent any allegation from the Deputy or anybody else in that regard.
The Way Forward, as you well know——
I can assure you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you are not the target of the Deputy's next couple of sentences.
The document, The Way Forward, undertook to introduce charges. Every Fianna Fáil Deputy who was elected in November 1982 was committed to The Way Forward and to charges. Therefore the idea of charges per se was not new. In the preparation for the budget of that year which was put together on the basis of fraudulent Estimates that had to be corrected when the gaps suddenly emerged, the question of introducing charges was reluctantly agreed to by us on the basis that it would constitute a temporary measure. The record of the House will show that in moving the legislation to give effect to those charges I said it was a temporary measure pending the reorganisation of local authority finances, which, as every Member of the House who has been a member of a local authority will agree, are in dire need of reform.
The Deputy is breaking my heart.
We introduced the land tax which was an integral part of reform of local authority finances because local authorities would get the benefit of the land taxes, but one of the first things this minority Fianna Fáil Government did when they returned to power in 1987 was to abolish that tax. Service charges were introduced. In the first instance the proposal came from Fianna Fáil and the charges were introduced by us as a temporary measure.
In 1985 the Fianna Fáil Party, after three years in the cold isolation of Opposition, away from the possibility of rezoning the odd piece of land here and there, found themselves rather desperate to get back into power. They would promise anything or undertake anything provided it got them back into power, and, lo and behold, they promised to abolish service charges. This promise was made by Deputy Molloy who I assume was as honest when he was in Fianna Fáil as he is now in the Progressive Democrats. I presume the same degree of integrity to which the Progressive Democrats lay exclusive claim in this House besieged the mind of Deputy Molloy when he was writing the Fianna Fáil manifesto, and a man of such integrity would not willingly give such a pledge to abolish service charges. He did not say they would reduce service charges, soften their impact or review the matter upon coming back to Government; it was nothing as wise as that to which the Fianna Fáil Party could lay claim, but a straightforward, unadulterated, uncomplicated claim to abolish the charges.
Either the Fianna Fáil Party who campaigned on that manifesto under the signature of the very honest and upright Deputy Molloy, who subsequently left them to join the Progressive Democrats, knew that promise was tantamount to a political lie or they were extremely reckless. Fianna Fáil have consistently refused to live up to that promise. The Workers' Party were correct in putting down this motion and Fianna Fáil have been caught by their own political lie. They should either live up to their promise or retract it, and they are not prepared to retract it. The kind of gobbledegook we heard from Deputy Wallace trying to justify that promise is quite extraordinary.
Everybody knows there are enormous difficulties in local authorities because of their relationship with the Department of the Environment. The Taoiseach comes from Donegal, Derry, Dublin and Kerry but the Minister for the Environment only comes from Mayo and therefore does not have the same extensive experience of peripheral parts of Ireland as the Taoiseach, but he sits at the Cabinet table with him. No doubt if he had the same degree of multi-locational birth places as the Taoiseach he would be as committed in private to the devolution of power as he proclaims in public. Since the Minister has come into this Department he has centralised more power into his own hands then he has given away.
As everybody else is being parochial I will give a marvellous example of how wise this Minister is and how knowledgeable he is of every corner of this island, this Minister who takes it upon himself to make decisions, not necessarily in relation to money but also in relation to layout and design.
How well the Deputy knows the Minister and how accurate he is.
I had the temerity to put down a question to the Minister for the Environment asking the reason his Department had refused to sanction the construction of two infill houses by Dublin Corporation in Weaver Street, The Coombe, on the grounds of architectural correctness when the layout was considered by such a minor collection of people as the residents, the Garda and the inner city committee to be facilitating anti-social activities in the area; if, in view of the increasing problems of the area and having regard to the housing shortage, which was just alluded to, he would consider the situation and accede to the corporation's request to construct two houses — not 200 or 2,000 houses which would be a significant improvement on what is there already — which are clearly needed in the area; if he would authorise Dublin Corporation to proceed to obtain tenders for this project, and if he would make a statement on the matter. I will read the Minister's reply because it is some reply.
He is some Minister.
This is the reply the Minister gave me:
The space on which the corporation proposed to provide these two houses is an integral part of the design concept for a scheme of 104 houses constructed by Dublin Corporation about ten years ago. My Department took the view that the provision of the two houses would not be in keeping with the over-all design concept for the scheme. I am asking the corporation to reconsider their proposal in this light and to consider whether alternative measures could be devised and implemented to combat anti-social activities in the area in question. Dublin Corporation have been authorised to commence/acquire 150 houses in 1991 and, in response, the corporation have submitted to my Department a revised programme covering the full number of houses authorised; this programme does not include the houses at Weaver Street.
