The motion of confidence is resumed, with Deputy McDaid in possession. It was agreed last evening that Deputy McDaid might share his time with Deputy John O'Donoghue. The two Deputies between them have 15 minutes remaining.
Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.
—(The Taoiseach.)
I would like to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Cullimore.
Deputy Cullimore's name is now added. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
Last night I was rudely interrupted by members of The Workers' Party who claimed, after the Minister for Justice had made certain allegations against them, that the subject in question——
I am sorry, Deputy. The conversation in the lobby must cease.
It was claimed that several matters raised by the Minister for Justice and myself were the subject of libel actions against the BBC. In that regard, I now interrupt the part of my contribution on which I was speaking at the conclusion of the evening to point out that this morning's newspaper states: "The BBC says that it has to date received no libel writs from The Workers' Party, in an apparent contradiction of statements made by both the party Leader, Proinsias De Rossa, and Pat Rabbitte in Leinster House" So, there are no libel writs. "The BBC did receive some letters of disquiet from The Workers' Party after the programme of last summer, but no libel action has started to date, and certainly none lodged with the corporation's lawyers". Perhaps if members of The Workers' Party have a chance to do so they might try to clarify that matter for the House this morning. Some of the kind of allegations that they have strewn across have obviously been contradicted by no less a corporation than the BBC.
To continue from where I left off last night, I remind the House that I was saying that I was not paranoid about the media. The Irish Press, within a matter of days was forced to publish unconditional apologies to the Taoiseach, to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and to Commissioner MacSharry. However, readers would have to scrutinise that paper closely to find the apologies since they occupied only a few inches of small print, whereas the original offending material had been printed in banner headlines. It would appear that the principle of affording a similar headline to apologies is something of the past. Distinguished lawyers at the Goodman Tribunal have highlighted the manner in which a string of unsubstantiated allegations, most of them made in this House, were reported as if they were evidence. These newpapers like to boast of themselves that they are opinion makers. Is it any wonder that the public who have been subjected to this type of yellow journalism respond in the way they do to the pollsters? As I have said before, the not too lamented Dr. Goebbels had a theory that the more muck thrown hopefully the more would stick. I am confident that the public will see clearly through this Nazi-type propaganda and will react appropriately when the time comes. It is somewhat farfetched to suggest that one is being paranoid about the kind of media who deliberately set out to destroy elected Members of this House by lies and innuendoes.
I should like to preface my remarks this morning by pointing out that we are now into the third day of debate on this motion of confidence in the Government following months of allegations, smears and innuendos. It is crucial that it be pointed out that, in the absolute privilege of this House, not one single, solitary shred of evidence has been produced which would suggest in any way impropriety on the part of the Taoiseach or his Ministers. That is a most important point to make because, of course, there is absolute privilege in this House. If people did have even the slightest shred of evidence it is here, in the perfectly safe haven of this House, that such evidence should be produced. In addition, that says much about those who level the charges and allegations. It means that Irish political life has been brought to a new low, something that every politician in this country will have to face. Character assassination became the order of the day; innuendo the way to proceed, and misrepresentation a means of achieving an end. When that stage is reached in any democracy the question one must then pose is: why would anybody do such a thing? I suggest that those who imply that the Taoiseach himself is absolutely power-crazed would do well now to look into their hearts. There is only one logical conclusion to be reached now. It is that those who are levelling such accusations are guilty of the crime themselves.
What about the gang of four?
It is my belief that there has been an attempt from the far left and indeed the far right to attack the integrity of Fianna Fáil, their record and standing in Irish life. This unremitting attack, as bitter as it was low, has failed miserably in its central objective which was to demean the party, their objectives, their past, present and future.
I am not going to become involved in innuendo, smears or misrepresentation in relation to any individual. It would be my hope that I would always take that attitude. I must say that no credit has been done to the political process. Those who have levelled the allegations have let nobody down but themselves. When all of the inquiries have been completed, when the dust has settled and the ink is dry on each and every one of these stories I predict it will be ascertained, as a definite fact, that neither the Taoiseach nor any of his Ministers was in any way involved in any of the scandals in Irish business life.
The broad mass of the Fianna Fáil organisation and membership throughout the country has proven itself to be more concerned about business ethics, about high standards in political life than many of those who have been levelling the allegations in recent weeks and months. It is a downright and unfounded insult to suggest for one moment that the position is otherwise. I know that the great mass of the Fianna Fáil organisation throughout the country take the gravest exception to any suggestion that the position is anything other than that.
We have learned something else also. Perhaps this was one of the most regrettable features of the entire scenario. If the Fine Gael Party can be credited with anything in this country historically they can be credited with this much, that they introduced and helped to establish constitutional democracy here; that much can be said of the then Cumann na nGaedheal Party. It is a very sad day that the tradition of that party should be undermined by theatrics, their leader attempting, by way of allegation, innuendo and smear, to undermine the democratic process of which their predecessors, Cumann na Gaedheal, can be so proud. That is most regrettable. Perhaps another lesson can be learned, which is that the Fine Gael front and backbenchers ran like rats from a ship and deserted their former Leader, Deputy Dukes, who led the party with integrity and with a certain amount of decorum and dignity. The indignity they have now brought on themselves will obtain for the remainder of their existence because they have undermined their own tradition. That has been the most regrettable feature of this debate and of what has been taking place throughout this country in recent weeks and months.
I do not take any notice of The Workers' Party; I do not think anybody does.
(Interruptions.)
They are not worth mentioning.
I do not think anybody seriously believes that they are a serious alternative. We know that they have very doubtful and sinister origins; everybody knows that; I will leave it at that.
As for the Labour Party, their Leader, Deputy Spring, is a very nice man, but his entire political career has been blighted and, unfortunately, stunted by a pathological hatred of one man. Incidentally, I might add that that is not the way to proceed either.
I welcome this opportunity to support the motion of confidence in the Government. In the best interests of the country, I do so without hesitation.
Unlike the Opposition I am not obsessed with personalities. I am more concerned with solving the serious economic problems confronting our country rather than engaging in the kind of old-fashioned point-scoring emphatically rejected by Deputy Dukes. How can Deputies John Bruton and Dick Spring question this House about mismanagement when, during their period in office in a previous Coalition Government, there were record levels of inflation, interest rates and emigration? Do they forget that, during their period in office, they doubled the national debt? Since I entered this House in 1989 I have been constantly amazed at the short memories of those on the Opposition benches. It should be pointed out that it was the present Government who finally confronted the economic mess they inherited in 1987, who devised a series of policies and initiatives putting us on the road to national recovery. As important as are those policies, of equal importance was the perception in the country at that time that some Government was about to grapple with the terrible economic position they had inherited. It was that realisation that brought together the social partners. It is that realisation that keeps the social partners together. The Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress did not fall from the sky. They reflect a sense of realism, confidence and pragmatism, demonstrating that we can succeed only by working together.
Another aspect of the Government's resolve to succeed was their decision to involve men and women of experience, men and women with ideas from outside as well as inside the Civil Service. These men and women were recruited on the basis of their expertise, on the basis of what they could contribute to national recovery, not on the basis of party political affiliations. The Government gave these people a brief and, regardless of recent allegations, the Government can do no more than trust such appointees to public bodies. Any employers, be they Government or a private company, must be able to trust their officers. I understand from recent allegations that this trust may have been abused in a small number of areas. When questions were raised the Government responded immediately by setting up an independent inquiry to investigate the allegations made. To move from this to question the competence of this Government is absurd. If the Opposition have no confidence in the Government, let them argue their case in terms of Government policy. While I agree with some other speakers that some changes have to be made in the area of Dáil reform, for example, placing greater emphasis on job creation, the broad strategy of Government is correct.
Since he took over as Taoiseach in 1987, Deputy Charles Haughey has brought a sense of direction to Government policy. The Government quickly moved on the PNR and adopted a new sectoral approach to certain areas of the economy which until then had been handled by broader Government Departments. Specific offices for food, horticulture and science and technology were established, which have proved to be very successful. The focus on sectoral areas should be extended to other areas of public policy as well.
The Government's decentralisation policy is another aspect. I welcome the fact that the Department of Social Welfare decided last August to regionalise the management of their services. Instead of unemployment offices dealing exclusively with payments, these offices will offer the widest possible range of services for their customers. Such initiatives indicate a fresh approach. Employment creation is just as much a community experience as anything else. Side by side with the activities of the IDA, we must involve the communities. Jobs can be created from the bottom up as from the top down. I have every confidence in this Government formulating and implementing policies which the community need, and I support the motion without hesitation.
I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy O'Shea.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I have no confidence in the Government. I did not need Greencore, Bord Telecom, Celtic Helicopters or Dermot Desmond to convince me. I have never had confidence in Fianna Fáil or the Progressive Democrats to resolve the economic and social issues confronting Irish society. I do not intend to list again the scandals and allegations against this Government. I want to focus on the possible consequences of an Opposition victory in this confidence vote, or in any event, the probability of an election within the next year.
First I want to reject categorically the smears, personal vilification and muck raked up by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Ray Burke, and other Fianna Fáil speakers in regard to The Workers' Party. The Workers' Party are, of course, well able to defend themselves. I want to congratulate the Workers' Party for acknowledging their earlier mistakes and the honest way they have confronted their own history. In particular, I want to acknowledge Deputy Mac Giolla's role in that transition from militant nationalism to constitutional politics and democratic socialism. It is despicable that they should be subjected to McCarthyite smears in this House by none less than the Minister for Justice. They have played an important role in creating a dynamic and democratic Left politics in this country and I welcome them all the more for that.
If present trends in the opinion polls continue, the only possible successor to this Government is another Government with major Fianna Fáil participation. There may be a change in leaders, Ministers, even coalition partners, but that is all. Fianna Fáil will still dominate whatever new Government comes into place while the Left will be considerably strengthened in any such election.
Of course, Fine Gael fancy themselves as leading the next Government. So desperate are they to get Fianna Fáil out, they will enter Government with anyone. They will abandon their principles, join with socialists, conservatives, greens, independents — anyone, to get in. Had Fine Gael not ruled out coalition with Fianna Fáil we might have just passed this off as normal political jockeying. Instead, we must be extremely concerned at Fine Gael's motives. There is the stench of a hidden agenda coming from the Fine Gael benches.
We are faced with counter motions of confidence and no-confidence from parties with a few policy differences. Fine Gael's only claim to becoming the alternative Government is that they would regulate crooks, conmen and frauds in the business sector better than the present Government. That is highly debatable. Arguably a Fine Gael-led Government would give rise to even more scandals. Their policy of privatising almost all public sector companies would surely lead to more conflicts of interest and attempts to secure private gains at the expense of the public interest. It will be Greencore all over again in Aer Lingus, Bord Telecom, the ESB and RTE. By their own admission these would all face privatisation in the event of Fine Gael coming to office.
The difference between a Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Government is one of degrees. It is this lack of choice that is stifling Irish politics. This is why the majority of people do not want an election. They realise there is no difference between the two major parties. Fine Gael is just another way of saying Fianna Fáil. The faces are different, the policies are the same.
If there is to be an alternative arising out of this motion of no-confidence, it will come from the Left parliamentarians and political parties.
I thought the Deputy was telling the House that the Left did not want to provide any alternative Government at all.
If this vote of confidence is to be of any relevance to the vast majority of people, the Left should be very clear about its future intentions. I want to be very clear about this, especially in the light of Deputy John Bruton's invitation to the Left to join him in an anti-Fianna Fáil Government.
In the eventuality of a hung Dáil where neither Fine Gael nor Fianna Fáil, with the help of the Progressive Democrats, can form a Government, the Labour Party will not participate as a minority partner in a Coalition Government with either of the major political parties.
Deputy Spring has not said that yet.
In 1987 the Labour Party adopted the findings of their own commission on electoral strategy. One of those findings is that our medium term goal over ten to 15 years must be to exceed the party's best past performances. This requires that the party fight all elections on the basis of their independent policies and remain independent of all governments. That is the clear and unequivocal Labour Party policy on this issue. That will remain the case for the remainder of the decade.
Tell the electorate that you are opting out of serious politics.
I want to send a clear message to Fine Gael and indeed to Fianna Fáil. The civil war which spawned their parties is over. The reasons for their separate existence have long ago ceased. They are both conservative parties with near identical policies. If between them, they command a majority, they, from the same political stable, have a responsibility to form a government. Let them not shift that responsibility to others.
I want to state categorically that I will never, while the people of Kildare send me here, support with my vote in this House the appointment of a right wing Taoiseach from either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael to head up a conservative majority coalition. The Left must not be involved in giving the kiss of life to John Bruton and Fine Gael, nor should we act as a crutch for Fianna Fáil. We must not be a mudguard for the excesses of either.
The only condition after this election or any other election in which I believe the Left should participate in a coalition with a right wing party, is if the combined Left is in a majority. Up to recently this might have seemed pie in the sky. But opinion polls now show Labour and The Workers' Party, together, with 20 per cent of the vote compared to Fine Gael's 27 per cent. The Left is not far off from becoming the second major force in Irish politics, if we act together.
In Eastern Europe the Left had a majority for about 30 years. Look what happened there.
If we count the Independent Socialist Party in Sligo, independents such as Tony Gregory, and the Green Party which I perceive as being an anti-conservative, positive force, we can see that progressive politics is gaining ground.
I do not accept, however, that voting no-confidence in this Government means that the Left must go into a permanent opposition until it can form its own Government. I believe that, together, the Left must campaign to win critical concessions for our constituency. We should be willing to use our parliamentary strength to negotiate the best deal possible based on a set of minimum demands. These demands could include things like: an industrial and credit strategy based on investing in large, domestic public and private sector companies in key export areas as the basis for ending unemployment; a national minimum wage and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare report; increased wealth and capital taxation, including a punitive tax on speculation and windfall profits; the introduction of divorce and comprehensive family planning legislation; substantial increase in child benefit; more powers for local authorities; and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.
These are just some of the issues that could form the basis of an alternative Left politics. With this kind of platform we can confidently go to the country and argue for an alternative way of doing things. We may not be able to form the next government. But we can make a difference, and that can be the first step on our way to a Left majority coalition. That time might be nearer than many people think.
I want to finally make clear that I am speaking about the Left. I have consciously used that term for I believe all of us in the Labour Party, The Workers' Party and other groups must first and foremost see ourselves as parliamentarians and activists of the Left, in alliance against conservative forces in society. Otherwise, this confidence motion is just an exercise in oppositionism. Those who advise the Left that we should join a coalition with larger right wing parties are not advancing left politics, they are not bringing to people a radical alternative. They are not making a difference. The Left should ignore such advice. I am well aware that the Left is, at this stage, too small to control the national agenda, but we can control our own actions and make our own decisions. Voting no-confidence in this Government can be just the beginning.
During the time available to me I intend to deal with the Carysfort issue. This scandal is different from the other scandals which have brought about this confidence debate in that it concerns State money, money provided by way of supplementary estimate in this House last December. The Dáil provided the money and the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility applies here. The Progressive Democrats cannot walk away from this one and take up a position on the high moral ground. The one-man government-in-exile down in the Four Courts has been notably silent on this issue.
I quote from the reply given to me by the Minister for Education in the Dáil on February 13 last:
Any decision to purchase Carysfort and the allocation of funds for that purpose are matters solely for Government. Naturally I kept the Government fully informed of developments regarding Carysfort at all stages leading eventually to the decision to provide funds to UCD towards the purchase of the college.
The Coalition Government was informed by the Minister for Education at all stages. The Progressive Democrats knew and they must, therefore, share the responsibility.
Was there anything wrong with the State providing the finance to purchase Carysfort College to retain it in an educational use? The answer is most definitely not — all things being equal and above board. However, this is the problem. The question must be asked. Why was it necessary for the Minister for Education to seriously mislead the Dáil on the issue on 18 December 1990 when I challenged her in relation to the supplementary estimate.
I quote the Minister from the Dáil record:
I had four separate meetings with the College authorities with regard to the proposal they put to me for the purchase of Carysfort.
It has since then emerged that the proposal from the college was dated 29 November 1990. It has also emerged that at September-October meetings between the College Secretary and Registrar, the Chairman of the Graduate Business School and the Minister for Education the President of UCD stated:
The Minister indicated that positive consideration would be given to a proposal from UCD to purchase Carysfort for its graduate business school.
The Minister failed to inform the House that she not alone had invited the proposals but indicated a favourable response. On that occasion and subsequently, she had indicated or stated that the initiative came from the college. The contrary is indeed the case, and the Minister stands indicted of seriously misleading this House.
The Minister has given two separate dates, 4 and 5 December, in relation to when the Cabinet decision was taken to approve the purchase. I am demanding that the position be clarified. The Minister for Education has stated in September 1991, that she was unaware that it was Mr. Pino Harris who was the vendor of Carysfort College at the time of the sale last December. We must accept the Minister's word on this but I would suggest that there is no way the Taoiseach could make the same statement.
This brings me to the term "forced-fed" which I used in the Dáil last December to describe the role of the Government in bringing about the purchase and refurbishment of Carysfort by UCD, using almost £10 million of taxpayers' money. The President of UCD informed the building committee that his heart was not in the project. The heart of someone who is force-fed is certainly not in it. I unreservedly accept the bona fides of the President of UCD when he says that his decision to recommend the purchase was based on the judgment, formed in the light of consultation with colleagues, that the opportunity which presented itself was the most advantageous one for the college's development of its graduate school of business and allied post-graduate activities.
With due respect to the President of UCD, when he says that his decision was not based on pressure, he needs to define for us what he means by pressure, and I suggest that the definition most appropriate to this whole episode is "a compelling influence or force". In our political system, the paymaster/ Government is an extremely compelling influence or force. To quote a member of his own staff: "you might blame Haughey for giving it to us but you can't blame us for taking it."
I have already stated outside this House that the statement of the president of UCD of 8 October 1991 raises more questions than it answers. I quote: "The only meeting with the Taoiseach or Minister for Education which the President had on the matter was on 12 December". The president does not address the issues of informal conversations, telephone conversations, contacts from the Taoiseach's office and specifically whether there was an "informal conversation" on 3 December — the day of the Presidential inauguration — at which the Taoiseach indicated to him that the money to purchase Carysfort would be forthcoming.
This issue is now firmly back in the political arena and there is an inescapable duty on the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Finance and, indeed, all members of the Government to give full and frank answers on all the issues raised and not hide behind the type of bland waffle with which the Taoiseach insulted this House and the people of Ireland at the commencement of this debate. I quote:
I regard the purchase of Carysfort by UCD to provide a premises for a graduate business school as an entirely praiseworthy and progressive step. The transaction was carried out in a perfectly straight forward manner.
How straightforward was it that the Taoiseach's meeting with the president of UCD on 12 December 1990 was not acknowledged until the president of UCD, made that public, and indeed it is still not acknowledged by the Taoiseach?