Money does not even enter into this question. How can the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State with responsibility of urban renewal, who is also responsible for this matter, have the temerity to claim that there has been some form of local government reform when they produce this kind of rubbish about an area they do not even know, relating to problems they do not have to live with, while ignoring the requests of the residents, the corporation, the inner city committee and the Garda? The people in the Custom House are so wise that they are not prepared to provide cash or devolve effective decision making.
When the Deputy's professional friends do the job properly his wish will be granted.
Over the last number of years we have heard claims from the Minister about the reform of local government and the devolution of decision making to local level. I could understand some sort of béal bocht plea that money is not available and that the Government could not write cheques as Deputy Liam Kavanagh did when he gave money to people to build houses; I could half understand the new born again fiscal rectitude regime of the Fianna Fáil Party if they said they would nor write a cheque for the building of two houses, but they now presume in this post-devolutionary period of magic local government reform that they know better than the residents who have to live with the problem of drug pushing, the inner city committee who were set up specifically to deal with issues like this, the Garda and the corporation. This is a farce.
The Deputy wants the job done right and so do I.
That brings me back to the central point, that the Fianna Fáil Government knowingly campaigned on a promissory lie — if that is the right way to describe it — a pledge they knew they would never implement. I have a poster which I will hold up to the light——
The Deputy got that on loan from the other side. He should hand it back to Deputy Charles Flanagan.
It is a very good photograph of the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly.
The Deputy's party are not in coalition with Fine Gael now. Give them back their documents.
The Minister is now defending the impossible. Deputy Connolly has been in this House even longer than the Minister, Deputy Flynn, and is a much wiser man because he is not shouting and roaring.
When it comes to shouting we are in the halfpenny place compared with some of the Deputy's friends.
When he campaigned he knew that what he was campaigning on was a class of a political lie, but at least he could blame Mount Street, the Government that put it together, or the Front Bench of the Government — I do not think that he was a Member of the Front Bench at the time. However, the Minister was a Member of the Front Bench.
Yes.
The Government have to put up or say that the Fianna Fáil Party got it wrong in 1985, that despite all the wisdom accumulated over the years and the number of their Deputies with Cabinet experience in good times and in bad, the promise made to the electorate in 1985, which produced a bumper crop of rezoners right across the country, was a mistake. I want the Minister to say one week before the local elections that they got it wrong. That would be fair. The people of Blanchardstown should know that some of the councillors were elected on a political lie which, in retrospect, was unwise, to say the least. Perhaps, because of that lack of wisdom, they have been consistently unwise in the rezoning of Dublin county ever since. The people of Mulhuddart are entitled to hear that kind of confession. If the Minister has the courage he lays claim to he should be able to say that. He was able to do a U-turn on extradition, and that hurt; he was able to do a U-turn on the Single European Act, and that hurt a little bit; he was able to do a U-turn on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that hurt quite a bit; and he was able to do a big U-turn——
On the Progressive Democrats.
No, the Minister did not do a U-turn on the Progressive Democrats, to be fair to him. He has been trying to turn one of the Progressive Democrats ever since and he is doing a fairly good job in that regard — we all see clearly now what is going down there. The Minister, whose head is above the political smoke surrounding this debate, should have the courage to tell the public that despite all the experience of Fianna Fáil they made an absolute mess of their 1985 manifesto, they told a lie and promised something they knew they could not deliver. Three years previously in The Way Forward Fianna Fáil had prepared the documents from which service charges were brought in. The Minister should be able to say that not only did Fianna Fáil tell a lie in 1985, but they proceeded to compound it when they came back into Government in 1987 by abolishing an integral part of the partial tax reforms at local authority level, the land tax. If the Minister did that he would go down in history; he might even become more favoured to succeed the Taoiseach than Minister Ahern.
Be careful.
I know the Minister has managed to hold on to his job in the Custom House, but a Minister of his stature and renowned courage deserves more. The Minister claims that he is the best reforming Minister Ireland has ever seen and claims that there has been the most significant local authority reform since the foundation of the State, which is patent nonsense. After four years all the Minister is doing is implementing what former Minister, Deputy Liam Kavanagh, left on the desk for him.
No.
That is fact.
The Deputy knows that is not so.
I saw the document; it is absolutely true.
Deputy Kavanagh is a good Member of the House but he did nothing about reform.
All that the Minister did was to make more reference to the Minister. There was no reform. Should we go back to talk about Weaver Street and the devolution powers? Does the Minister want to talk about that?