The property was purchased in July 1990 by the company of a well-known Fianna Fáil supporter for £6.5 million and was almost immediately put back on the market for £10.5 million. The auctioneers acting for the vendor then approached the Chairman of the Smurfit Graduate Business School, Mr. Laurence Crowley, who initially showed no interest. In September-October, the Minister for Education was inviting a proposal and indicating a favourable response. On 4 October, UCD approached Mr. Harris through Gunne's and expressed an interest in acquiring Carysfort. A purchase price of £8 million was agreed between Mr. Laurence Crowley and Gunne's on 25 November, subject to the approval of the Minister for Education.
Very serious questions must be asked here about the rigours of the college's negotiations in relation to agreeing the price of £8 million. There was no independent professional valuation and, whereas the unidentified "competent college experts" found that if the same area as Carysfort were to be provided on campus, it would cost in excess of £20 million, this does not take market forces into consideration. The college is restricted to an educational use and there was no other known prospective educational buyer. The fact that the agreed price in November, when the property market was in delcine, was £1.5 million dearer than the July price demonstrates very weak powers of negotiation on the part of the college. The question must also be asked whether Mr. Harris was advised to hold out for £8 million and that the State would pay. If he had been so advised, who had advised him?
The college is open to very great criticism in terms of the negotiated sale price, but how much more criticism must be levelled at the Taoiseach in what can only be described as a scandalous dereliction of his duty to protect Exchequer funds? He directly involved himself in the transaction — however shy he was of admitting this. He sought that UCD would put up more of the money from their own resources but it is apparent that in relation to a transaction which he was obviously in an almighty hurry to conclude, he never suggested that UCD should go back to the well-known Fianna Fáil supporter and negotiate a reduced purchase price. He did not even insist on an independent professional valuation of the property on behalf of the State. Fianna Fáil, clearly with the assistance of the Progressive Democrats, have looked after one of their own and grossly misused nearly £10 million of taxpayers' money in the process.
The Minister for Education needs to explain how the president of UCD knew that there was a conflict between Ministers in relation to the provision of this money. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education must inform this House about the nature of this conflict and the Taoiseach's direct personal intervention, in the face of strong opposition, in the expenditure division of the Department of Finance. I challenge the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, who will reply to the debate this evening, to put on the record of this House exactly what happened when the Taoiseach intervened in his Department in relation to the provision of money which the official side in the Department strongly believed could not and should not be provided. My information is that this money was intended for the regional colleges sector, to be provided by way of Supplementary Estimate towards the end of the year, but that it was hijacked. The Regional Colleges Bill and the Dublin Institute of Technology Bill will come before this House very shortly. The consequences of those Bills will be to reduce the effectiveness of the real public sector of education in the third level area.
There is a pattern here which we have seen in relation to the two existing training colleges. I have been informed that negotiations are well advanced on the proposal to amalgamate St. Patrick's Training College in Drumcondra with Dublin City University and the authorities of Mary Immaculate Training College in Limerick are involved in discussions on the amalgamation of that college with Limerick City University. Even though there are regional colleges in Munster, the largest county in Munster and the country, Tipperary, has no regional college. Promises have been made to provide a regional technical college at Thurles and we, in the Labour Party, support that proposal absolutely. I challenge the Government to say whether the money used for the purchase of Carysfort was diverted from providing this very necessary facility in an area which the Government have in so many ways neglected in a most wicked way.
The Taoiseach must also inform the House of his intervention in the administrative affairs of University College Dublin afer the Supplmentary Estimate had been approved by this House. I understand that the college were looking for £1 million to cover the running costs of the new graduate business school. I submit that the direct involvement of the Taoiseach in this issue to the extent that he rang the president of the college, who later returned his call, is a vote of no confidence in his Minister for Education. What is even more insidious is the fact that the HEA were totally side-lined and not involved in this project and that the Taoiseach interfered in the Civil Service and involved himself in the running of University College Dublin and, if one takes into account the scale of the college, petty cash. It is incumbent on the Taoiseach to tell us why he felt the Minister for Education was not capable or competent to conclude the dotting of i's and the crossing of t's in this escapade.
The stench surrounding this transaction must be cleared by the full disclosure of the facts. If the credibility of the political system is to be restored those answerable must give answers. The Government, as custodians of the national purse, who allowed the Carysfort scandal to happen have grossly betrayed their mandate of trust from the people. This alone demonstrates why no right thinking Deputy could considier voting confidence in a Government who have totally failed the people in all social areas, particularly in the area of employment.
Unemployment is the largest problem in Ireland. We are debating a motion of confidence in the Government. Yesterday the Labour Party Leader, in his excellent contribution to the House, spoke about the lack of confidence and how people have lost heart. We must all share that sense of shame. People have lost confidence in this House on a massive scale in recent weeks. It may very well be that the Coalition partners will succeed in cobbling something together to get them over this crisis, but people know that this measure is not about them, it is about holding on to power, to the mercedes and to office. Nothing has been said by any member of the Government during this debate which signifies that the Government are serious about the problem of unemployment. Labour Deputies who have spoken to people at their clinics are aware of the despair among people; people have lost self-respect and self-image and believe we have got to the stage where we can no longer deal with our problems.
If the Government succeed in cobbling an agreement together to stretch out this charade for another while, it will be incumbent on them to devote all of next week to a debate on unemployment so that they can put forward plans and ideas about the creation of employment and get it across to people that it is not the golden circle but the ordinary people who matter. Many people have the ability and can see opportunities to create small businesses but the banks, the Government and the whole ethos of our society, are shutting them out. If the Government want to succeed in coming to grips with our unemployment problem, everyone who can make a contribution must be brought on board. If we do not do this we will be failing people as the Government have so terribly failed them. It has been said that the Government have no responsibility for what happens in the semi-State sector but investigations will bear out what happened in those companies. However, the issue of Carysfort is different as it involved direct Exchequer money.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but his time is almost exhausted. Perhaps he would bring his speech to a close.
The Carysfort issue relates to collective Government responsibility, misleading this House and the adoption of a role by the Taoiseach which he would not admit until the President of University College Dublin put it on the record that the Taoiseach had, in fact, met him. This is the sort of politics which can destroy people's confidence. In this issue more than any other Fianna Fáil have done a grave injustice and disservice to democratic Government in this country.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this motion of confidence in the Government.
We must send a clear message to the people of Ireland. The business of government is not about promoting the interests of one section of society at the expense of another. It is about implementing the kind of policies that tap entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs and give the less well-off in our society their share in the rewards of economic and social progress. Any other view of government is narrow and divisive and does not serve the interests of the people.
Yet, this is precisely what Fine Gael, Labour and The Workers' Party are doing. The people are entitled to know the reasons for the Government-bashing that has been going on since last May. For the past five months in particular, the Opposition parties have engaged in a deliberate campaign designed to smear the Government, discredit their achievements and policies and undermine confidence in the way in which the nation's business is managed.
The Opposition are clutching at straws. Mischievously, they are determined to link the Government with questionable practices and alleged wrongdoing in the semi-State and private sectors. The Government in all of this have acted decisively.
The Minister for Agriculture and Food established the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry only days after an ITV documentary alleged abuses in a major meat processing group. These allegations have major implications for our home and export beef markets. There are 10,000 jobs involved in this industry. I refer Deputy O'Shea to that reality and I ask him to stop pulling down the beef industry for his political purposes. He should not come here whingeing about jobs and go outside and destroy the Irish beef industry in every supermarket throughout England. He should not be such a hypocrite.
What about Goodman bringing it down?
I will deal with the Deputy later.
Deputy Byrne is ignoring the Chair, something, which will not be tolerated.
The value of total output was £1.2 billion and exports amounted to £686 million last year. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has appointed High Court inspectors on foot of investigations initiated by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications into the so-called Telecom affair.
Deputies and the public can rest assured that the Government will take whatever action is needed arising from the investigations into Greencore, the Telecom controversy and the beef industry.
Given the prompt action of the Government when these matters arose, it is somewhat surprising that the Opposition are engaged in a political witch-hunt.
For the second time in less than a year, Fine Gael have revived their vendetta against the Taoiseach. Ever since the debate in 1979 on the installation of Deputy Charles Haughey as Taoiseach, in what is generally accepted as one of the most scandalous speeches ever delivered by an Opposition leader in Dáil Éireann, Fine Gael have sought to smear the Taoiseach at every opportunity.
Fine Gael do not have either the ideas or the policies to deal with the issues facing the country today. The evidence from 1983 to 1987 proves this beyond any doubt. The party are drifting helplessly in Opposition and even two changes of leader have done nothing to improve Fine Gael's standing among the voters. They are wasting their time and that of the country in purely destructive and still highly personalised attacks. The right wing Fine Gael Party are even prepared to join with the Marxist-Leninist hardline Communists of The Workers' Party, just to smear Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Spring can take credit for the way in which he continues to exploit Fine Gael's ineptitude. Yet it is he and his party who were Fine Gael's partners in Government in the four years to 1987.
That Government doubled the national debt, increased taxation to crippling levels and did nothing for the least well off in our society. They left in despair when unable to even produce a budget for 1987.
In Government, the Labour Party did not restrain Fine Gael. Together they presided over debacles in Irish Shipping, ICI, PMPA, the failed Canadian export credit insurance guarantees, Dublin Gas and B & I where taxpayers lost countless millions.
In his fervour to create an environment of suspicion through unsubstantiated allegation, Deputy Spring has already suffered the embarrassment of having to publicly withdraw some of his allegations. Sadly, this indicates that his only real interest was to keep up the momentum of alleged new scandals in his efforts to destabilise the Government. Thankfully in this he has failed. I refer, of course, to the famous Temple Bar slur. In an article in The Dublin Tribune of 26 September 1991 it was stated that the Labour Party had withdrawn allegations in relation to Temple Bar made by party leader, Deputy Spring. Before long they will withdraw a few others. Deputy leader, Deputy Quinn, told The Dublin Tribune there was no truth in allegations made by Deputy Spring that shelf companies had been set up to take advantage of tax incentives in the Temple Bar area, even before redevelopment plans had been publicly announced. Of course, the local people were hurt and offended by these allegations. For two days Deputy Spring had difficulty in putting forward any evidence. There are no secret owners. The companies named by the Labour Party are owned by local business people.
The Workers' Party are now more confused than at any time in their chequered history.
Certainly not the new Workers' Party.
The old totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe with whom they had such close contact have been swept away. New democracies have emerged. The new Governments are embracing freedom and democracy and are enjoying the opportunity to create a better life for their citizens. They are looking to Europe and greater participation in the European Community. Instead of moving with the times, The Workers' Party continue to promote an economic and social model for Ireland that has been discredited. What vision are they offering the people of Ireland at this stage? All they are doing is trying to damage and discredit their political opponents true to the style of Lenin. That particular leopard has not changed its spots.
I might mention I am reasonably familiar with the printing machines on the north side of Dublin which were used for printing both counterfeit money and The Workers' Party literature and The Workers' Party activist who has gone missing who allegedly operated them — I say allegedly. This was a classical upstairs downstairs operation: upstairs The Workers' Party said they did not know what was going on downstairs. We all accepted that these were nasty allegations against the nice Workers' Party people. They claimed they did not know, they only leased out the premises downstairs and that these allegations should not be given the credibility people give to such allegations. If that is true for The Workers' Party then they should allow the investigations look into all the nasty allegations they are throwing up day after day against other citizens in this State and Members of this House.
It is a bit like the semi-States.
The reality is that each of the Opposition parties have used every opportunity to spread innuendo, half-truths and downright lies. I was told last August that this orchestrated campaign was planned — I did not know what exactly was coming — and was runinng up to a vote of no confidence in the Taoiseach at that time. This orchestrated campaign resulted in the public being purposely misled about what are, at this point, allegations of impropriety and wrongdoing in the business sector.
This has now reached the point where Mr. Justice Hamilton, the chairman of the tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry, has spoken out and described the headline reports on the first day of the tribunal's deliberations as an "absolute and positive disgrace". The Opposition should take note of this reprimand instead of trying to undermine confidence in our institutions of Government.
The tribunal and the inspectors must now be allowed to get on with their work. The inquiries must be carried out in a careful, painstaking and fair manner to ensure that the truth is established. To ensure their success they must be allowed sufficient time to complete their work in a calm environment, without pressure. A rush to judgment will serve no one's interest.
In the heated atmosphere of allegation and innuendo, we must not overlook the fact that the semi-State companies, including those involved in the recent events, have played a crucial part in the development of the Irish economy and their role remains crucial.
It behoves Members of this House to remember that in bringing to light unacceptable business practices, care should be taken so that allegations made do not inflict heedless damage on the wellbeing of these commercial companies.
Regrettably much of what has been said in recent weeks both in the media and by some Members of this House, could not be said to observe the degree of care to be expected from responsible Members of the Oireachtas. In the headlong rush to smear Fianna Fáil, some are willing to say anything if the desired damge to Fianna Fáil is achieved, regardless of the harm done to the semi-State sector.
The Minister is not doing too badly.
In their verbal outbursts they are like vandals smashing up the national furniture. The suspicion and innuendo has inevitably done damage to the semi-State sector and has damaged public confidence in it. This should not have happened.
The public interest has to that extent been damaged. The proper expression of concern for what may or may not have happened in these companies, together with the investigation of the events themselves did not require the orgy of innuendo to which we have been treated. Those responsible for this excess have done a grave disservice to the semi-State companies and in turn to the Irish people. They have also, through the blind pursuit of their shallow political objectives, damaged business confidence at a time when a fragile recovery is under way.
When the facts and findings are to hand the Government will act resolutely. A responsible opposition would support the Government in whatever measures are needed in the national interest.
We need entrepreneurs. Enterprising initiative in the semi-State and private sectors is vital to our success in the Single European Market and to our sharing in the opportunities for growth presented by the emergence of the new European democracies. Instead of fighting and arguing we should leave these matters to those investigations and get on with supporting entrepreneurs who go out and win the jobs Deputy O'Shea says we need so much instead of further denigrating the people in the House in relation to matters which can be investigated in a proper way.
We must accommodate risk-taking and business acumen while ensuring that procedures, controls and regulations curtail opportunities for fraud, abuse and sharp practice. That will be done. There is no conflict between vigorous and highly competitive national and international dealings and a high standard of business ethics.
The business sector must also be aware of the need to re-invest its profits in creating the greatest number of new jobs for our citizens. Its contribution is vital to the nation's well-being. Businessmen will serve their country by investing, creating employment and returning their profits to re-investment in productive activities.
The underlying strategy of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the continuation of the national partnership, is the best means for achieving growth, job creation, increased prosperity and social equity.
Confidence in our economy has been the most significant feature of the Irish economic performance since 1987. The Programme for National Recovery set out the economic strategy which laid the groundwork for that exceptional performance. Look at what has been achieved in those four short years: four years of solid economic growth, exceeding the EC average at 4 per cent per annum. There was no growth between 1983 and 1986; lower rates of interest and inflation maintained at 3 per cent; the debt/GNP Ratio has been reduced from 131 per cent in 1987 to 111 per cent at the end of 1990; Exchequer/borrowing has fallen from 13 per cent of GNP to 2 per cent last year — the lowest for 40 years; our balance of payments deficit of £500 million in 1986 was transformed into a surplus of £700 million in 1990 — that is all about jobs; recognition of Ireland as an attractive investment location; improved real living standards for our workers, and the ending of the spiral of rising prices which made managing a family budget so difficult.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress will further consolidate and build on the advances made since 1987. It was through consensus with the social partners that the programme was born. It was through consensus again with the social partners that the common and conflicting aspirations of all the divergent groups involved were married together in the new programme.
Let there be no mistake about it, it will be through consensus yet again that the present difficulties facing the programme will be overcome. The Taoiseach made that position quite clear at last week's meeting with the social partners.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress is the strategy for national progress. Look at what has been achieved for people depending on social welfare and for families at work on low pay. Against a background of difficult financial decisions the consensus approach has succeeded in protecting the living standards of those dependent on social welfare and those at work on low pay, in introducing new schemes to meet emerging needs in society, in expending the social insurance base to spread the cost more equitably, and in improving the delivery of services to our customers. The Government are determined that the least well off in our society will not be left behind. They will be protected and will share in our economic progress.
All long term payments, for pensioners, lone parents, widows and people who have been unemployed for 15 months or more now reach or exceed the priority rates of payment recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare, which is £54.60 per week in 1991 terms. This Government are committed to the achievement of the priority rate for all recipients by 1993. After that, social welfare rates will continue to be increased as the resources of the economy grow.
The practical application of the improvements introduced by this Government since 1987 mean that the long term unemployment assistance personal rate has been increased since 1986 by £18.30 or just under 50 per cent. A family with four children on unemployment assistance has received an increase of £38.85 or 40 per cent in the same period. An old age pensioner couple have received an increase of £18.50 or just over 20 per cent since 1986. The position of families has been improved. Basic rates of payment and child dependant increases have been increased. Child dependant allowances for people on long term payments now continue up to age 21 for school going children. Nobody can dispute the fact that we have raised the standard of living in real terms for everyone who depends on social welfare.
Those at work on low pay have also benefited. Through a combination of the radically improved family income supplement and new family tax exemptions for lower paid workers — measures which cost £16.5 million this year — we have ensured that people are better off at work than on the dole — as much as one third better off. A family at work with four children earning £160 a week now take home £175.20 a week cash — £44.20 a week more than if they were receiving unemployment benefit. The same family were only £22 a week better off in 1987. We have doubled the incentive to work. A family with four children earning £180 a week are £38.05 a week better off than if they were receiving unemployment benefit with pay-related benefit. A young person starting with a job paying £115 a week is still some £36 a week better off than if he or she were on the dole.
This Government's record in caring for the most vulnerable members of our society is one of unprecedented achievement. We have brought in a new carers allowance which for the first time recognises the essential support for elderly people provided by carers in our society. The new allowance provides carers on low incomes with a secure income support allowance of their own. Since I introduced this scheme it has been extended to carers of people receiving disabled persons maintenance allowance. We intend to go further. I am reviewing the means test which applies to the allowance to see what further improvements can be made.
The lone parents allowance introduced last year brings together all payments for lone parents bringing up children on their own — and provides for the first time a payment for separated spouses bringing up children. Labels such as "deserted", "unmarried mother", no longer apply — all lone parent families are now treated on the same basis — that of need. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance this year benefited some 200,000 children. For the third year in a row a Christmas bonus amounting to 70 per cent of normal weekly payments will be paid to 620,000 pensioners, and other people depending on long term social welfare payments and their 360,000 dependants. The bonus under Fine Gael and Labour in 1986 was 65 per cent.
This Government are proud of their record on pensions. We have introduced the most comprehensive and up-to-date legislation on occupational pension schemes since the foundation of the State. The new Pensions Act which I introduced last year is recognised as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in Europe.
The new Act provides for protection of pension rights for employees who change or lose jobs; full disclosure of information to members of pension schemes; equal treatment for men and women; and minimum funding standards for schemes. The Pensions Board which I set up earlier this year will oversee the new legislation and ensure full compliance by employers, trustees and pension fund managers. We have provided security and protection for over a half a million workers and their dependants.
This Government have brought about a major improvement in the way social welfare services are provided throughout the country. The new regional structure which I announced in August will transform our local offices into full service centres for all social welfare services. In these new style centres, pensioners, lone parents, unemployed people and families who are out of work through illness will get all the social welfare services, advice and information they need.
The new local customer oriented service will mean: less frequent "signing-on", for people who are unemployed and more flexible methods of payment including payment by post drafts and by books of payable orders which can be cashed at post offices; better services for employers and better management of PRSI to ensure that employers meet their PRSI obligations for their employees and that the taxpayers' money goes only to those for whom it is intended; new supportive relationships with voluntary organisations working in the social services area.
The eight new regional centres at Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Longford, Dundalk and Waterford are being given regional managers who will be charged with the responsibility of delivering this new service. This is an historic development for my Department and it is an indication that the Government care for those who depend on them.
The new structure is essentially about bringing services to people in their locality. This is what they want and we are responding to that need. More and more, local people are tackling the problems in their own communities in an effective way. The community development programme which was introduced last year is proving to be the catalyst for major developments in local communities. There are now 21 projects throughout the country participating in the programme. Each one has a special role in providing social services and tackling unemployment and disadvantage. Ten of these projects have acted as focal points for tackling long term unemployment in the new pilot projects set up under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. These highlight the practical value of the programme.
This year the Government boosted the budget for the programme from £525,000 to £750,000. This has enabled me to expand the programme to another six areas. Soundly based local initiative is the way forward for communities around the country. The community development programme harnesses the enthusiasm, enterprise and innovation of local people in dealing with the problems which affect their lives. It gives much needed confidence to communities and gives them the responsibility for shaping their own future. The Government's support for this activity is warmly welcomed at local level.
This Government's record in the social welfare area is one of unparalleled progress since 1987. Expenditure on our social welfare services is £3 billion a year — a record in the history of the State. New control measures will ensure that the taxpayer's money goes only to those for whom it is intended. Savings from anti-fraud and abuse measures will amount to some £38 million this year. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress will continue that progress by setting the agenda through the nineties. We must not be deflected by recent events, and the hype surrounding them, from our real task of keeping the economy on a sound footing so that investment and job creation are encouraged and fostered.
The Government have a first-class record in managing our national affairs. It is vital that we continue this work. We will support and encourage business and enterprise, but we will also provide new procedures and controls so that the recent disquieting events will not be repeated. The House can be assured that we will continue to tackle the issues facing the country in a mature and responsible way. I urge the House to support this motion of confidence.
I would like to share my time with Deputy Deenihan, if that is in order.
Agreed.
Tá go maith.
The Taoiseach's nonchalant wave of his hand in the Dáil on Wednesday last when Deputy John Bruton mentioned the sewerage pipe on his land did not convince me or anybody else in this House that he did not have any personal interest in this famous pipe. The Taoiseach, more than any Member of this House, understands the real significance of a main sewerage pipe going across his land. After all, has he not experienced this before on his land on the outskirts of Dublin in the Donaghmede area in the late sixties?
He is good at dealing with sewage.
In that instance rumours and stories abound of undue pressure put on corporation engineers to extend pipes onto his land. Whether or not these rumours or allegations are true, the facts speak for themselves — the Taoiseach's former land was rezoned, thereby greatly inflating the value of the land and many hundreds of houses are now built on that land. One can be forgiven for sensing a touch of déjá vu. Incidentally, that land also was zoned for agriculture use.
The history of the approval of the now famous Baskin Cottages pipe is one which smacks of undue political interference by the Minister for the Environment. The Kinsealy-Feltrim sewerage scheme has been planned for a number of years. In 1981, Dublin County Council submitted preliminary drawings for the scheme to the Department of the Environment. It is important to note, however, that neither at that time nor at any time in the intervening years was a pipe to the Baskin Cottages included in this scheme. On the contrary, on 17 September 1984 a motion was proposed by two Fianna Fáil councillors asking the manager to extend the scheme to the cottages. In his reply, the manager said:
This scheme is independent of the Feltrim-Kinsealy Drainage Scheme proposal and there would be no necessity to connect the two.
The motion was never voted on or passed by Dublin County Council. Again, on 7 February 1985 in a further Fianna Fáil motion efforts were made to extend the scheme to include the Baskin Cottages. This time the manager was even more adamant in his reply. He stated:
The Baskin Cottages scheme is independent of the proposed Feltrim-Kinsealy drainage scheme and there would be no necessity to connect the two. There are no plans, therefore, to extend the Feltrim-Kinsealy scheme to serve the Baskin Cottages.
As a result of this report from the manager the Fianna Fáil councillors amended this motion to remove this section calling for the extension to serve the Baskin Cottages.
In 1985, Dublin County Council sent the fully prepared scheme to the Department of the Environment for approval. One will recall that during those years due to severe financial restrictions very few capital programmes such as this were approved. During the following two years I tabled a number of questions to the county manager asking if we had received any approval from the Department for this scheme — the scheme without the Baskin Cottages. Each time I was informed that no approval had been given and the council were not in a position to proceed out of their own resources due to the cost of the project. As one famous Irish seanachaí from Deputy Deenihan's county says, "things rested so" until July 1988.
By way of background let me remind Members that during the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 Fianna Fáil in Government had a Pauline conversion and were for the first time ever responsibly, or so it seemed — perhaps it is not so clear now — tackling the severe financial problems of this country. They were being assisted at that time, again for the first time, by responsible Opposition, by way of the Tallaght Strategy. All over the country county councils and county councillors of all parties were screaming that they were getting no resources from the Department of the Environment for any of their planned schemes, water, sewerage, housing, etc. I say this by way of background in view of what happened in 1988 with regard to the expenditure of money in north County Dublin.
At a Finglas meeting of 5 July 1988 under "correspondence" a letter was tabled from the Department of the Environment concerning the Kinsealy/Feltrim scheme. The letter indicated to Dublin County Council that the Department of the Environment had given approval to the working drawings as submitted to the Department and "to the Council's proposal to extend the scheme to provide for the disposal of sewage from the Baskin Cottage Scheme as outlined in the Council's letter of 9 May 1988". I was immediately alerted by the wording of this sentence as I had a clear recollection that at no time had the council or their members passed any motion or proposal to extend the scheme to the Baskin Cottages. On the contrary, the manager had advised against taking such action.
I then proceeded to investigate the matter more fully and in September 1988 I tabled a series of questions which outlined the exact history of this proposal. It would appear, and it has been confirmed, that on 7 July 1987 a short time after Fianna Fail's return to power the Department of the Environment on the instructions of the Minister wrote to Dublin County Council after a number of years silence from the Department and asked them "as a matter of urgency" to reexamine the Kinsealy-Feltrim scheme with a view to extending the pipe to serve the Baskin Cottages and other houses in the locality of the Baskin Cottages. Normally the Department of the Environment tend to ask councils to remove portions of schemes because of cost etc. and not, as in this case, to add expensive extensions. Following the letter of 7 July 1987 to the council — remember that this was during the summer holiday period when a number of engineers, etc., would have been on holiday — the Department wrote no fewer than twice more in the following two months demanding to know why the county council had not responded to their request for new plans and asking them to proceed with all haste to provide the necessary extension drawings, etc. These two letters were dated 14 August 1987 and 10 September 1987.
In the meantime the council themselves had proceeded to prepare and examine the possibility of extending this scheme to the cottages. I now know, having seen the report on the file which mysteriously turned up again in the last few days, that the council engineer who prepared the report said:
I would recommend that the Kinsealy-Feltrim scheme should not be extended to service the Baskin Cottages as the present treatment works is quite adequate. I have discussed the operation of the treatment works with the maintenance Department and they confirmed that the works can adequately treat the existing sewage from Baskin Cottages.
This would confirm the earlier reports in 1984 and 1985 as the council engineers responsible for these matters did not feel there was any need to extend the scheme. The county council officials and engineers were now in a difficult position; they were being offered an additional sewage pipe which their own engineers did not feel was necessary. There are certain similarities between the position in which the council found themselves and the position regarding Carysfort College. As one council engineer put it to me at the time: "we cannot look a gift horse in the mouth".
In the event, the report which went back to the Department of the Environment on 20 October 1987 — remember all through this time we, the councillors, elected members, knew nothing of this, it all came to light after 1988 — did not include the council engineer's reservations about extending the scheme. There is an interesting portion in that letter of 20 October 1987 in which the principal officer said: "following numerous discussions and phone calls", but there is no evidence of what was discussed and what the nature of those telephone calls was. Instead it indicated in the manager's report to the Department that the most desirable way to instal this pipe was across the valley of the Sluice River through private lands. In the letter from the Department of the Environment of 7 July 1987 it was made absolutely clear across which land this pipe would go, and I quote:
I am to request the county council to have these (Kinsealy/Feltrim) proposals re-examined, with a view to having the scheme extended to provide for disposal of sewage from Baskin Cottages which at present has an outfall to the stream flowing through Abbeyville.
I would like to stress here that at no stage am I alleging any wrongdoing on the part of any council official. They were in the predicament of being offered something which they felt they should not turn down but I was extremely critical of the proposal in view of the fact that so little money had been made available to Dublin County Council in 1988 for any new capital works and here was an unnecessary £78,000 going to be spent. I indicated publicly over and over again that this money would be better spent on some other schemes in the north county awaiting approval for a long number of years. In September 1988 when I first raised this issue, the Department not only approved the full Kinsealy-Feltrim scheme, at that stage priced at approximately £1 million, but they also approved a further two schemes in north County Dublin, namely the Darcystown drainage scheme in Balbriggan and the Barnageera-Blackhills scheme in Skerries. I am very pleased, for the sake of the people affected by the Darcystown and Blackhills-Barnageera schemes, that they got their main sewerage system but there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these schemes were released and approved in that year in order literally to shut me up.
The net result of these approvals is that at a time when the Minister for Finance was demanding tightening of belts all around, Dublin County Council and specifically north County Dublin received in excess of £1.3 million to build these new sewerage schemes. I have talked to many of my colleagues in councils around the country and they tell me that at that time it was virtually impossible to get even a penny out of the Department.
Much has been made about the new Development and Planning (Compensation) Act. It is true that the Bill was tabled in November 1988 but it was not passed into law until 1990. In the meantime the council had received the go-ahead to seek tenders and to place contracts. A contract was placed in May 1989 at a cost of £720,786.44. The Minister, Deputy Flynn on a radio programme recently, in his defence, indicated that he was only acting on the instructions of Dublin County Council in granting permission for the contract because they had approved the tender. He neglected to clarify that it was only the Fianna Fáil councillors on 1 May 1989 who accepted the tender, as the minutes of the meeting — which I have here — will show. Fine Gael councillors and one Labour councillor voted against and two Labour councillors abstained.
There are still crucial questions to be answered about this issue. Who wanted or needed this pipe? Not the cottage owners who in recent times indicated that they were not even aware they were now on a main sewer as opposed to their own drainage scheme; not the council engineers who persisted, even after the Department's request, in saying that the pipe was not needed. Why, as was told to me, did the Taoiseach invite the council's chief engineer to visit him in his home at Abbeyville to discuss the issue if it was a matter of such indifference to him, as he has tried to imply? Why did the Garda planning inquiry request this file which they kept until very recently? What exactly were they looking for in the file? Who asked them to carry out this inquiry and what has been the outcome? Will we ever hear?
Because of the circumstances surrounding this project, despite the Minister for the Environment's spirited hindsight explanation and justification of his actions, one is left with the serious suspicion that the only person or persons who stood to benefit, either immediately or in future, were the owners of the land across which the pipe was laid.
Perhaps I would not have these suspicions if, as I said at the beginning, land owned by the Taoiseach in the Donaghmede area in the late sixties, although zoned agriculture, ended up getting a main sewerage system and being rezoned for housing, thus inflating hugely the value of the land.
Professionals who are used to valuing land, particularly in the Dublin area, have indicated to me that even agriculturally zoned land with a sewerage pipe across it would have its value greatly enhanced by the provision of such a pipe. Certain uses are allowed under agricultural zoning, such as the building of hotels, rural industries, commercial recreation centres etc. However, if there was a possibility of land being rezoned, then the value of land with a main sewerage pipe across it could be increased from £3,000 approximately per acre to a figure as high as £35,000 to £40,000 per acre. It means that two or three hundred acres could be valued at anything from £10 million to £12 million.
The Taoiseach in a recent statement on 26 September 1991 failed dismally to explain the reasons his Minister got involved in this scheme in the manner I have described and at a time of severe financial restrictions. He attempted to imply that the extension pipe was entirely in keeping with the county council's policy where possible to eliminate small treatment works. Yet, he ignored the fact that consistently the same county council had refused to extend the scheme to the Baskin Cottages because they were satisfied with the operation of the treatment works there.
There is also a doubt in some legal minds that the 1990 Government and Planning Act actually applies to this particular pipeline as it was already under the ground before the Bill was passed into law. During the debate on that Bill a number of Deputies attempted to force the Minister into applying the terms of the Bill to land purchased before October 1988 but he refused. I believe there is a possibility that some of the terms of this Act could well be challenged because of their retrospective nature.
The Taoiseach was given an opportunity, through his Fianna Fáil councillors, to remove any scintilla of doubt or suspicion by requesting them to vote in favour of a motion tabled by me on January 1989 calling for the removal of the Baskin Cottages extension until such time as the Government Planning and Development Act, 1990, became law. He failed to do this.
Recently, it has been revealed in a Sunday newspaper —The Sunday Tribune of 6 October — and not denied, that John Finnegan of Finnegan, Menton Estate Agents and Liam McGonagle, Solicitor, have purchased a large parcel of land, 600 acres approximately, in the vicinity of Baskin/Cloghran.
Why are two men whose main source of living is not farming buying 600 acres of prime agricultural land in north County Dublin? These two men have been long time associates of the Taoiseach. One again wonders if they know something nobody else knows, or is it another one of these extraordinary coincidences that these two men appear to be members of the recently described golden circle? Can the Taoiseach tell the House if he has ever been involved in land or business transactions with either or both of these men? If we knew that we would have a better idea as to why they are buying the land in question.
Finally, my motivation in raising and investigating the Baskin Cottages pipeline since 1988 has been on behalf of my constituents and the taxpayers. My constituents do not want to see a concrete expanse being built in Kinsealy. The taxpayers are entitled to the assurance that their money is not spent wastefully or because of undue political pressure or favouritism.
I was accused in the Dáil yesterday by Deputy Flynn, Minister for the Environment, of being uncaring about the environment. I challenge him to reread the reports given to me in 1988 by Dublin County Council in which it is clearly stated that any pollution to the Sluice river was caused by houses and farms other than the Baskin Cottages, yet he refused to extend the scheme to these offending properties. Instead he limited the pipe to the lands of Abbeyville, thereby creating the whole suspicious scenario around this now famous extension pipe. It was within the power of the Minister to remove any suspicion of political interference.
Yesterday the Minister used words like "snooping" as if somehow I was worse than a worm going around looking for information. I did not have to snoop. The information available to me is widely available on the public record of county council meetings. I have received phone calls about all sorts of extraneous matters which I have not followed up because I do not think they are factual. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Flynn, would like to know that his name came up as being a landowner in the area, but I have no evidence of that. I have not followed up every bit of information I have received.
This matter has come to the public attention again because of rumours of intention of disposal of land. The case rests there. It may be some years before it really comes to light as to what the real motivation behind this action was. I believe that the Taoiseach and the Minister still have questions to answer and I hope they will do so before the end of this debate.
The public perception of politicians is rapidly reaching an all time low and the rancour and bitterness of this debate is likely to exacerbate matters. Groundless accusations of a most scurrilous nature have been made without a shred of evidence to back them up in many cases. This has been a gross abuse of the privileges of this House. Deputy Roche has thrown enough muck in this debate to fertilise all the gardens of his native county of Wicklow. Deputy Roche will always be remembered, of course, as one of the architects of the infamous Fianna Fáil manifesto of 1977 which was the greatest confidence trick played on this nation snce the Act of Union.
Politicians are elected as representatives to serve the people, and consequently politics should be seen as a vocation rather than a profession. Yet on recent evidence nobody could be blamed for concluding that some Irish politicians serve only themselves and their friends. A particularly disturbing feature of the recent spate of scandals is the inability of some people in Fianna Fáil to see anything wrong in the scurrilous manner in which the public has been ripped off for the private gain of a few individuals. There has been no greater indication of failure than the pathetic scenes at post offices throughout the country in the past fortnight as thousands of young people queued to mail applications to the US for Morrison visas. They see no future in this country. It should be a source of national shame to all Deputies that Ireland led the nations of the world in the visa frenzy in Virginia. Is this all we can offer our young people today — a future based on a lottery? This is an indictment of our whole political system about which no-one can feel complacent.
Deputy Haughey spent years describing our young people as our greatest asset, but this Government seem quite content to see that asset squandered just as so many of the State's assets have been squandered in recent years. Our young people have looked on in anger and amazement at the level of dishonesty as revealed in the various financial scandals that have taken place. While all this is going on youth unemployment is at a record 27 per cent, the highest in Europe. The Government, since taking office, have come up with no proposal whatsoever to face up to this crisis. Their only solution is emigration, and indeed the greatest wave of emigration from this country since the famine has taken place since Fianna Fáil took office in 1987.
The youth service is being savaged by ongoing cutbacks. Many jobs have been lost this year and many more are threatened. It costs an estimated £200 a week to employ one youth worker who can serve about 3,000 young people. It costs an estimated £500 a week to keep one juvenile offender in custody. The Government have attempted a juggling act with the youth service and failed. On the one hand they claimed in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that they were committed to the development of the youth service but on the other they have severely curtailed funding. Ireland has become a nation of haves and have nots. Our young people are becoming increasingly disillusioned and cynical about our system.
I would like to refer briefly to the area of sport. It is rather ironic that the Irish Olympic Council threatened in the past few weeks to boycott the national lottery because of the failure of the Government to make any commitment to sport. In 1987 the national lottery was initiated and since then it has proven to be a financial bonanza, but we have nothing of national importance to show in the sporting world for this bonanza. For the past five years the Government have promised a national indoor stadium, they have promised regional centres and a national outdoor stadium, but none of those has been provided. Indeed the greatest irony is that we have not provided a 50 metre swimming pool. A proposal was made to build such a swimming pool in Newpark but it was refused by the Government on the grounds that they were going to build one on the dock site. So far as I am concerned we are talking of a phantom swimming pool.
The public in general are becoming increasingly disillusioned as they hear about individuals with so-called connections making millions of pounds at the public's expense. It is up to the Government to provide leadership and to demonstrate that inefficiency will not be tolerated and that duplicity will result in prosecution. It seems that our laws are designed to protect the guilty. Anyone with money seems to be able to get away with just about anything. This is further eroding confidence in our whole system of justice. The Government should be providing leadership, but how can they when they do not even know what it is? They obviously do not know the first thing about leadership.