The Deputy had the solution to that issue in his hands.
The Minister should permit the local authority to do what they should be doing in the first instance.
I regret very much that the House cannot hear itself. The Chair can, unfortunately, but the Chair does not propose to impose that type of barracking.
It does not?
No, it does not.
I shall finish quietly and sadly. In 1985 the country was offered a political lie which, tragically, it bought. It has lived with the consequences of that lie, in some cases with disastrous effect. Fianna Fáil have corruptly abused their powers of majority control, certainly on Dublin County Council. That lie must now be confronted or else stood over by Fianna Fáil and the Minister for the Environment. The Minister should have the courage to either say that Fianna Fáil got it wrong in 1985 and should not have promised to abolish local service charges or to accept the motion of The Workers' Party and proceed to find some new way of financing local authorities. That is the point.
I have only a few brief points to make. First, I was very interested to hear Deputy Quinn refer to the famous "lie" of 1985. Frankly, I am surprised to see Labour Party Deputies present in the Chamber at all because after the abolition of rates the Government who introduced the concept of service charges consisted of the Labour and Fine Gael parties.
Not the concept.
Yes, the concept. I am not going to get into a semantics argument with Deputy Quinn. I am in possession. The Government who introduced the concept of service charges for specific services were the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition of 1983-87.
That is not correct. The Deputy is misleading the House.
In fact, the statutory powers——
What about The Way Forward?
The Fine Gael/Labour Coalition of 1983-87 introduced the concept of service charges and they implemented it. It was their leader, Deputy Spring, who introduced the legislation for service charges.
Now the Deputy is right.
Deputy Quinn referred to the idea of a temporary measure. I could find no reference to a temporary measure on the record of the House in the introduction of Deputy Spring, then Minister for the Environment. To my knowledge, the idea of a temporary measure never arose, and I was in the House for that debate. We should nail that lie for a start.
I consider the debate to be a smoke-screen for the failure of The Workers' Party, on the one hand, to make inroads into the Dublin vote in particular. I listened to Deputy Gilmore giving a radio interview this morning. He made the outrageous statement that there is now substantial evidence to suggest that Fianna Fáil would reintroduce service charges in Dublin after the local elections.
They will.
I want to nail that lie this evening. There is no such evidence. If Deputy Gilmore does have that evidence then he should put it on the record of the House or go public with it. This morning on the radio I heard the greatest load of codswallop ever. The Deputy said that because the Government would not accept a motion in his name — a motion that is so flawed as to be incredible, and I shall refer to a number of flawed elements in it — they would by some circuitous route reintroduce those charges. Fianna Fáil in Dublin city will not reintroduce service charges. Fianna Fáil are completely opposed to service charges and will continue to be opposed to them. I state further that when we as a Fianna Fáil group on Dublin Corporation vehemently opposed service charges from 1985 onwards we got very little support from The Workers' Party; we had to do it alone. In fact, we had to sit down as a group and work out the way and means by which the city could be run efficiently and effectively without service charges. I compliment you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the contribution you made. I compliment Councillor Donnelly, our present Lord Mayor; Deputy Ahern, the Minister for Labour; and many others of the Fianna Fáil group who sat down for long hours to work out the ways and means by which we could run our city and provide an adequate level of services but without service charges. That was done, and much waste was eliminated in the process.
Many men were sacked.
The motion asserts that in some way the Government of the past four years seriously ran down the delivery of local services. It asserts that housing and other services have been run into the ground. There is the matter of the efficiency of the services and I have commented on that. In Dublin we have a very proud record over the past four years. We are not satisfied with everything. We wanted more resources made available for housing and housing construction. I would like more housing in the north eastern side of Dublin city but nevertheless, I have to face reality. With very limited resources we have achieved a considerable amount.
There is an assertion that the Government have not put the local authorities on a self-financing basis. In the Dublin context, while we would welcome the greater allocation of resources from the central funds, we can take examples. Since 1987 the Government have allocated just under £50 million in road grants to Dublin Corporation. The annual average over the period is £10 million compared to £7 million during Deputy Quinn's reign in office. The tenant purchase scheme is another example of phenomenal success.
The motion refers to the deterioration of existing housing stock. We have an extremely proud record in terms of refurbishment over the last three years. The figures are so staggering that I will not even embarrass the Opposition by referring to them. The remedial programme both in terms of refurbishment and in terms of bathroom facilities, etc. has been a success.
The Workers' Party have not the courage of their convictions to face up to the fact that with £150 million allocated to maintenance over five years — and remedial works are no substitution for maintenance — in Dublin we have not got value for money.