This debate is about integrity, about standards in high places. It is also about the crisis in farming, in relation to unemployment, to health and to local authority funding. The Government have failed miserably in all these areas. They cannot justify their present position with regard to those matters. The people are sending loud messages which should be heeded by all sides of this House. They are fed up with what is happening. They want a decent Government who will clean up the appalling mess and tackle the problems. It is time to shout stop, no more, and let the people decide.
I urge the importance for all of us in this debate to keep in mind its wider context, and nowhere is this more vital than in relation to Northern Ireland. It would indeed be unfortunate if anything said in the heat of this debate sent mistaken signals or gave rise to misunderstandings elsewhere about our underlying positions on a problem which is so grave for all of us. For my part I acknowledge very readily that concern at the appalling suffering and loss caused by the conflict is not the monopoly of any one side in his House. I recognise freely that we all share the urgent desire to see progress towards a solution and this reflects the wishes of the great mass of our people.
The Government for their part have faced the manifold aspects of the problem with one simple and consistent policy — that is to take advantage of each and every opportunity to secure progress, wherever such opportunity can be found and to the fullest extent that can be realised. We overlooked no existing instrument that might serve this consistent objective. We showed ourselves open and flexible on new approaches wherever they promised to be of help. One major strand in our policy has been to ensure that as far as is in our power the practical operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement fulfils its stated aims, particularly with regard to the plight of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland.
We have maintained a very intensive pattern of meetings. Yesterday's conference was I believe the 33rd I have taken part in — leaving aside the numerous ministerial meetings between conferences. We have persevered, sometimes in tense and difficult circumstances, in our efforts to advance all aspects of the conference aganda. There are many areas where I am satisfied that our endeavours were rewarded with significant results. I would instance new legislation on fair employment, which at least provides the means, if properly availed of, to eradicate a very notorious form of discrimination. We have ensured a new and much needed emphasis on deprived areas in Northern Ireland, both on the part of the British Government and through the work of the International Fund for Ireland. We have widened the remit and the scope of the conference to achieve a more coherent and structured approach to cross-Border economic co-operation, which will I believe prove of great benefit to both parts of Ireland. These and other areas have shown encouraging progress.
Equally, however, I must acknowledge there are some areas where in spite of our most determined efforts, and notwithstanding some improvements, serious problems still persist. This is particularly true of issues relating to confidence in the security forces and relations between these forces and the community. I can assure Members that the Government will, as heretofore, spare no effort to secure the changes in this area we all recognise as necessary.
In the review of the working of the conference in 1989 both Governments reaffirmed their full commitment to all the provisions of the agreement and to its shared understandings and purposes. It is of course important for the process of co-operation between the two Governments that there should be no doubts or misunderstandings on this issue. It is important also that this joint commitment should be clearly seen to be to the agreement as a whole, with full regard for its overall context.
It would not be a balanced treatment of the agreement, in my opinion, to confine Article 1 to the affirmation that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people there, and to neglect the joint commitment in the same Article, to give legislative effect to the alternative of a united Ireland, if a majority in Northern Ireland wish for and consent to it. In the agreement the two Governments recognise the need for continuing efforts to reconcile and to acknowledge the rights of the two major traditions that exist in Ireland. I would stress that relates to these two traditions in their integrity and as they define themselves, with the presumption that there are deep convictions involved on both sides.
That is I believe the only realistic basis on which to address the problem, however much it is tempting to simplify it by wishing away one factor or another. The Government have also consistently stressed the need to ensure a balance in the operation of the agreement between its theoretical and practical aspects.
Nationalists in Northern Ireland will not accept an application of the agreement where the acknowledgment of their rights exists only on the level of abstraction. They see the need, as we do, for a process which gives real and effective expression to the aspirations of both traditions.
I think it worth spelling out these points, because the process of co-operation between the two Governments is an asset which it is vital to sustain and develop, and is best served by a clear understanding of the basis on which it rests.
I am very conscious of recent concern that changes might have occurred in this regard, and considered it right for me to seek clarification at yesterday's meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference. I am glad to report to the Dáil that I received the most explicit assurances that speculation about policy changes by the British Government in this area was entirely without foundation, and that the basis of our co-operation remains that of the fullest commitment to the agreement in all its aspects.
Faced with the appalling record of tragedy and destruction in Northern Ireland it is important for all of us to focus on one overriding objective: we must spare no effort to find a solution. We must never become resigned to a view that this terrible situation is in some way inevitable, or that nothing can be done about it. We believe the key to progress lies through political dialogue. We believe both Governments have particular obligations of leadership and initiative in this regard. For our part we have done everything in our power to ensure that this dialogue can take place and come to fruition.
We have said that it should cover the totality of relations involved, that it should be a genuine and open attempt to address the core of the problem, and that it should be on a basis which does not prejudge or pre-empt the position of either tradition, or destroy assets that are there unless something better has been created to put in their place. We put forward these criteria not because of any selfish concerns of our own, but because we believe that to ignore them would make success more difficult, and failure can only add to a sense of despair, and give encouragement to the evil forces which seek to exploit it.
I believe dialogue on the basis I have outlined, carried out with determination, imagination and goodwill, could transform relationships on this island. This Government for their part will spare no effort to launch and sustain this overdue and necessary process.
The past years have been years of great activity and enormous challenge in international life. On every continent and on every issue we are witnessing profound and dramatic changes which test the capacity of the international community and individual states. I believe this Government's response to these events has been credible and coherent, advancing Ireland's interests, contributing to the development of the European Community and promoting a more stable and just international order.
We have acquitted ourselves well. We have shown ourselves to be a deeply committed and loyal member of the European Community, prepared to work for its future. We have contributed in a very direct way to the Community through our successful Presidency and active membership of the Troika of Ministers. We have engaged intensively with the British Government in an effort to achieve progress in relationships on and between these islands. We have worked constructively and effectively in promoting the United Nations and in upholding its Charter. We have been active in other bodies which make an important contribution to European stability, such as the CSCE.
We have continued to work for international peace and security, particularly through the involvement of Irish military personnel on UN peacekeeping missions and, more recently through our contribution to the Monitor Mission in Yugoslavia. We have been very active in the conduct of our bilateral relations with a large number of countries on a broad range of issues. We have been steadfast and determined in the protection of the interests of Irish citizens abroad, in the Gulf War for example. And securing the freedom of Brian Keenan was a considerable achievement.
We have been deeply mindful of the plight of our emigrants and achieved good results on their behalf in Britain, the US and elsewhere. We have steadily promoted our economic interests, helped stimulate trade and promoted investment and tourism in Ireland.
Within the limits of our resources, we have shown commitment to and solidarity with the developing countries. In these and in other areas we have addressed the many challenges that have arisen. And we are well positioned to continue our efforts in promoting Ireland's interests in the period ahead.
The process of European integration has been a major preoccupation of the Government over the past years. Membership is of central importance for our political and economic wellbeing and in our approach to international affairs. The success of the single market programme has encouraged the movement towards closer unity. And the events in Eastern Europe have emphasised the need to reinforce the Community's structures and to widen its scope for action. These questions have been taken up in the two Intergovernmental Conferences on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union which are scheduled to conclude at the Maastricht Summit in December.
The Government have been actively and wholeheartedly involved in the negotiations. We took the initiative in four areas of particular interest to us — economic and social cohesion, health, education and culture. We were the first delegation to table proposals in the area of cohesion, and the text under negotiation in the Conference, which was agreed in Luxembourg in June as the basis for our work, reflects very considerably the ideas which we put forward. Incidentally, I might point out that copies of our proposals were placed in the Dáil Library and after the June European Council copies of the negotiating texts were also made available to Members of this House.
In coming weeks our particular concerns will centre on the following main issues: First, we are concerned to ensure that the Conferences are a success. A failure at Maastricht is something we would not contemplate. Second, we feel that the results will have to be substantial and represent real progress on the road to European unity. This will involve both new competences and the reinforcement of existing competences in areas such as the environment and research. Third, the new treaty must ensure that the process of the development of regions such as Ireland, to which the Community has already contributed substantially, will continue. In this context we are emphasising the particular importance of economic and social cohesion. Fourth, the Community's institutions must be strengthened to ensure that they can respond effectively to the needs of the citizen. For example, we accept the need to reinforce the powers of the European Parliament.
Fifth, we want to see the capacity of the Community to reflect a coherent and effective common foreign and security policy strengthened. While some progress has been made on this, the Twelve are still far from agreement on such key questions as the eventual defence policy, and the new union's security role. Sixth, we cannot accept a two-speed or variable approach to the new Union. Recently we successfully opposed attempts to create a two-tier approach with regard to the move to the final stages of economic and monetary union.
Finally, the treaty which will result from the Conference will be of considerable significance to the future development of the Community. It will be important, therefore, that it be matched by substantive measures to ensure that the Community has the capacity to give effect to its provisions. We have now entered the final stage of the negotiations in the run-up to the European Council in Maastricht on 10 and 11 December. The Government are conscious of the need to reach agreement and will do all that we can to ensure success.
The Common Agricultural Policy has been a key Community policy for Ireland and will remain so. The Commission has responded to increasing pressures on the policy by putting forward proposals for reform. Ireland cannot ignore the problems for the Common Agricultural Policy and for the Community budget by the increasing problem of surplus production. In principle, we would not be opposed to the idea of moving to a limited extent from the present price system to greater direct income support. However, the basic Treaty principles of the Common Agricultural Policy must remain. And the compensation in direct income support must be adequate for all sections of the farming community.
On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister has important things to say that affect the future of the country. Is it possible to have a copy of his speech?
The Minister is not obliged to supply a copy of his speech.
I know that, but it is a courtesy generally shown.
I shall supply copies, with pleasure. They should be on their way.
We are playing an active part in the development of the Community's external relations. Particular attention focuses on the establishment of co-operative relations with our European neighbours. The euphoria of the first days of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe has given way to a realisation of the difficulty of the task of transforming their economies. Economic assistance from the Community will continue to be of vital importance, and I am glad that Irish expertise is being utilised under the Community's programmes.
Negotiations on association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are well advanced and similar arrangements are envisaged with Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic States when conditions are right.
In the sensitive area of agricultural imports I argued in the Council for an approach which would take account of the depressed state of the market and the existing oversupply of product. This was accepted. New imports of beef and sheepmeat will not take place to the extent that exports from Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia can be sent to the Soviet Union with Community financial assistance.
The Community's negotiations with our closest neighbours, the EFTA group, to create a European Economic Area are close to a conclusion. On Monday next the Council of Ministers will meet the EFTA Ministers in Luxembourg to seek solutions to the outstanding issues in negotiation. We will continue to seek a balanced agreement, one which takes account of the interests of disadvantaged regions.
Some of our negotiating partners have already decided to go further than the Economic Area Agreement and have applied for accession to the Community. The Commission opinion on the Austrian application has now been produced and we look forward to its early consideration by the Council. Sweden's application, made last July, has been referred in the normal way to the Commission. We can anticipate the question of enlargement and its implications coming to the fore once again when the Inter-Governmental Conferences have completed their work.
The Community is not neglecting its responsibilities and interests beyond the European continent. The strengthening of the international trading system is an important objective. In Community discussions we have emphasised the need for a global and balanced agreement to the Uruguay Round. We have resisted an undue focus on agriculture and have stressed that forced concessions should not be made in that sector. We will continue to stress the value of the offer already made by the EC in the area of agriculture. It is vital that the outcome of the Round be coherent and balanced and preserve the fundamental principles of the Common Agricultural Policy.
We have also been active in other issues of European and international concern. The European Community has been to the forefront of international efforts to end the fighting and to reach a peaceful solution acceptable to all in Yugoslavia. Ireland is participating in these efforts and has given, and will continue to give, full support to the Community.
In July the Community established a monitor mission at the invitation of the Yugoslav authorities and with the consent of the parties on the ground. Originally established primarily to oversee the cease-fire in Slovenia, the role of the mission has evolved to take account of developments. Its primary function continues to be to stabilise the various cease-fires and to investigate violations. Its activities also include the mediation of local cease-fires, the monitoring of the relocation of the Yugoslav Army from Slovenia, the exchange of prisoners, and other activities designed to alleviate tension.
Seven members of the monitor mission are provided by Ireland. I salute their courage and dedication. Agreement has recently been reached with the parties in Yugoslavia that the monitors should continue their activities until the successful outcome of the Conference on Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, the issue of their personal safety continues to be a primary concern. Foreign Ministers have made clear that the monitors will continue to perform their duties only as long as their security can be assured.
Faced with the repeated failure of the Yugoslav parties to start negotiations, the Community convened a conference on Yugoslavia under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington which opened in The Hague on 7 September. The parties have agreed to formulate a political solution on the basis of the perspective of recognition of the independence of the those republics wishing it, at the end of a negotiating process conducted in good faith.
I will not pretend that these negotiations will be easy or that there is not a considerable way to go. However, I believe that the conference on Yugoslavia represents the best hope for a solution. I share the determination of the Community to bring it to a successful outcome.
Recent months have also seen major upheavals in the Soviet Union. In August, the world heard with shock that an attempt was being made to overthrow the constitutional order in the Soviet Union and to repudiate the political and economic reforms introduced under the leadership of President Gorbachev. Thankfully, the courage of the citizens of cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg and the steadfastness of leaders like Boris Yeltsin and Anatoliy Sobchak ensured that democracy prevailed. I believe too that the strong support of the international community was an important factor in bringing the coup leaders to the realisation that they were doomed to failure.
The failure of the attempted coup has brought with it a dramatic acceleration of the process of political and economic reform. At the same time, it has led to a fundamental transformation of the nature of the Soviet Union. The monolithic state where all power was wielded by the Communist Party and Moscow is no more.
There is, as a result, a considerable degree of uncertainty which will not be ended until the precise nature of the links between the republics and the new union is finally decided. At the same time, it is clear that the new union, whatever its final shape, will be committed to democracy and human rights which will be welcomed within the European family of nations.
The Community is already offering assistance to the reform process through its technical assistance programme and food aid. A decision in principle to supply a further 1.25 billion ECU worth of food aid was taken recently. The United States, Canada and Japan would also be expected to contribute on a similar scale.
In July, on my official visit to the Soviet Union, I was able to meet many of the leaders whose firm stand later ensured the survival of democracy there. These included Vice-President Rutskoi of the Russian Federation, Mayor Anatoliy Sobchak of St. Petersburg and Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze.
I signed a number of agreements dealing with political, economic and cultural relations between Ireland and the Soviet Union. I am confident that these will form the basis for even warmer and more profitable relations between our two countries in the future.
An important and welcome result of the failure of the August coup was the fact that, after more than 50 years, the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recovered the full exercise of their sovereignty and independence. They now face the tremendous challenge of developing their economies.
Western and Community aid will be extended to them in this endeavour as well as trade concessions already made available to other Eastern European States under the generalised scheme of preferences. Ireland announced that it recognised the three states on 27 August last.
The Minister's time has expired. May I have the agreement of the House to allow him time to conclude? We are running five minutes ahead of time. Agreed.
I have recently returned from a visit there, the purpose of which was to convey the support of Ireland for the restoration of their independence, to establish a basis for the development of future bilateral relations and to identify areas in which there was a common interest in promoting co-operation. The delegation was accompaned by a business group to explore the potential for co-operation in specific areas.
I believe that the visits establish a sound foundation on which new and fruitful relationships can be built.
In Africa the end of the Cold War has altered old equations and opened up the way to the resolution of long-enduring conflicts. In March last year we saw the successful advent of Namibia to independence. The civil war in Angola has ended and the process of national reconciliation is firmly launched. On the other hand, progress towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Mozambique is proving much more difficult.
In South Africa we have witnessed dramatic changes over the past two years, from a society closed in on itself, relying on intimidation and persecution to govern, to a country open to dialogue with the majority with a view to the establishment of a society in which all South Africans, in freedom and equality, can play a role in their own development. During my visit to South Africa last year, as leader of the ministerial troika delegation, I had the opportunity to see the situation at first hand and talk, openly and frankly, with all the major players involved. Since then two key individuals, Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk, have been welcome visitors to Ireland. The Government remain fully supportive of the process under way and will continue to play a constructive role in promoting it.
I have been active since coming to office in deepening our relations with the countries of Asia and the Pacific. At Community level, the signing of the EC-Japan Declaration in July this year was a significant development resulting from a process which I took forward during the Irish Presidency last year. Bilateral relations with Japan have been strengthened by recent reciprocal visits which have done much to enhance our economic relations, notably in the tourism field. We have also been building our relations with India, South Korea and the ASEAN countries. The admission of South Korea to UN membership last month is something to which I gave my active support.
The simultaneous admission to United Nations membership of North Korea is a very significant development, made possible by the end of the Cold War and brings the UN closer to its goal of universality.
I have taken a particular interest in the tragic plight of the Cambodian people and have lent my active support to international efforts to bring peace to that country. I look forward to the resumption later this month of the Paris Conference on Cambodia and the signature there of the necessary agreements giving effect to a comprehensive political settlement to be implemented under United Nations supervision. The goal must be to ensure for the Cambodian people a future in which they enjoy true peace and security, free from any threat of a return to past policies and practices.
Ireland has important relations with the countries of the Middle East. During our Presidency of the European Community the Twelve reiterated their commitment to a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the framework of an international peace conference.
All progress in the Middle East was brought to a halt abruptly and dangerously in August last year when Iraq invaded and attempted, unsuccessfully, to annex Kuwait. Ireland played its full part in applying the sanctions against Iraq introduced by the Security Council and supported the efforts of the international community to bring an end to the most flagrant violation of international law since the end of the Second World War.
I made clear to this House on 18 January last that it was necessary to keep in mind what we wanted to see happen in the Middle East once the Gulf crisis was eventually brought to an end. For these reasons we and our partners in the European Community particularly welcomed the initiative taken by the United States and the series of tours embarked on by Secretary of State, Mr. James Baker, in order to get the Middle East peace process under way.
I expect the date of the opening conference to be announced shortly. It is expected that it will take place before the end of this month. The Twelve, including Ireland, are strongly supportive of this initiative and are committed to playing an active role in the peace process to help ensure its success. It offers an unprecedented opportunity to bring the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the negotiating table. It is an opportunity that must not be lost.
The problem of hostages in Lebanon is prominent once again in the news. Brian Keenan was held hostage for over four years and it was necessary to make intensive and protracted efforts to secure his realease. I appreciate the assistance given to us by the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria in bringing this about. I am very glad that Brian Keenan's fellow prisoners, John McCarthy and Jack Mann have since been released and I am hopeful that the current round of international negotiations will succeed in bringing to an end this dreadful episode in Lebanon's tragic history.
I believe I have given a very positive and satisfactory report on the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and my involvement in same. It has been quite successful, as has the work of the Government in all other areas. I have the greatest pleasure in recommending the motion of confidence in this Government.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Connaughton and Finucane.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
The Minister need have no fear that anything I say on the subject of Northern Ireland would cause difficulty. I will refer to two matters which the Minister raised relating to Northern Ireland. I welcome the balance which he has put on recent emphasis in Britain on the Unionist dimension to the Northern Ireland problem. I hope and believe he has made it clear that the Irish dimension is equally important and equally valid. I suspect that some of the soundings are for the purpose of horse trading in the event of certain things happening in the next British election.