It has been an interesting debate and some of the contributions from Fianna Fáil have been amusing if nothing else. They certainly have not been all that accurate. By way of commenting on Deputy Roche's contribution——
That was some hard hitting stuff. You did not like it. You got a roasting there.
——he does himself a disservice engaging in the kind of groundless charges that he makes in this House. He is capable of far better contributions and if he ever hopes to achieve his ambition to get into even the junior ministerial rank, he should really examine the contributions he makes in this House.
The Minister for the Environment failed totally to respond to the substance of The Workers' Party motion and engaged in the sort of "Flynnspeak" which has become the hallmark of the man. He could offer no credible explanation for his party's betrayal of specific commitments given to the electorate in 1985 and again in 1987 that Fianna Fáil would abolish service charges, introduce legislation to ensure that local authorities would receive a guaranteed statutory contribution each year and would also remove the legislation on service charges from our law. All the Minister, Deputy Flynn, could do was to try to hide behind the classic excuse used by Governments which are politically bankrupt: "we did not know that the financial situation was so bad".
Of course the commitments given by Fianna Fáil in 1985, and again in 1987, were specific and unconditional. There was no question of Fianna Fáil saying that when they got into power they would have a look at the books and, if they could, would ensure that local authorities got a statutory contribution each year. There was no question of them saying that they would abolish water charges when finances permitted. The promise was complete and the betrayal was complete.
It was not just in 1985 that these promises were made. They were repeated by the Leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Haughey, right up to the 1987 general election campaign. The fact is that Fianna Fáil have brought the art of political duplicity to a new high, or perhaps I should say a new low.
The question the electorate must now ask themselves is, in view of the experience of 1985 and 1987, what reliability can be placed on the commitments being dished out by Fianna Fáil in the course of the current local government campaign? Common sense dictates that these promises can be given no credibility at all. The way in which Fianna Fáil on so many issues said one thing in Opposition and did the direct opposite in Government has contributed to the sense of political cynicism and disillusionment which so many people feel about the political processes of this country. It has inflicted enormous damage on the political process.
It is not just broken promises and local government financing, the list of broken promises is virtually endless. They include the health cuts, job creation, housing, Irish Shipping, etc. The list goes on, but the wonderful flawless picture of local government and the environment painted by the Minister for the Environment last night suggests that he is as much out of touch with his area of responsibility as the Taoiseach was in 1989 when he was forced to admit that he did not realise the extent of the health crisis.
Is the Minister not aware of the thousands of families on the local authority housing list? Is he not aware of the deterioration of so much local authority housing stock because of the lack of maintenance? Is he not aware of the environmental damage in inner city areas and suburban housing estates because so many country councils have been forced to shed staff? Is he not aware of the cutbacks in the library services which have led to the lengthy closures of many libraries? Is he not aware of the potholed and broken down condition of so many of our non-national roads?
That is a legacy from previous poor management.
If the Minister is unaware of these issues and if he is unaware of the anger among people about what is being done to local government and the environment then I can assure him that he will be well aware of it after 27 June.
I have done more for the environment in four years than you did in 40 years.
I want to turn at this point to the attitude of the largest Opposition party, Fine Gael. Ten days ago when launching his local government election campaign, Deputy Bruton told the country how under his leadership Fine Gael had seized the initiative and was dominating Dáil proceedings. This party that believes it is dominating Dáil proceedings cannot even make up their minds on how they are voting on this motion. Their spokesperson on the environment, Deputy Jim Mitchell, told the Dáil last night that Fine Gael would be abstaining on the motion, while down in Cork, Deputy Bernard Allen was assuring the electorate that his party would be solidly supporting our motion. Fine Gael cannot make up their minds. They cannot make up their minds, whether they are in favour of service charges or against them. They cannot make up their minds whether they are in favour of the allocation of a fixed proportion of central funds for local government or against it. Despite all their talk about unemployment Fine Gael cannot make up their minds whether they are in favour of a job creation role for local authorities or against it. So one presumes — we do not know yet — that Fine Gael will perhaps, or perhaps not, abstain tonight.
How can anyone take seriously a party that cannot make up their minds on these crucial issues? How could anyone take seriously a party that do not even have the ability to draft an amendment of their own to our motion if they are dissatisfied with it? Far from flying on two wings, as Deputy John Bruton claimed at his recent Ard Fheis, Fine Gael are limping along on one badly battered wing and are set for a painful crash landing on 27 June.
Where were the Progressive Democrats during this debate? Where are the party which are claiming that they will clean up local government? I am not surprised that Deputy Molloy failed to appear. I am not surprised that he would not want to be reminded of his role in Fianna Fáil's record of broken promises; but where was the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney? Why did not Deputy Harney, who was always very vocal whenever there was something new to be announced, participate in this debate?
The Progressive Democrats want to be a la carte members of Government. They want to pick and choose what they will be associated with. They want to bask in the glory of whatever few positive things this Government can do, and they want to run a mile from the majority of Government disasters. However, the Progressive Democrats are full members of this Government. Their two Ministers sit around the Cabinet table while the decisions are being made and they bear just as much responsbility for the disastrous record of this Government as Fianna Fáil. Deputy Harney bears just as much responsibility for the collapse of local government as her senior colleague, the Minister, Deputy Flynn.
They are not colleagues exactly. Do not push that.
I did not say friends, I said colleagues.
The key to revitalising local government is an infusion of new blood at the elections on 27 June and the placing of local government financing on a sound footing. We are proud of our opposition to service charges. We are the only party in this Dáil who have a consistent record of opposition to these charges since they were first introduced by the Coalition in 1983. When they were introduced we pointed out that they constituted a form of double taxation and that they would be paid largely by PAYE workers who were already paying heavily for these services, and whose taxes had been substantially increased in the late seventies and early eighties to make up for the revenue lost through the abolition of domestic rates.
Tell us about the levy. The Workers' Party are going to impose on everyone?
(Interruptions.)
These objections remain as valid now as they were eight years ago.
A Deputy
What about the 1 per cent levy?
Could I remind the Minister, when he claims that he has returned £1,000 million to the PAYE sector, that the PAYE sector still pay 86 per cent of all income tax. During the Fianna Fáil Party's time in Government and since 1987 when domestic rates were abolished, PAYE workers' contribution to income tax has risen from £530 odd million to £2,500 million pounds.
The Deputy does not support the PAYE sector.
There is clearly a major——
He is anti-PAYE sector.
——rise in the contribution made by the PAYE sector over those years. Far from returning £1,000 million to the PAYE sector which the Minister claimed last night, the figures show that since 1987 the PAYE sector has paid an additional £2 billion in taxes. The Minister should not try to mislead the public by misquoting the official figures which are on record.
Tell us about that levy you will put on the taxpayers?
Our objections go deeper. We have never believed that service charges were a suitable or acceptable method of funding local government. Unless financing is put on a sound footing local government cannot serve the needs of the people. The only acceptable way of financing local government is for a specific proportion of national taxation to be allocated by law to local authorities. Such funding could be allocated on the basis of the size of an area, the population, the age structure, the infrastructural conditions and a range of other factors which should be taken into account. There is no other practical way of doing it in view of the size and population of this State and the way we are already over-burdened by a bureaucratic system of Government.
It is clear that the Government do not have any intention of abolishing water charges or service charges at any time, despite what Deputy Fitzgerald said tonight, that they have no intention of returning them. The Minister in his speech last night said that given a choice between abolishing service charges or major reductions in income tax and VAT, there was no doubt in his mind which was the priority.
I have already dealt with the question of whether the Minister or the Government have returned money to the PAYE sector. It is clear on the basis of official figures that the reverse is the case, that they have taken £2 billion extra from the PAYE sector. There is a fundamental point in what the Minister said last night. What he is proposing is clearly a Thatcherite approach to the provision of services here.
The Minister is talking about reducing VAT and income tax and replacing the loss of that revenue with charges for services. How far does this commitment go to ensuring that people actually pay for services on the basis of whether they require them? This is a fundamental question. Is there not a case for ensuring that services of a social nature be provided through general taxation and through a fair equitable taxation system? What the Minister said last night is that he is in favour of virtually abolishing income tax and VAT and going for a system where services will be paid for by the person who uses them.
I did not say that at all.
The Minister said that given a choice between abolishing service charges or major reductions in income tax and VAT, there was no doubt in his mind which was the priority. That means there are a million people in this country——
Why is the Deputy antiservices and anti-people?
——who cannot afford to pay for services who will not get them. It is important that the Minister recognise that the people will not buy such a system.
Why is the Deputy so anti-people all the time?
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
How will you fund them in 1985?
Gabh mo leithscéal, the Chair will give Deputies half a minute to get that out of their systems. Is there anything else Deputies would like to say?
(Interruptions.)
Could we stop advertising the less attractive part of this House? I will put the question.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Byrne.
Amendment declared carried.
Only 36 Members of Fine Gael voted.
It is good to have 16 pairs to arrange.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- , Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Byrne.
Question declared carried.