The Minister did not refer to what I described yesterday as the horrible, incipient sectarian civil war on the streets of Belfast. I hope he stressed the importance of taking urgent action to nip this in the bud. Belfast is bad enough but experience in the mid-seventies indicates that when it spreads out to the rural areas it is much worse and much more brutal. I say this from personal experience having lived in the middle of the notorious murder triangle. I hope he emphasised to the British authorities that as an initial move, the organisation called the UDA, masquerading as the UFF, are responsible for so many of these murders, should be banned. I hope the Minister made that point strongly.
Deputy McCreevy was kind enough to quote me with approval last Monday night. He reminded his television audience of comments I had made during the last general election campaign when I said how appalled I was at the cynicism I had experienced on the canvass. I made the following observation:
In the North we know the enemy of democracy and democratic institutions. It is those who use the gun and the bullet. But here, the greatest enemy of our democratic institutions is more insidious. The cynicism I have found about politics and politicians is an even greater threat to our democratic institutions than the murderous activity of the men of violence.
The Taoiseach in the course of this debate referred to allegations being made for the purpose of subverting the Government — that was his phrase. It is not the allegations but the reality which has been exposed that is the problem. The way in which many Members have conducted themselves in this House during this debate has not helped. We are playing into the hands of those who are practitioners of the art of the politics of envy, cynicism, distrust and suspicion. I do not agree with D'Alembert, who made a certain contribution to history by remarking that political office is like a high mountain — only eagles and reptiles reach the top. Unfortunately on too many occasions in recent times the public perception of those in high office in the political and business world has been that the eagle is fast becoming an endangered species.
Most of the scandals now exposed would not have occurred if we had a system of Government properly accountable to Dáil Éireann. In this House we took over practices and procedures from the British and we have persisted with some of their worst practices, even when the British themselves have changed or modified them. This House is supposed to be the focal point of our nation. This is where our nation's affairs are supposed to be discussed, yet this Government and other Governments have on many occasions given the impression that they would prefer to do without this House, that this House is a nuisance, that it is a diversion and that it is too much trouble to come in here to explain to Members what they are trying to do.
Time and again important announcements are made outside this House, usually on a Friday when the House is not sitting. That used to be the British practice but they have modified it. Most Members prefer to watch their monitors in their rooms. I understand why that is the case. There is too much reliance on scripts and I even have one myself. I used not use a script. We rely on the scripts so that we make it easier for the press. We do not make speeches any longer; we read. That is not good enough. We require a "give way" procedure. When the former Taoiseach wished to intervene yesterday on what turned out to be a very valuable point while a Minister was speaking, he was ruled out of order.
There is no debate in this House. Ministers can get away with anything and it is not surprising that they make every effort to do so. Topical events cannot be raised, even when the whole country is talking about them. The Dáil is becoming a cipher. We do not hold Ministers to account and in these circumstances Ministers have become accustomed to getting off the hook with little or no difficulty. It is part of our problem that Ministers are not truly accountable to this House and we should make the changes which will ensure that they are.
Northerners have a reputation for saying what they mean and meaning what they say. That is not always a desirable attribute. Even when it is, it is often not merited. Mary Holland once publicly explained to me the difference between this so-called Northern attribute and the `nod and wink" so prevalent here. The Taoiseach has become for me, and I believe a large number of others, the very personification of "nod and wink". He has contributed very substantially to creating an environment, a way of thinking, a value system which others not only in politics but in business and other walks of life have shared. This is part of the reason we now have forced upon us the necessity for a code of ethics for Members of this House and in particular for members of the Government.
Over a year ago Fine Gael proposed a parliamentary ethics commission composed of the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General and a High Court Judge before whom declarations of interest would be made during the lifetime of the Government and for five years after leaving Government. The public disclosure of financial backing to political parties is also a necessity. This is the price we have to pay for the honour and privilege of serving in this House. The public funding of political parties and the rigorous control of election spending has reached the stage where, if it is allowed to continue, one would need to be a millionaire to stand for election to this House. It is an absolute scandal that at election time political party candidates can spend as much as they can get. In the interest of our democratic system there ought to be rigorous control in that respect. The Taoiseach in opening this debate told us of his pride in his contribution to the wellbeing of this country and unbelievably made reference to the health services, small farmers, the old, the infirm and the homeless. The real symbol of Charlie Haughey's Ireland is the queue, the queue of those looking for jobs, the longest in the history of the State: the queue of those looking for houses: the queue of farmers being forced off the land; and the queue to get into schools and colleges.
Most symbolic of all, is the queue of young people at the GPO for Morrison visas, our brightest and our best, queuing up in their thousands and in doing so giving their own verdict on Charlie Haughey's Ireland.
We join with those young people today in expressing our lack of confidence in his Government.
This Government remind me of the life cycle of the banana which in its early stage is green but straight and later becoming crooked and yellow.
If Ireland was a private company it would be declared bankrupt. Why would it go bankrupt? A private company with a chief executive like the Taoiseach would ensure that a few senior executives and himself would dominate the entire business. There would be no information shared with anybody and certainly excessive profits would be neither publicised nor shared with the ordinary employees. The company would be heavy on publicity, very light on research and development and after years of domination in the market place would find that their code of business ethics and products were no longer acceptable or required.
Ireland as a nation has now reached that low level of standards. The way we do things and the way we expect others to act is conditional on the way governments lead by example. Try telling the parents of an 11 year old girl who has been waiting for a life saving operation in the UK for over four months that it is all in a good cause because there are insufficient funds available. Ask a 60 year old man who can hardly sit to meals at home or get two hours sleep at night because of arthritis to make the supreme sacrifice and wait three years for an operation and in the same breath tell him it is possible for a few manipulators to make £8 million in 11 months on what can only be described as a shady deal.
Fianna Fáil have had a long history of single party Government and for considerable periods of time. Anybody who can remember their 16 years uninterrupted period up to 1973 will remember the outright arrogance of Ministers during that period. Fianna Fáil always tried to dominate people and pressure them into submission.
Until quite recently many people believed that one could not get a job, renew one's medical card or get into or out of hospital unless one hitched one's wagon to the Fianna Fáil convoy. How they milked that system. Part of this history is coming back to haunt them now.
The present golden circle syndrome is repugnant to real democracy and is an insult to every man and woman who works hard for a living. The golden circle is in fact a type of protection racket similar to the activities of the paramilitaries in the North. If one is in the inner circle one knows everything, controls everything, manipulates everything and one's chances of making a financial killing is increased at least a hundredfold.
Ireland's image has suffered untold damage in the past three months. Every morning the financial papers of Europe carried stories of financial scandals, deceit and intrigue that would leave Sherlock Holmes bewildered. Imagine the job that Córas Tráchtála and the IDA will have in trying to get investment into our country after this.
Deep down Fianna Fáil backbenchers are sick to the teeth of the goings on but there is a price on that concern. They believe a heave against the Taoiseach will not work unless Ministers and Ministers of State join forces with them. Present Fianna Fáil Ministers and Ministers of State like their perks. To remove the boss might cause them to drive themselves around the country for an indefinite period. The backbenchers also know that if the Taoiseach sees the balance of power tilt against him he will run to the Park and if that happens there will be at least 15 Fianna Fáil Deputies checking on their pension entitlements and speaking kindly to county councillors.
For many people the current upheavals are no surprise given the Fianna Fáil record, but there is a complication this time that was never there before. The Progressive Democrats said on their foundation that they should break the mould in Irish politics, that there would be no shady dealings, no "cute hoor" activities; there would be reward for hard work. The list goes on and on. I believe they meant that at the time. The vast majority of the present Progressive Democrats Deputies broke from Fianna Fáil for activities several times less serious than the present scandals. What are they doing now? Are they able to get the leopard to change his spots or will they hang on in there for the trappings of power? They appeared to have the conscience of the nation draped around their shoulders only about two years ago or maybe they are returning to the code of conduct they were trained into in Fianna Fáil before they departed from that fold. One way or another the Progressive Democrats now find themselves locked into a Government who have disgraced themselves.
This Government operate on two levels. On the fast lane there is the insider dealing, relationships carefully developed with big business interests, membership of exclusive clubs, a "scratch me and I'll scratch you" attitude and above all the creation of structures that allow deals to be done in secret.
On the slow lane we have 265,000 people unemployed, the vast majority of whom believe they will never work again. We have 20,000 people who have no house to call their own and who live in frightful conditions, and we have thousands of parents living on the breadline trying to give their children third level education. We have farmers living on £40 per week.
The Minister for Social Welfare told me yesterday that £1 million earmarked in the budget of this year will not now go to farmers but back into the Department of Finance. Medical cards are being taken up at an alarming rate and countless thousands of women are caring for their loved ones 24 hours a day without any financial recognition despite the famous carer's allowance. How could there be money for these worthy causes when a handful of grab alls take the lot?
One of the worst performances ever put up by an Irish Minister in Europe is that by Deputy O'Kennedy, Minister for Agriculture and Food. I can only refer to him as the office boy of Europe. I believe he has no say in things. I believe he has never put before the European Community a detailed plan of where Ireland would like to go. He has never put together a programme to put before his colleagues in Europe or told them the bottom line below which Irish agricultural families will not go. He merely reacts to everything. It is now at the stage where other Ministers take it for granted that they will have no problems from Michael O'Kennedy. When the dust settles and all the important conferences that are about to take place are over Irish farmers will find themselves on the deck with nobody to protect them despite what the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, said a few minutes ago. As far as Irish agriculture is concerned we are definitely in the slow lane.
The Government have no credibility, no matter what they patch up between them today. They should do the decent thing and allow people who have the ability and credibility to take over to do so. I ask the Government to do the proper thing and get out of office so that somebody can do the job properly.
I am delighted to see a significant number of Deputies from the Progressive Democrats in the House. When one considers the level of brinkmanship engaged in during the past week one would be inclined to wonder what happened during the 16 weeks of the summer recess in relation to the deliberations on the programme they are now discussing.
A Deputy
They were playing golf.
I think that most politicians were ashamed to be politicians during the summer. There has been much talk in this House about Dáil reform. I think most Deputies can appreciate the cynicism of the electorate when we consider that we were in recess for 16 weeks. There was a feeling among people that the country was almost rudderless during that period. It was not the Government who dominated the media during that time. The media was dominated during the summer recess by people who have become household names at this stage, for example, Desmond, Tully, Smurfit, etc. and a whole succession of reputed scandals. I do not intend to dwell on those aspects as they have been more than adequately discussed during the course of this debate. There appears to be almost a purging of guilt by all sides — probably trying to purge the sins of the past.
However, we have to analyse how this situation evolved and developed. One has to go back almost to 1930 to understand this. Except for brief intervals when other parties took over power, we have had almost uninterrupted Fianna Fáil rule since 1930. What was almost a mantra of business people during that time was "what is good for Fianna Fáil is good for you — you support Fianna Fáil and we will look after you". We need to go back to the times of TACA, which was an embarrassment to the Government, when builders seemed to have undoubted confidence that Fianna Fáil would look after them well. Therefore, what we have to look at is the underlying characteristic of many of these business scandals. How did they evolve? They evolved almost by definition because of the intrinsic arrangement between business people and Fianna Fáil. Politicians and Ministers would be very quick to say that we cannot taint them with the sins of these people, but I think they are bound intrinsically into much of what happened, especially in view of the fact that Fianna Fáil have been in power for so long.
People have become cynical and have a lack of confidence in the Government. They are beginning to ask questions. Indeed, recent opinion polls reflect the questioning nature of people who are unhappy with the performance of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. What will happen? We will know at 4 p.m. today what will happen.
I wish to refer to some of the problems facing this country at present. During the 1987 elections Fianna Fáil put up giant hoardings with pictures of passports which said that if people supported Fine Gael and Labour this is what they would get. We never tacitly supported emigration in the same way as this Government have. If one wants evidence of this one has only to remember the Fianna Fáil Senator who almost condoned emigration and who, encouraged by fellow Members of this House, hitched a ride on a Russian jet in order to visit the United States. That is symptomatic of the attitude of the Government to the unemployment crisis. What imaginative proposals did the Government put forward during the summer months to convince people that they intend to do something positive about this problem? I can assure the House that they have done very little in this respect.
One could elaborate on the crisis in agriculture and the concern among farmers that their position is not being protected by the Government in the Common Agricultural Policy and GATT negotiations. We all know about the health problems in our constituencies. People visit us who have all kinds of problems. We still talk about the two-tier health system which has evolved. People believe that the Government are not trying to combat these problems. Instead of dealing with the serious business of running the country, over the past few days we have been debating the issues which arose during the summer months. How, therefore, can Members of this House vote confidence in the Government?
I am glad to be able to commend this motion of confidence to the House today.
Lovely.
I am sure I am not half as glad as those opposite——
We would have done all right.
——who are breathing a very deep sigh of relief.
It was a close call.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
The Minister without interruption, please.
I propose, Sir, in the course of what I have to say in the fairly limited time available to try to concentrate on the future which I believe is where this country needs to concentrate and to express the view that the debate which I heard intermittently in this House over the past two days is, from any point of view, regrettable and deplorable. The manner in which the debate was carried on must cause widespread regret. If there are areas which need to be investigated, and undoubtedly there are, they should be investigated by the relevant tribunals and bodies which have been set up for that purpose. The remarks made in this House about those matters are not going to be particularly helpful in elucidating what the truth might be.
It is very fortunate that the Companies Act which was passed in December last and which was brought into force during the course of this year gives very substantial powers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the High Court to investigate wrongdoings of one kind or another which may be alleged from time to time. I would like to see all the various tribunals, inspectorates and so on who have been established in recent months being able to get on with their work. While obviously I would be the last to suggest that the citizens of this country should not have recourse to the courts, it is somewhat ominous that there is such systematic recourse to the courts, particularly by those who are in a position to pay for it. It is, of course, a matter for the courts to decide on each and every one of these matters which are brought before then, and I do not wish in any way to influence the conclusions the courts might come to. However, it has been a feature of affairs in this country in recent years that the sheer weight of money seems to allow some people who have it to avail of rights which sometimes those who do not have it seem to be unable to vindicate.
I might say in passing — because it disturbs me somewhat — that questions of conflict of interest and problems arising therefrom which have been extremely and hotly debated in this country over the past couple of months are not confined to the business community or to the semi-State bodies but can also extend to the professions. I find it curious that a professional person who signed, for example, a pleading on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce a year ago can find himself today acting in an inquiry into essentially the same matter on behalf of the Minister's opponent. I invite those whose job is to monitor such matters to apply their minds to questions of that kind, which might usefully be done.
I believe very fervently that today is a good day for Irish politics and more importantly from the point of view of this country, it is a good day for the Irish people. In the wake of the litany of unacceptable and deplorable business scandals of the past two months or so, which are being resolutely investigated by the Government and by the different tribunals and agencies set up by them, it is very satisfactory and reassuring that this Coalition Government of the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil have been able to draw up and agree a comprehensive, far-reaching and radical set of social and economic objectives which, through their steady implementaion over the next two to two and a half years, will fundamentally address many of the serious ills which are clearly now affecting our society.
I regret it was not possible for the two parties to reach agreement at an earlier stage. That was the earnest wish of the Progressive Democrats, and I believe, too, of the Fianna Fáil Party. However, the sheer duration and intensity of the negotiations certainly testify to the extent of the policy issues which are covered in the programme review; the convictions on various issues of both parties, and ultimately the determination on both sides to finally agree a set of proposals that go to the heart of the various social, economic, fiscal, institutional and law reform issues which have to be addressed if this country is to succeed and if our parliamentary process is to prove its real worth in this country.
At the outset, therefore, I would like to pay tribute to the tremendous negotiating skills and the tenacious dedication of our two negotiators, the Minister for Energy, Deputy Bobby Molloy, and Mr. Pat Cox, MEP, and to the small band of party back-up experts and advisers, who were very ably marshalled by our party's Government Press Secretary over the past three months. I think the input of all those people, on behalf of such a small party as the Progressive Democrats, was truly remarkable. Having witnessed, particularly in the last week, at close quarters myself the intensity of the negotiations and the importance of the issues that were at stake, I feel very proud of the dedication and the ability demonstrated by those concerned. I want to thank, too, my parliamentary party colleagues and the party's national executive who at all stages throughout the negotiating process demonstrated total and unanimous support for our party's stance during this vital and prolonged review on the Programme for Government.
In any Coalition Government it takes two sides to make a pact. On this point I want to pay tribute to the commitment and negotiating skills in the national interest of our Fianna Fáil colleagues in Government — the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour, and also to express gratitude for the work done by civil servants in various Departments, and particularly in the Department of Finance and in the Revenue Commissioners, as part of the exhaustive review process which was so intensively pursued by the two parties.
I, and other members of my party, have repeatedly stated in recent weeks that in light of the unemployment crisis which is besetting our country, the many other social problems that have to be tackled and the series of revelations of alleged wrongdoings in part of the State and private sectors, that even if this was a single party Government it would be entirely appropriate that a mid-term review of the Government's overall programme and objective should be undertaken at this time.
The built-in review clause, therefore, which the Progressive Democrats sought in July 1989 provided a golden opportunity to the two Government parties to fundamentally review the operation of the July 1989 programme, on which there has been very satisfactory progress, and to radically revise and renew it in light of the changed circumstances now prevailing two and a quarter years on, while also committing the Government collectively to a fresh set of economic and social objectives.
I believe that the new programme agreed today by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will provide the basis for effective, radical and innovative government in this country over the next two years, and I believe it has been constructed in a spirit of partnership and goodwill between our two parties and will be implemented in a similar vein.
I believe the Irish people will be the beneficiaries of the implementation of these extensive and far-reaching policy objectives agreed after exhaustive examination and negotiation between the two parties. This news programme will advance a comprehensive series of measures to tackle effectively the unemployment crisis, which is this country's number one problem and also to ensure greater equity, social justice and accountability in Irish society.
Today's new Programme for Government sets down a number of vital policy objectives, including the maintenance of strict control of public spending. It also spells out the objectives and the mode of delivery of the most radical, pro-jobs tax reform programme ever undertaken in this State.
I believe this will significantly improve the job creation prospects for our people and allied to the overhaul of this country's industrial policy which I instituted last June and which I hope to have submitted to my office by the end of this year, it will transform our job creation policy and give renewed hope to our unemployed, our school leavers, and the entire community.
The programme also sets out objectives for the development of out natural resource industries, including especially tourism and agriculture. In the latter case, it commits the Government to the maintenance of the maximum possible number of viable family farms in rural Ireland, and also to upholding the interests of the commercial farming sector, while also providing an effective appeals framework for farmers excluded from the recent disadvantaged areas scheme extension.
Well done.
The agreement between the parties in Government to examine the extension of voting rights to recent emigrants is based on the agreement by the two parties to the principle involved, provided there are no constitutional barriers to so doing.
The new Government programme also spells out a series of major institutional reform measures affecting how our democracy is run, and in particular seeks to address the undoubted shortcomings in how the Oireachtas itself does business.
We need to make the Dáil — I think we are all agreed on this — a more businesslike, efficient and accountable national Parliament, and I believe the various proposals agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to that end will dramatically improve the business and the working of the Dáil if they are agreed by the House as a whole. That, in turn, can reverse the undoubted and understandable cynicism which is felt widely throughout the public in relation to the operation of the Oireachtas as of now.
We also set down a long series of agreed legislative initiatives aimed at updating the legal code in this country and I note especially the commitment in the programme to amend our extradition laws. There is also a wide range of specific proposals brought forward to transform our health and social welfare services and our penal system, to deliver more effective and caring services for every citizen, while at the same time ensuring greater efficiency and value for money in the delivery of these vital social services.
In conjunction with the new Company's Act, the programme also addresses the shortcomings which have already been identified over recent weeks in the operations and accountability of State companies in particular, and to whatever extent is found to be so in private companies also.
The Government are determined to ensure the highest standards of ethical behaviour in the conduct of all State and commercial business transactions. The new programme outlines new legislative initiatives which will be taken to regulate business standards more comprehensively where this is found to be necessary, covering in particular the disclosure of interests, with the imposition of severe penalties for non-disclosure. I would point out that already in company law there are very strict obligations in this regard in respect of private companies. In the course of the lengthy passage through the Oireachtas of what ultimately became the Companies Act, 1990, I did not envisage that the same need might arise in relation to State-owned corporations. There will also be measures to govern membership of State boards, an appropriate code of conduct for employees of State companies and the introduction of full transparency and competitive tendering for all State company contracts. The greater accountability which the Government will institute in the business arena, whether in the State owned or private sectors, will also be extended to the operations of this House, with the Government agreed to the introduction of a register of interests for Members of the Oireachtas which will be lodged in the Library of Leinster House.
What about Ministers for Finance? Have Ministers to disclose their financial positions?
All Members of the Oireachtas. That obviously includes all Ministers because one cannot be a Minister without being a Member of the Oireachtas.
Will there be full disclosure of income, assets and liabilities?
There will be full disclosure. It will be a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to work out the details.
Does it include spouses?
I will believe it when I see it.
Why did Deputy FitzGerald not do it?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
The Minister, without interruptions.
While obviously the Government are anxious, as I am sure is the Oireachtas, to ensure that a code of ethics would be adhered to, it would be fair to say that so far as activity in State companies and so on is concerned, if the fundamental rule that one should not benefit privately by one's public activities in State companies or State agencies is adhered to, there is little need for detailed rules. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today that is obviously advisable.
I wish to refer to the general principles agreed in this programme in relation to our approach to taxation. Since the early eighties when the Commission on Taxation produced the first of their series of reports, and in subsequent reports from other bodies both here and abroad, such as the OECD, there have been consistent suggestions that there should be a different approach to the question of personal taxation in Ireland, that the philosophy should be somewhat different to the way in which we have traditionally approached it up to now. I am glad to be able to say that the programme will reflect the fact that the Government accept the general principle that from an economic viewpoint the tax system should not unduly influence individual choice, and that any departure from neutrality in pursuit of particular objectives must be clearly justified.
The cumulative impact and complexity of the tax system with relatively high tax rates together with wide-ranging exemptions and reliefs call for continuing reform and redistribution within the tax code with a view to reducing economic distortions, to improving the climate for employment and to achieving greater social equity. The acceptance for the first time in our history of those principles is a matter of greatest significance. The fact that a very intensive study of what this entails, which is being carried out now for the first time over the past number of months, will hugely benefit this country. It is regrettable that this was not undertaken before.
I am very happy and proud to say that it has now been undertaken and that the philosophy that underlies the statement of principle I have just read out has now been accepted and will form the basis of the approach to personal taxation in the years to come. The result of this can be that we will have a far more sensible taxation system with lower rates of tax and with much wider bands for the standard rate in particular. We will be able to rid ourselves of the economic distortions which have so clouded our tax system for many decades. It will enable people to work harder to increase their incomes in a way in which the marginal tax deducted from them, which is of course the great deterrent, will no longer be anything as penal as it was. We will operate on a basis that is taken for granted in many other countries but which we steadfastly refused to accept over a long period.
In talking about taxation it is impossible to do so without referring to PRSI. While the theory of PRSI is that it is a separate fund, as we know, in practice PRSI and income tax are the same thing. We cannot look at one without looking at the other if we wish to do anything effective. To that end the Government are committed to restructuring employees' PRSI with the health and employment levies on an Exchequer neutral basis so as to make it more progressive and to consolidate it into a single main rate close to 6 per cent.
What does that mean?
The question may be asked as to how our reform programme can be implemented at a time when the Exchequer is under enormous pressure. It will be implemented on the basis of no net cost to the Exchequer and by looking at the vast range of allowances, exemptions, shelters and so on which are currently available and which have so heavily distorted the economic aspects of our tax system. The Government are fully agreed on the necessity for a programme of pro-jobs tax reform. That is why the constrained budgetary prospect which we face in the next few years does not take from the urgency of progressing such reform. We have strongly argued that point and I am happy to say that it is a matter of agreement between the parties concerned. The signing of this agreement, and its publication, is in many respects a watershed in Irish public affairs, in economic policy and in social policy particularly. I would like to think that from today on we can go forward in a spirit of determination to solve the problems that so manifestly affect this country and our people, and leave behind us the spirit of recrimination and personalised and petty approaches to things, which, unfortunately, have tended to be the hallmark of this debate so far.
With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to share my time with Deputies Gilmore and Howlin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
If we examine the Taoiseach's speech we find that it falls in to three sections, first, a review of the economy, second, a report on the European Community and the third deals with the many scandals which have beset the Government. What do we find on the environment? Only six words: "Our environment policies are working well". What policies I could ask. The scandalous delay in setting up the Environmental Protection Agency which was promised nearly two years ago is a terrible indictment both of the Government and the way business is dealt with in the House. This Bill is a vital component in our fight against pollution. There was not one word about Sellafield, surely the most dangerous threat overhanging the country. The Taoiseach must realise that in the event of a major leak at Sellafield, which is by no means impossible, it would require the evacuation of the entire country. To where? Perhaps to the island of Atlantis, if it can be found.
I now come to another major problem — the continuing violence in Northern Ireland. There was not one single word about that matter in his speech nor is there any mention of any clear vision of the Ireland the Taoiseach sees in the future. I suspect he does not have any vision. During the past few years — and this applies to all the political parties in the House — the entire emphasis has been on the attainment of narrow economic achievements, the worship of GNP; it has not always been so. I suggest that there are other considerations, such as quality of life, which cannot be defined in purely monetary terms.
If we look at the economy we find that the Government have made no progress in solving the unemployment problem, which now stands at over 260,000 unemployed, the highest on record and much higher than when they took office in 1989. It is fair to say that none of the Opposition parties have any viable propositions to put forward either. I suggest that the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, are the only party who have a practical and viable solution to the unemployment problem. The main plank in this programme would be a solemn commitment by the Government to provide paid work for all who require it. This can be achieved by sharing the available work, by reduced working hours, job sharing, career breaks and early retirement. Such a system would be greatly facilitated by the simultaneous introduction of a guaranteed basic income for all our citizens in substitution for existing social welfare and pension payments. I challenge the Government, or indeed the Opposition parties, to say where the 260,000 jobs are going to come from.
It is absolute nonsense for the Government parties and Fine Gael to state that if we get the taxation system and the business environment right the jobs will follow. This is arrant nonsense. It is equally facile for the parties of the Left to talk about more State interference and State boards to create jobs. This is manifestly untrue. This is not to say that the present tax system is not in need of reform to create more jobs. Certainly radical tax reform, while it would not solve the unemployment crisis totally, would go some way towards this objective.
The Deputy is neither on the Right nor the Left.
The Green Party propose a land tax and a resource tax mostly on non-renewable energy in substitution for income tax, PRSI and most indirect taxes. Such a change in the tax system would undoubtedly create a vast number of extra jobs. This would be real tax reform, not the miserable half measures which the Progressive Democrats pretentiously call tax reform. Their supposed radical proposals only tinker with the system which clearly does not work.
I would like to refer briefly to our party's proposal for an energy tax on fossil fuels. This is a key proposal in our economic policy but it has ramifications far beyond economics. An energy tax at a sufficiently high rate would solve a number of problems simultaneously. By substantially increasing energy costs to industry it would inhibit over-mechanisation and encourage job creation. By increasing transport costs it would encourage local production for local needs. It would also encourage the immediate development of our renewable energy resources. A major shift from non-renewable to renewable energy would improve the environment immensely by reducing acid rain and in addition halting the build-up of greenhouse gases. It would also stretch the life of our fossil fuel reserves by decades, or perhaps centuries. It is incredible that, when independent experts foretell the virtual exhaustion of our fossil fuel resources within the lifetime of many of us here, virtually no thought has been given to this major problem by successive Governments. At present there is before the EC Commission a proposal to impose an energy tax on fossil fuels. This is another example of the Green Party being ahead of their time.
To turn to Sellafield I must once again put on record my complete dissatisfaction with the performance of the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, who has failed to initiate legal action against Britain to shut down Sellafield. His continued failure to do so in the face of considerable evidence produced by Greenpeace and other environmental organisations that a case before the International Court of Justice or the European Court would stand a reasonable chance of success, is quite incredible. I call on the Minister to state whether it is his decision or a Cabinet decision, and if it is a Cabinet decision, if he agrees with it. I suspect there is a hidden agenda here. I suspect the Government are afraid to move lest they interfere with the trading relations with the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister or the Taoiseach to categorically state that this is not a factor; or was there a secret deal done by the FitzGerald Administration in return for setting up the Anglo-Irish Conference? This is also a credible scenario.
That is a disgraceful statement.
I call on Fine Gael and the Labour Party to comment on this. The Northern Ireland problem must never take precedence over Sellafield. Of course, it is possible that the Progressive Democrats are still somewhat enamoured of nuclear power. It should not be forgotten that the previous speaker, the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, was the instigator of the proposed Carnsore Point nuclear plant.
Let me now turn to deal with the national toxic waste incinerator. The Government are committed to providing this facility but are having considerable difficulty in finding a community willing to accept this lethal method of disposal. What do we find? The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, has made secret visits to Northern Ireland, to DuPont, dealing in taxpayers' money, to provide a so-called national toxic waste incinerator in Northern Ireland. This is unprecedented behaviour. What right does Deputy Flynn have to ship our toxic waste problem across the Border to Northern Ireland? What right does Deputy Flynn have to spend taxpayers' money in this way?
Normally, we give each other our titles here — the Minister for the Environment.
I beg your pardon. What right does the Minister for the Environment have to ignore the wishes of the people of Donegal?
Let me now turn to the financial scandals which have beset the Government recently. We are constrained by the sub judice rule but nevertheless I feel some conclusions can be drawn from the overall picture that has emerged. The first is that there is extensive use of offshore companies in tax avoidance. It would be quite simple to enact legislation to prohibit, under pain of imprisonment, the holding of shares in offshore companies by Irish nationals. I suspect that the Minister for Finance would not do this because such stringent regulations would hinder the machinations of his friends in big business.
A small number of our citizens during the past 40 years have become extremely wealthy. Apart from the scandal of enormous wealth existing alongside poverty both in this country and in the Third World, there is the question of the immense power which such income and wealth undoubtedly draws. Of course contributions are made to the funds of some political parties. As well as minimum living standards for each person, there is a good case to be made against maximum possession of wealth given that the existence of very rich individuals is clearly a danger to democracy. We are a long way——
Deputy Garland, in the sharing position in which you find yourself and to retain your popularity, you better say "finally".
I am about to conclude. I would like to make the point that we are a long way from what a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera, said, "no man is worth more than £1,000 a year".
Would the Deputy accept that amount?
Yes, if it was index-linked.
I wish to give two minutes of my time to Deputy Pattison to make an important point.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This debate has gone on for three days and there are probably 1,000 reasons for any Member of this House to declare lack of confidence in the Government. What is confidence? Basically it is trust, and it is now quite clear that the vast majority of the people, in opinion polls and by assessment over the last number of days, clearly do not have confidence in this Administration. Not only do they not have confidence in the Government but they have almost none either in the political and economic system. The foundation of our economy has been rocked by scandals in recent weeks. I had hoped that at least the Progressive Democrats, whose core value initially was to restore public confidence, to be mould breakers, would have tried to give a sense of honour and would have supported the ethics of good government. However, that has not happened. We had that opportunity six months ago when the Labour Party produced an ethics Bill which would have made it mandatory for Members to make a disclosure of interests, which would require gifts to individual Ministers to be public property if they were valued at over £200 and which would require disclosure of all political funding of political parties, but the Bill was voted down by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. I see in the agreement which they cobbled together in the last couple of days, adding to the crisis facing the country in economic terms and mass unemployment, that there is a reference to a declaration of material interests. Apparently this will come into effect in September 1992, to give adequate time for anybody to divest himself of anything they might not like to come to light. Fundamentally, the people are fed up with politics and politicians——
The Deputy's party debased politics.
The people are sick of the machinations of Government. The political profession has been sullied in recent weeks.
I now want to talk about my own area of responsibility. There was talk about local government reform. The Local Government Act which was passed in this House is a sham as it tightens central control. Apparently the Barrington report on the sub-county structures will be implemented if we can pay for the recommendations. Many local councillors, especially in urban areas, will have a lot to say about that. There is still a crisis in housing and there is no material relief for those on the endless housing queues up and down the country. County roads are also in a disastrous state.
The Government have now grasped a few principles. They will now look at the issue of voting rights for emigrants, a measure they voted down in the last 12 months when the Labour Party produced a Bill in the House. There is a token comment about health care in the new agreement. The Minister knows the effort that went into the Child Care Bill which has yet to be implemented. There are no resources in any health board area to implement it. There is no provision for care or accommodation for the mentally handicapped; acute services are in a disastrous condition. The elderly are still waiting for the implementation of the provisions of the Health (Nursing Homes) Act to allow them to live the latter years of their lives in dignity. It is laughable to read in the agreed programme that the Government are committed to developing the health services to ensure equality of access, irrespective of means. That is patently the opposite of what they did for the last two years.
I hope that some good can come out of the fiasco of the last few days and that a system of democratic accountability will be brought into place in this House.
In the couple of minutes available I want to refer to one particular scandal created by the Government, that in my constituency patients are being treated in hospital corridors. This scandal was created by the policies of the Government and I appeal to them to end it.
The scandal was created by the way the Deputy's party managed the service.
The scandal was created by the Government's closure of seven district hospitals.
During the time the Deputy's party were in Government health boards borrowed without security and we were left to cope.
Patients are being treated in corridors. Earlier this year the work on the extension to St. Luke's County Hospital, Kilkenny, was supposed to commence. When it did not there were many protests. Coming up to the local elections letters were issued under the signature of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health promising that the work would commence in September. We are now well into October and there is no indication that work will commence. There was obviously no intention of seeing that the work would be done. The Minister for Education has come into the House. I ask her to end the scandal of the Mooncoin Vocational School, the Johnstown Vocational School, the Ballyhale Vocational School and——
The Deputy's party did nothing about any of those schools.
Tá an t-am istigh.
We were not closing hospitals.
This debate so far has been characterised by a reluctance on the part of the Government to answer straight questions. The Government's strategy seems to be attack, attack and attack, as being the best form of defence.
What about the BBC? They were very clear.
The thrust of the attack has been directed at The Workers' Party, which is a measure of the extent to which questions we put have been relevant and caused embarrassment to the Government. I should like to thank the Labour Party for the generous support which was given here this morning by Deputy Stagg. It is good to know that we have allies.
Be careful of the fellows behind you.
It was also good to hear that the Labour Party are not contemplating any coalition arrangement.
They cannot even get a coalition of the Left.
This morning Deputy McDaid moaned about media bias but he then went on to quote from the same media a statement that members of The Workers' Party were not pursuing a libel action against the BBC. I should like to inform the pious Deputy McDaid, who appears to have more experience in court matters than I do, that in fact letters of claim have been issued by four members of The Workers' Party, including their leader, against the BBC——
Since this morning? By "fast-track"?
Since last August and they have been acknowledged by the BBC. We then heard the lily-white Minister for Social Welfare following the example of his party leader and his discredited colleague, the Minister for Justice, launching yet another attempt to smear The Workers' Party. The Minister for Social Welfare knows a little about upstairs-downstairs activity and he would be far better off doing the job for which he is so generously paid by the taxpayer and attending to the affairs of his Department.
In the course of his speech to the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis last March the Minister for Social Welfare said that an extra £20 million of taxpayers money would be saved in a new crackdown on PRSI-related fraud and that he would be ensuring employers complied with their PRSI obligations. I would like to ask the Minister to respond to very serious allegations which have already been drawn to his attention by my colleague, Deputy Eric Byrne, about the failure to initiate proceedings as recommended against an employer in County Leitrim. I particularly want to ask him if the failure to take action was due to the political connections of the employer concerned who, I am informed, is a brother of the general secretary of Fianna Fáil. I understand that the employer in question——
That is a disgraceful allegation.
——who is based in Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim, was under observation by the Department of Social Welfare for two years——
What about the staff whom you had in the back offices, who have a criminal record in Northern Ireland?
——for suspected false accounting and making false returns of PRSI. Last November the employer and his employees were interviewed and as a result of the information received, both the Revenue Commissioners and the social welfare officers involved pressed for prosecutions under four separate headings dealing with various breaches of social welfare legislation and regulations. I am informed however that no such action was taken.
I have in my possession a copy of the report of the investigating officer which was submitted to the supervisor of the special investigations unit of the Department of Social Welfare. The report gives details of the activities of the employer in question.
More of the infiltration and manipulation of democracy.
Minister of State, we have been advising the House since this debate commenced that we would insist on a proper audience for whoever is in possession and that applies to both sides, to Ministers, Ministers of State and all.
It is fair to point out that it has never been the tradition in this House for people to come here to incriminate somebody who is not in this House and to use documentation illegally procured to do so.
There will be ample opportunity for people who follow to make their contributions in a proper fashion.
Was the Minister talking to Deputy Roche?
Deputy Howlin, please. I have indicated the position and I will act accordingly if anybody continues to interrupt.
The document I have here gives details of the employer concerned. It talks of employees being paid £15 per day into their hands, no prescribed records being kept in respect of certain employees, incomplete records being kept in respect of others——
It is better than the lads with balaclavas taking it.
——and wage details in respect of others being greatly understated. It also reports that the employer stated that his staff were paid by cash — employees subsequently admitted under questioning that they were actually paid by cheque, the significance of this being, of course, that there is a record of cheque payments.
The report recommended that prosecutions should be considered under four separate headings dealing with various breaches of social welfare legislation and regulations. Yet no action has been taken against Mr. Farrell, and certainly up to recently not one penny has been paid in respect of the outstanding under-payment. This House is entitled to an explanation from the Minister, Deputy Woods, why no action has been taken. I know that staff in the Department of Social Welfare and the Revenue Commissioners are furious at the way their work has been undermined, that having painstakingly built up a case against Mr. Farrell no action was taken. They are particularly angry that political pull has been used to protect this employer from prosecution. Why has no action been taken against Mr. Farrell? Social welfare recipients existing on £40 per week who might try to make a few extra pounds cleaning windows and who are not lucky enough to have a brother as general secretary of Fianna Fáil——
They would be members of The Workers' Party.
——are dealt with very harshly by the Department of Social Welfare.
We have heard much in recent weeks about the operation of the golden business circle, but there is another similar golden circle operating in the political arena which, it seems, can provide immunity from prosecution. The Minister, Deputy Woods, would be better off applying himself to answering these questions than to taking part in the kind of attack he launched on my party here this morning. Indeed, the time of this House might well be used if, instead of avoiding questions and transferring questions put to them in this House, the Minister and the Taoiseach were to answer those questions directly.
I recall, for example, that last February I put questions to the Taoiseach on the Carysfort issue but they were transferred to the Minister for Education, and then ruled out of order. I put another five questions to the Taoiseach in the last week and they too have been transferred to the Minister for Education. I certainly hope they will not be ruled out of order on this occasion.
The Deputy used his time at third level to manipulate many people. He should not deny others the right to get in there.
Minister of State, I will ask you to leave if you persist.
I am prepared to leave.
You will not have your vote.
The Minister will be disqualified from voting if he leaves the House.
I have not been ordered out of the House.
The Minister has been ordered out of the House and he must accept it.
I have not been ordered out of the House.
Yes, you have.
Did you order me out of the House, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
I told the Minister of State that if he persisted I would ask him to leave the House.
Why did you not let him go?
Lest there be any doubt about my desire to represent my people and to execute my right and franchise in this House——
Execute your Government.
——I am prepared to sit here.
A fitting farce to end a farce.
I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I would like to place on record the outstanding achievements of this Government in meeting educational needs. On taking up office as Minister for Education I set myself a number of targets. First, I wished to bring about change, not by diktat or confrontation but through consultation and collaboration with all concerned.
The Primary Review Body and Primary Curriculum Review Body, representative of all concerned with education at the primary level, were set up to advise on future developments at that level. Many of the recommendations in their immensely valuable reports are already being implemented; others will be carried forward in the Green Paper on Education. Similarly the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment were set up, again representative of all concerned interests, to advise initially on developments at the second level and more recently to follow on the work of the Primary Curriculum Review Body.
The process of consultation has been ongoing outside of these formal arrangements — with teachers, managerial bodies and parents. I sought not only consultation but involvement of all in the planning of education and in its management. Illustrative of this are the measures I have taken to involve teachers and parents in the vocational education committees and in the management of schools through the boards of management. I am particularly pleased at the immense strides that have been made in parental involvement, at the school level and in planning at national level.
Second, I sought to initiate an education system which was more caring, which addressed the needs of all our young people and which was more user-friendly for those who were not participating fully. I want to ensure that each individual is provided with the opportunity of developing her/his potential to the greatest possible extent.
Let me illustrate some of the important measures which have been undertaken to achieve this objective: funding for the special assistance scheme for schools in disadvantaged areas has increased by 300 per cent since 1987. The home school links programme which I launched as a major part of this scheme is already having encouraging results. This year I have expanded the programme to bring it to a total of 80 schools and arrangements are in hand to extend it to second level schools; within the past three years some 325 additional teachers have been authorised for primary schools in disadvantaged areas and for remedial education; a pilot school psychological service for primary schools has been initiated in the west Tallaght-Clondalkin area and in South Tipperary where there are some 28,000 pupils enrolled. This development is being carefully monitored and evaluated in line with the recommendations of the Psychological Society in Ireland. In the present year 325 teaching posts were authorised in order to reduce class sizes in primary schools; at post-primary level some 120 schools have each been provided with the services of an extra teacher to assist in aspects of disadvantage within those schools; to reduce the PTR in post-primary schools a further 250 teaching posts were sanctioned this year. I should add that, at present there are some 1,000 teachers approved for post-primary schools outside the normal quota provision to meet particular curricula, remedial and other needs; I have continued to expand the free books scheme. More than 250,000 children are now benefiting under the scheme at primary level and post-primary level, with total expenditure now standing at over £4 million annually; I have created a special fund to foster and encourage greater participation in senior cycle and third level education/training programmes for students from disadvantaged areas. At the same time the various curricular initiatives have been aimed at providing courses more effectively planned to meet the needs of all our young people.
The new junior certificate will come into effect in 1992 and, for the first time, will provide a common curricular framework for all students with different subject options and levels so as to ensure that all needs will be met. Similarly at senior cycle level, major reforms are proposed, again with the objective of providing for all ability levels. New leaving certificate and senior cycle programmes are being prepared to provide a range of curricular options. A major development for all students starting second level this year is the availability of a six year cycle. This is a major initiative which has been long needed and warmly welcomed.
Some 75 per cent of all students now sit the leaving certificate examination. For those who are successful a range of further educational opportunities are available. I shall be speaking later about the third level sector. Let me mention here the very successful development of the post-secondary vocational preparation and training programmes. Some 13,500 students go into these programmes or more than half again of the number entering third level education. To aid this number of students I have recently announced the establishment of a national certifying body — the National Council for Vocational Awards. This council will include representatives of all interested parties, including the social partners to ensure that courses reflect the needs of industry.
As a final point, for those who left school prematurely a variety of opportunities are available ranging from literacy and community programmes, through Youthreach and the vocational training opportunities scheme. The latter is geared specifically towards the long term unemployed. Youthreach and the vocational training opportunities scheme were commenced in 1989 and since then have undergone major expansion. The number on the Youthreach progrmme has increased from 600 to 1,600 and on the vocational training opportunities scheme from 60 to 1,060, with plans for further expansion.
Let me turn now to third level education. Here I set upon a path in 1989 to implement a three year plan for completion by 1992. I wanted to simplify the whole process of entry to third level education combined with a major expansion in the number of places. The process started once again through consultation and dialogue with concerned interests. The Taoiseach and I met with the university authorities in 1989 initially to emphasise Government commitment to third level expansion and to seek their co-operation. This initiative resulted in the setting up of a working group and later in agreement on an undergraduate expansion programme to provide not fewer than 3,600 additional university places.
At the same time I began broader based consultations to simplify and coordinate entry procedures for all third level colleges. The consultations involved the heads of universities, IVEA, AVEC, the principals of VEC third level colleges, teachers' unions and students' unions. A plan of action was agreed for implementation over the three year period 1990-92 and included:
—a common system of application for third level places, through an expansion of the CAO and which has resulted in the CAO-CAS system covering both universities and VEC third level colleges;
—the inclusion of all other third level colleges, for example teacher training colleges, in the admissions system by 1992;
—the adoption of a common grading system by all institutions for the purpose of points for admission;
—the avoidance of accumulation of points over a number of years by limiting choice to the points gained in one sitting of the leaving certificate;
—the further simplification of the system by eliminating interviews except in exceptional circumstances such as art courses.
This process of simplification and coordination is virtually complete and will be completed next year, 1992.
Again in parallel I instituted other discussions to set in train the process which has resulted in the recent legislation, which was most generously and graciously agreed by all sides of the House, to merge Thomond College with the University of Limerick. It is clear that this will have a beneficial spin-off for all concerned as well as providing 600 additional university places. I should add that I took this action not long after I had brought the long running saga of the upgrading of the NIHEs to university status to a happy conclusion. As the House is aware this was the first instance of the creation of a university since the foundation of the State. I did it on the double for good measure. Again this was achieved through the co-operation and consensus of all parties in this House.
I took also a hard look at the position of the remaining two major primary teacher training colleges in the light of the reduced demand for teacher training places. I considered that appropriate linkage between each college and the university was the correct way forward and I am pleased that the Government agreed with this approach. The discussions which I put in train between the teacher training colleges and the universities are now well advanced. I am hopeful that the talks between Mary Immaculate teacher training college and the University of Limerick and St. Patrick's teacher training college and Dublin City University will have a satisfactory outcome with the potential for providing more than 1,000 further third-level places.
At the same time I was conscious of the need to expand physical facilities in line with the expansion in third level places. I have already mentioned the additional accommodation available in Thomond College and the primary teacher training colleges. The acquisition of Carysfort offered further potential and as I will point out later resulted in the provision of more than 600 additional places.
In addition to those efforts I was pleased to receive Government agreement for two additional initiatives. The first related to the university expansion programme to provide 3,600 additional places for which the Government are allocating £15 million over a five year period. That initiative has been in place for two years. The second is the major capital expansion programme supported by the EC Structural Fund. In current cost terms this amounts to £85 million and is being implemented over the period 1990-93. It includes the new Tallaght RTC which will open in 1992 and which, over a few years will provide more than 1,000 new places. The remainder of the programme includes projects throughout the universities and VEC third level colleges.
I should mention here the collaboration which has developed between our third level institutions and industry in research and development. The importance of this collaboration is reflected in major investment in science and technology projects in the third level sector. Investment amounting to about £20 million comes from my colleagues in the Departments of Industry and Commerce and the Marine.
Before leaving this topic I wish to refer to the legislation which I hope will be introduced in the House within the next few weeks. I hope the Whips will be able to agree to it. Again like the other legislation on education which we had the honour to participate in, I hope it will be mutually agreeable. This legislation is important in that it will place the colleges on a sound legislative footing for the first time and give them responsibility for their own day to day management. It will also provide them with the authority and the necessary framework to develop their efforts in research and development.
Let me touch on the question of private sector funding for third level projects. I welcome the growing initiatives in this area. The education sector is, as I have mentioned, making a major contribution to industry in research and development. Residential accommodation for students available now on most university campuses is an example of this. I am happy that I was able to give support and encouragement for this initiative particularly without having to pay the bill.
The various initiatives mentioned earlier were aimed at major expansion in third level places. This year we have almost 40 per cent of the age group entering third level education by comparison with 20 per cent in 1980 and 25 per cent in 1986. When the programme I have outlined is fully implemented about 45 per cent of that age group will be entering third level education. When I took office in 1987 there were 56,000 students in third-level education. There are now 75,000, an increase of 34 per cent. With the measures already in train this number is likely to increase to 90,000. This is an extraordinary expansion which was brought about, as I have said, by a process of co-operation, dialogue and consensus between all participants. Six hundred of the new places will become available on the Belfield campus as a result of the purchase of Carysfort and the transfer there of the Graduate School of Business. Indeed these 600 places are a minimum and I would hope to see that significantly increased. In addition almost 100 of the 140 residential places there are already in use by students with the remainder being brought into use very quickly. It was in the interest of achieving these additional places that I continued to pursue the question of acquiring Carysfort from 1987 until 1990. Much has been written about all of this. As often happens in these matters there has been speculation, inaccuracies and indeed misrepresentation of the facts. I will not use unparliamentary words in this debate as they are not allowed so I have used the words in my speech.
Since I came to office there have been Adjournment debates in relation to Carysfort on 20 February 1988, on 20 July 1989, and on 17 May 1990. Again it was discussed on the Supplementary Estimate in December 1990 and was warmly welcomed and voted on by Deputies Jimmy Deenihan and Eamon Gilmore. I gave a detailed oral answer to a question on this matter on 12 February 1991 and I have replies to numerous other written parliamentary questions in regard to it. In addition I have participated in two debates in the Dáil and in two radio interviews on this subject. I wish to take this opportunity in the House again to set the record straight on the matter. The real scandal of Carysfort College was the precipitate manner of its closure in 1986 by the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government. That was done without any warning, consultation or preparation.
The Minister closed it.
No attempt was made to link Carysfort with a third level college——
Misleading the House.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Higgins, I have already advised the House that anybody who persists in interrupting will be asked to leave.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, is the Minister entitled to make inaccurate statements?
I have reminded you of the position, Deputy Higgins and you may interpret it in any way you like. I am telling you what I will do.
Fine Gael decided to close it, but she closed it and welshed on it.
That is not my concern. I have advised Deputy Higgins of what I intend to do. We shall hear from the Minister without interruption.
I hope that I shall not be interrupted.
No attempt was made to link Carysfort with a third level college so as to ensure its capacity and facilities would be properly and fully utilised. Those are the types of links, as I mentioned earlier, which I am now seeking to establish for St. Patrick's and Mary Immaculate in Limerick. This Government are determined that the ineptitude displayed by the then Government will not happen again.
The record shows that since the precipitate closure of the college I have always been committed to the retention of Carysfort as a third level institution. Within a week of taking up office I had detailed discussions with the authorities of the Mercy Order in the context of the working group established by the Minister who succeeded Minister Hussey, Deputy Paddy Cooney, to whom I give full respect for his efforts in that regard. It is interesting to note that the principal thrust of the proposals in the report was the use of the Carysfort premises and facilities for the operation of appropriate courses under the aegis of UCD. In the event the proposals in the report of that time proved unacceptable to the authorities of the Mercy Order.
Since that time I have been unrelenting in pursuing every available option and opportunity. On 5 and 12 June 1987 I held further meetings with the authorities of the Mercy Order but, unfortunately, agreement could not be reached.
On 10 March 1988 a meeting was held between Sister Regina, the then president of Carysfort; the Taoiseach; Deputy James Tunney — your good self — and myself. Following that meeting a working group was established to examine a proposal presented at that meeting by Sister Regina that a National College of Music and Dramatic Arts be established at the college.
The working group reported on 29 April. Their proposals, while worthy, would not have been sufficient to fully utilise the extensive premises. In the context of that report the Government, on 28 July 1988, decided that I should come forward with more comprehensive proposals, including use for UCD. From then on the concentration of effort was to try to secure the agreement of the Mercy Order for the leasing of the premises with the necessary flexibility to allow them to be used for third level education. Such flexibility would have been required before UCD could be asked to formulate any proposals. I was unable to secure this because the Mercy Order wished, in effect — and they had every right to do so — to retain right of approval over educational activities carried out in their premises were they so leased. Their reservations would have included such issues as the type of courses offered and approval of staff taken on — all kinds of matters that were not acceptable to UCD. Discussions on this matter were ongoing at the time the property was offered for sale on the open market on 21 June 1989. I wish to state that the Mercy Order had every right, if they so wished, to put their property on the market; they owned it. In fact, a letter as late as 5 May 1989 from my Department continued to seek the agreement of the Mercy Order to the flexible use of the premises.
In the course of an Adjournment Debate on 20 July 1989 I was urged very strongly by Deputy Barnes, Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Barrett to ensure that the college would be retained for educational purposes. Deputy Gilmore represented that I should enter negotiations in the matter, while Deputy Barrett twice pointed out that if necessary the State should pay £20 million and purchase the whole property.
In the course of my reply to the debate I reiterated the Government's continued interest in securing the use of Carysfort premises for educational purposes with whatever element of the site would be considered appropriate. In conclusion, at that debate I undertook to reopen discussions between my Department and the Mercy Order, and that we did.
The discussions were, in fact, reopened and resulted in the premises and 15 acres of land being offered to my Department by the Mercy Order for £8.5 million. An additional £1.5 million was being sought for the additional five acres of land which would be required. The offer price for the building and 20 acres of land was £10 million. This was in the latter part of August 1989.
Negotiations broke down because of the price and the timescale. The property was then sold into private hands.
In late October 1989 my Department were approached by the agent for the new owner, who, it subsequently transpired, were Davmac Developments Ltd., to explore our interest in any future use of Carysfort. The approach resulted in an offer for sale on behalf of the new owners of the Carysfort premises and 20 acres for £8.25 million.
All of the matters which I relate are documented and available. I must at this point refute the allegation made on 11 October 1991 by Deputy Gilmore — and I do not do this in a party political sense. I am just saying that he is a Deputy of the House and I am refuting it in that respect — that the property could have been purchased for £6.5 million. No offer at that price was ever made to my Department.
Why did the Minister not approach them?
The property was never on offer to me or my Department for less than the £8 million subsequently paid by UCD.
How was Mr. Harris able to get if for £6.5 million?
In the course of an Adjournment Debate on 17 May 1990 Deputy Gilmore appealed to me——
Deputy Higgins, you heard what I said earlier. I am asking you to leave the House if you cannot behave yourself.
Same ruling as for the Minister of State.
And I shall not ask you again.
In the course of an Adjournment Debate on 17 May Deputy Gilmore appealed to me to purchase not only the premises and 20 acres of land but to consider purchasing as much of the remainder of Carysfort Park as would come back on the market. The latter part of his request, he said, related to local feelings about the undesirability of having houses built on the land——
(Interruptions.)
Very laudable sentiments, Deputy Gilmore. He also referred to the perceived necessity in some quarters to preserve the green space amenity.
Suggestions were made that my Department should itself purchase Carysfort. This suggestion was not feasible since my Department do not directly operate third level colleges. We had tried it with the College of Music, which would be under the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. I shall go on to that. A further consideration was that unless a definite use for the premises had been established before its acquisition substantial maintenance costs would have arisen. We examined it in detail and a technical study was made to find our whether it would be suitable for a regional college. It was not suitable for this purpose. I emphasise that all of these submissions and letters are available for perusal.
As the President of UCD noted in his recent statement, the situation changed in 1990——
Who are the "we's"?
This is not the time, Deputy.
——when financial problems arose. I met with representatives of UCD in early September 1990. In a number of meetings over a short period of time it became clear to me and to UCD that up to 600 additional undergraduate student places could be provided at the Belfield campus if UCD could secure Carysfort for its graduate business school.
My notes now go on to quote the letter, but I know I am coming to the end of my time and as the letter has already been published I think that that can be passed over. It can be read, of course.
The £8 million purchase price does not accurately reflect the value of securing this fine facility for public education. When account is taken of the £2 million available from UCD and of the £1.75 million recovered by the State from the Mercy Order for earlier capital investment, the actual cost to the State was £4.25 million.
That is nonsense.
The additional moneys made available to UCD for legal fees, adaptation, equipment and maintenance would have been required, no matter for what educational purpose the State had acquired the premises.
A whitewash.
The Government considered this matter on 4 December and decided that the Minister for Finance and I should pursue the matter further. The statement by the president of UCD to which I have already referred confirms that he met the Taoiseach and myself on 12 December. Here I would like to make just one interjection. I consider it very odd that the Taoiseach has been called to book because he spoke with Dr. Masterson. Throughout his four year period in office former Taoiseach, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, a revered and honoured member of the National University of Ireland Senate, was a very regular attender. Why is it so odd that the Taoiseach of the day should talk to Dr. Patrick Masterson? Dr. Masterson went on to point out that, at that meeting, far from exerting pressure, the Taoiseach expressed the view that the proposal was so benefical that the college should commit itself to raising independently a greater proportion of the cost.
Following normal procedures the necessary Supplementary Estimate was agreed between my Department and the Department of Finance.
Why was there no independent valuation carried out? Where were the HEA?
On 18 December 1990 this House passed a Supplementary Estimate of £9.7 million.
As I was urged to do on a number of occasions, I have made every effort to retain Carysfort College as an educational institution which I have achieved.
By hook or by crook.
It has been established that no pressure was exerted by the Government on UCD. I can assure the House that the premises, and the 20 acres of land, were never on offer to me, or my Department, for less than the £8 million paid subsequently by UCD. Let me reiterate that all requisite policies and procedures were strictly adhered to, which fact was confirmed at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday.
Wrong.
The moneys were voted in the normal way by the Dáil and made available, again in the normal way, through the Higher Education Authority.
Not true.
As the Secretary of my Department said in his statement to the Committee of Public Accounts yesterday, the purchase was excellent value for money——
Excuse me, it never came up at a meeting of the Higher Education Authority.
The purchase was excellent value for money.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Higgins, please leave the House——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you did not do that to the Minister.
I control this House. I have indicated to the Deputy what is the position. I am now asking the Deputy to leave the House.
I will desist, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I reiterate that all requisite policies and procedures were strictly adhered to. The moneys were voted in the normal way by the Dáil and made available in the normal fashion, through the Higher Education Authority, to UCD. The purchase was excellent value for money. Carysfort is now a public asset, as so many Members of this House had long sought. It is now a public educational asset. In the process leading to the purchase——
I must intevene to tell the Minister her time has expired. In fact she has exceeded her time by three minutes. Is there somebody offering from the other side? I see Deputy Richard Bruton waiting.
There were no meetings, correspondence or agreements of any kind between myself, my officials, the vendors or their agents. All such contacts were between UCD, the vendors or their agents. The saga of Carysfort College is over.
I should like to wish all those who lecture there, who will live and learn there every success and fulfilment.
And who made a profit out of it?
I am calling Deputy Richard Bruton.
With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should lke to share my time with Deputy Taylor-Quinn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
First, the Minister, in a long contribution failed to answer any of the key questions involved in this dispute. She has already left the House. It muxt be realised that the Minister has not answered the questions raised about this deal. She did not explain why no independent valuation was undertaken. She did not explain why others could buy it cheaper than she could, and make a substantial killing. Neither did she explain how the Higher Education Authority, whose statutory authority should have been involved in this whole process, were omitted. The questions raised by Deputies remain to be answered.
I should like to address some remarks to a contribution of Deputy Roche yesterday. I reject emphatically the insinuations made by that Deputy. Deputy Roche's contribution was yet another pathetic attempt to distract attention from the real issue, the Government's inability to properly fulfil their functions. The land to which Deputy Roche referred has been in the Bruton family for 90 years. My parents are the principal owners of that land. I have a minority interest in those lands. Deputy John Bruton has no beneficial ownership in those lands. Some years ago an extension of Dunboyne Village boundary rezoned part of the lands. Later my father was approached by developers who wished to develop that land. Neither Deputy John Bruton nor I made any representations to Meath County Council regarding the zoning or the laying on of services to this land. Neither of us was involved in any way in the negotiations for its purchase. The developers alone were involved in seeking planning permission for the land. Neither Deputy John Bruton nor I made any representations to Meath County Council, to an Bord Pleanála or to any other agency in connection with the planning application. Subsequently, the developer, for his own reasons, failed to proceed with the purchase and, in accordance with the contract to which he had agreed, forfeited both his deposit and a subsequent payment made for an extension of time to complete the purchase. The tax content of these payments is entirely a matter for decision by the Revenue Commissioners who will have full access to all the facts.
Deputy Roche earlier today on radio suggested he did not think there was any wrong-doing in this. Yet he used the privilege of the House yesterday to cast a slur on my character. I feel more sad than angry about this. It shows how far some people in Fianna Fáil have descended from their proud traditions. I reiterate that the deal involved is entirely transparent; I have nothing to hide. Fine Gael are an open party. We are fully committed to full declaration of interests by office holders. We will not be deflected in any way from pursuing vigorously abuse of public office for personal gain. That, let Deputy Roche take note, will continue to be our position as a party in this House.
This debate should end in a general election. A general election would ensure that we had a decent code of practice to uphold scrupulous integrity in public affairs. The public would demand that; Fine Gael would insist on it. The cost of a general election, about which many people complain in the media, in the long run would be a cheap price to pay for that code of practice to be introduced into public affairs here, restoring confidence from the level to which it has now fallen.
The debate of the past few days has demonstrated the vicious, argumentative and agressive behaviour of a Government who have lost all sense of direction, are being carried along only by the tide of events, buffeted and bruised as they go. All through the summer various Ministers endeavoured to put out their own life rafts. We had the Minister for Agriculture and Food on the family planning issue; the Minister for Justice on the Shannon stop-over issue; the Minister for Finance on public pay, all of them hoping to salvage something for themselves from the wreck in which they were involved. Yet the Taoiseach clings tenaciously to the wheel hanging on for dear life but caring little where he is heading.
The Progressive Democrats remain unsure whether to cut off the engines. Now only at the twelfth hour do we hear that they have decided to let the thing go on. The rest of the crew of this boat are fuming and scheming about the role of the Taoiseach of the day. Everyone in this House knows that the majority no longer have confidence in the Taoiseach's Government.
The real issues raised by Deputy John Bruton in his opening remarks have not been answered. The Government are no longer in control, they are reacting and refusing to reform. Failure to reform is the tangible cause of a catalogue of failings that exist in Ireland today. In any measure that begins from the value of the individual the record of achievement on the part of the Government is a sorry one.
There is the enforced idleness of 260,000 people. We know now that unemployment is the single largest cause of disadvantage and poverty in Ireland. Then there are the 5,000 children who drop out of school each year with no qualifications whatsoever to end up unemployed, or in the back streets of London. There are the 25,000 people with a mental handicap and their carers, who have no services to turn to, with their carers struggling to cope, with no sleep, no break and little or no help. Then there are the 800 young homeless people roaming our streets today prey to being sucked into a life of crime. There are also the 30,000 families in substandard accommodation with no hope of being adequately housed and the 30,000 on public waiting lists excluded from any opportunity of receiving attention.
Those are the failings we must overcome, the failings of the existing policies, leaving so many of our people trapped in wastelands, marginalised, kept out. The failure of this Government to reform has been tragic in the last few years before European integration, affording us the last chance to achieve the standards that will allow us compete four-square in Europe. Our President rightly pointed out that there is a danger we will be left struggling in the backwash as other European countries stride ahead. That is the price we pay for the unwillingness of the Government to reform. They are a Government no longer capable of producing sustainable strategies for development. Having taken the summer off they are now engaged in trying frantically to cobble together a package, one that will inspire no confidence but which will once again keep the Taoiseach hanging on to power. In their hearts the Progressive Democrats must recognise that the Government are doomed.
Perhaps we all like to put off elections. Nobody wants to go out in the cold weather to meet angry, frustrated voters. As citizens we must see that this is the time for this Government to stand aside. The nation wants to move on.
The motion before us relates to confidence in the Government. No decent Deputy could walk through the lobbies at 4 p.m. and vote confidence in this Government. We have seen a despicable performance by the Minister for Education. We know that the Lenihans, Mary and Brian, lay great store on loyalty but I suggest that loyalty is only merited by those who deserve it. The Taoiseach does not deserve the loyalty proclaimed by the various Ministers.
The Minister for Education has not given us the full truth about the Carysfort matter. She has been selective in what she has put on the record. She has failed to answer the fundamental charge relating to the profit made by Pino Harris at the intervention of the Taoiseach who commended to UCD the purchase of that property. The Minister stands castigated for her performance today. It is a bad reflection on democracy. To add insult to injury, she pranced out of the House declaring that she was going to a press conference. That is indicative of the attitude of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. They are far more interested in lines in the papers than honest Government and genuine commitment to the people. They are interested in Government only for their own self-promotion, self-advancement and publicity. Our forefathers fought very hard for the establishment of the democratic institutions of this State. The Dáil and Seanad should be respected by the Government as democratic institutions. Matters of serious importance should be brought first to this House and discussed here. Instead, today there is a Government press conference to present to the press what the Government have decided. This House is literally being ignored by the Government. The democratic institutions of the State are being ignored. Unfortunately a dictatorship is in operation.
Could we blame people for becoming increasingly cynical about public life, politicians, this House and the Government? I refer to the young people who are applying for Morrison visas, the 260,000 people who are unemployed, old people who are on waiting lists for hip operations, unfortunate people who are lying on stretchers on corridors of hospitals. This Government have brought disgrace to the nation. Any honourable and decent person recognises that this Government reflect very poorly on the Irish people. It is time the Government removed themselves from office.
I eventually succeeded today in getting a copy of the programme agreed by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil. I managed to obtain it in the corridor; it was not brought before this House. It is a cobbling together of a lot of words without any substance. The Government have pursued tactics over the past four days to ensure that the Opposition parties will not be in a position to debate the real Programme for Government for the next two years. They are ashamed to present it because it has such little substance. Fundamental questions have not been addressed.
We will not be silenced by Deputy Roche or any other member of Fianna Fáil who makes allegations. We will not be intimidated or silenced by such tactics. That is what Fianna Fáil have been attempting to do. We will continue to search, investigate and publicise in every possible way any instance where the Government are misusing taxpayers' money. Scandal after scandal has repeatedly proved the abuse of power and the misuse of taxpayers' money.
We fully support the full disclosure of interests. The programme states that a register of all Members' material interests will be established from September 1992 and will be available in the Oireachtas Library. What a weak statement. What are the specific details? What will be registered? Any of us can register that we own a house or so many shares. Ten days later what is to stop any Member from engaging in further business activities which will not be entered on the register? There is no provision for a code of conduct.
The programme goes on to state that the Government are determined to ensure the highest standards of ethical behaviour in the conduct of all State and commercial business dealings. They do not state that they are committed to the highest standards of ethical behaviour by Ministers and Ministers of State. That is notably missing from the programme. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, was questioned on the matter, he sidetracked and said it was a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Government do not want to put the full facts on the table. It is time they were removed from office so that another Government could put proper procedures in place.
The Government in this programme do not deal with the important issue of European political union. It is mentioned only in a paragraph which simply states that there are no obstacles to prevent Ireland from participating fully in the front rank of European nations. There is no clue as to what these two parties intend to do, what ideas they have on the issues in question and what they are saying in Europe — if they are saying anything at all. This Government are being led by other members and have no ideas of their own going to the conference table in Europe. That is extremely unfortunate.
What is the view of the Government on the North Atlantic Treaty or the Western European Union Treaty which expires in 1997? Do they believe there should be a new European defence treaty? We have no idea of their view. What is the future for the people when the Government have no specific idea of where they are going? In the area of defence all we have in the programme is a statement of what we already know. Only two days ago a Franco-German proposal was made regarding the establishment of a European army. Do the Government have a view on that issue? If so, are they expressing it in Europe? We do not know. The programme gives no information.
This Government are a sham, a group of self-interested people trying to maintain their hold on office to further their own interests and self-advancement. Young people are very cynical. They see a culture of grab and greed and the fast buck, where honour and integrity in public life are no longer to be commended. Some people talk about "Garret the Good" with a laugh, as if to be good in politics is something one should not be; in other words, that it is no longer right or proper in public life to have certain ideals or principles or a commitment to high standards. The people are not being served by this Government. The Government do not reflect our concerns: they are not doing anything to address them. All they are doing is to literally protect their own self-interests, to promote and ensure that a certain golden circle in this community, particularly based in the Dublin area, continues, to advance and make the quick buck. It is extremely unfortunate.
We should recognise the fragility of democracy and the importance of Members of this House having the highest standards and an absolutely untarnished pedigree in relation to their performance in public office. That is vital. We should recognise that our democracy is only in place for 70 years. On the international front I am sure many countries looking at Ireland right now are saying that we are nothing more than a banana republic. I am sure we are being compared with some of the most appalling types of states in parts of Africa and that we even compare badly with some of them. On the international front there is now no confidence in the Irish economy. What did this Government do for the past three or four months to-ing and fro-ing in relation to bringing forward an agreement? They destabilised the economy. It is neither right nor proper for any party over there to put the blame on the other. Both are jointly responsible. Both had the responsibility to have that programme well put together before the House came back here two days ago. Instead of that they adopted various positions and ended up at the 11th hour cobbling together a document that is hardly worth the paper it is written on.
Is this what the people of Ireland deserve? I put it to the Minister that it is not. The Party Whip is very important and internal party politics seem to be more important to Fianna Fáil than the national interest. That is extremely unfortunate. Politics in Ireland have now reached an all-time low and the finger must point at Deputy Haughey who is the main architect and instigator of that. Go back to 1969 and from 1969 to 1979 and through the eighties. Once Deputy Haughey appeared the rot followed. Deputies Browne and Davern may smile on the backbenches but that is the reality. The level of decency that was in the leadership of Fianna Fáil is no longer there. Fianna Fáil now get into office in order to be in a position to gain from being elected to this House. I would appeal to the decent Fianna Fáil TDs — and there are some decent men and women in Fianna Fáil — to have the gumption to speak out and say they are not prepared to tolerate this level of orchestration, this low level political behaviour, and that they want this Taoiseach out. It is unfortunate that they have not the gumption to do that and it is indeed a very poor reflection on them. I appeal to them to consider that matter in the interests of the Irish people and the Irish nation.
At this stage all decent Irish people feel disappointed, saddened and totally ashamed at the performance of this Government particularly the manner in which all these scandals were allowed to develop under various Ministers. That happened because, as everybody knows, the Taoiseach is the boss and dare one disobey him. Fianna Fáil Deputies must do as they are told or else. We well know how that operates but unfortunately the Fianna Fáil Deputies have not got the gumption to take him on. That is the situation within Fianna Fáil today.
It is sad that this House has to discuss this matter in the present political circumstances. It is unfortunate that the people have to listen to scandal after scandal compounding the level of mismanagement by this Government. It is unfortunate that the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil have, at the 11th hour, cobbled together a document just for the sake of the vote at 4 o'clock in order to retain their respective ministerial offices. I hope that at a very early date the people will have an opportunity of showing what they think of this Government because I believe they are disgusted and want this Government out and out quickly.
I am saddened by the vindictiveness and viciousness on all sides of the House. I came in here in 1969 when Deputy Taylor's father was a Member and he never reverted to that sort of language she used today. I certainly do not need Deputy Taylor to tell me what standards apply to me. If the measure of decency the Deputy is talking about is the length of the knife in Alan Dukes back then we have a fair long measure to judge by. I think the Deputy knows what I am talking about.
Explain yourself.
The Deputy has set the standards in that area. The level of invective that people have felt necessary to bring to this debate has frightened me. It is not that the financial scandals have not occurred. They have occurred and the Government have taken quick action on them. In fact, we are not fully qualified to speak on them until we see the results of the full and independent inquiry. I emphasise they are financial scandals. The insinuation has been that the Ministers are involved in them. The Opposition are doing this for their own political gain but it is a reflection on all politicians.
In regard to Greencore, a full investigation is being carried out and the Revenue Commissioners are involved. It is expected that the Minister will be blamed in this situation but no mention has been made by Fine Gael of the chairman of that group whom they appointed — not that I believe the chairman is guilty either but he was sitting in at meetings. There was no mention by the Labour Party of the worker directors who were involved in the union and who agreed after the people were suspended to pay a £350,000 bonus and to leave the Mercedes as well which is one-third of that amount again. There was no mention of that either by the Labour Party or Fine Gael. As for The Workers' Party, they are beneath contempt in this House. I will refer to them in a moment. Conveniently, no mention has been made of any of these matters by the Opposition. The efforts of the Opposition to pin a Minister when the people concerned are three or four tiers away from him does damage not alone to themselves and this House but is a grave disservice to the country.
The public image abroad is fairly poor. With high unemployment and people trying to survive in business no mention has been made of what efforts should be made by all of us together to try to solve the unemployment problem. People have just got up and thrown dirt at each other across the House. I received a letter from, I presume, a well-meaning person three days ago telling me that a certain Fine Gael politician had bought a premises and that that premises was taken up by the VHI within weeks on a 35-year lease. I will not mention the name of the person in this House. That letter was torn up and thrown in the waste paper basket. If someone has a complaint to make or wants something looked at, let him be honourable about it and put his name to it.
What really annoys me is people, for their own political gain and in an effort to gain power, saying: "Throw every piece of dirt you can because these things are true". It is not that they are true but they want them to be true. The same can be said about the press who have printed allegations. I hope that the Irish Press have some funds left for the libel suits which will follow in some cases. If I have any influence with Ministers I will urge them to sue because they will have the support of the courts in that regard.
Unfortunately unsubstantiated and unproven allegations stick. During my 21 years as a Member of this House I have only once, in 1972, used the privilege of this House to name a builder who acted fraudulently under the company name Trad-Built. The owner of this company was later exposed and has been sought by the fraud squad ever since. I used that privilege having consulted with a Minister at the time, Mr. James Tully, so that the press people could name him afterwards.
Today the privilege of the House is being used far too much to the detriment of people outside against whom unproven allegations are made. I would ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to look at the European system where this privilege may be withdrawn when wrongful accusations are made. Unless people have hard facts which they can prove they should not be allowed, at the expense of a person's life or their family's life, to come in here and make unfounded and untrue allegations. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges should examine this whole area because this privilege has been abused during the past few days, particularly by Deputy Spring who read into his speech what somebody else had written in an article which would not be published. It is frightening to think that he would take somebody else's word for something. He did not research the matter but read what somebody else had written into the record of the House. That is a serious abuse of privilege.
Efforts will have to be made in the coming weeks and months to solve our serious unemployment problem. I want to put it on the record that if anyone is guilty of financial misdemeanours, all of us on all sides of the House want to see them punished. This debate should not be regarded by The Workers' Party and the Labour Party as a licence to present a picture to the public that everyone in private industry or business is a chancer, a con man and that they do not contribute to society. I am afraid that what has been said here will frighten people with business acumen and people who invest money in an effort to make this country work better. Just because a few are guilty there is no need to write off the entire business community. Unfortunately the perception people have been given is that everyone involved in business today is dishonest. This information is released regularly by The Workers' Party who mention figures when people do not pay their tax. It is frightening to think that this is the purpose for which that party were set up and financed by people outside the State. The absolutely undemocratic form of socialism which they promote and support has been destroyed throughout Europe but they have tried neatly to change that about. Many people in Fine Gael see the danger in the witch-hunt that is being undertaken and the real dangers facing the business community. They are like a pack of hounds — once they see blood they all want to rush to be involved. Unfortunately this will have destructive consequences.
I am glad to see Deputy Byrne taking his place so that he can hear my next statement. I despise The Workers' Party and everything they stand for. I hold them beneath my contempt. They have denied any connection with the Official IRA or violence. They have on their staff at the moment in this House a man who is guilty of knee-capping and attempted murder.
On a point of order——
Do not deny, Deputy Byrne, that you were part of it then and that you are part of it now. You know what you have been guilty of. It is good enough to have the fivers, the $100 notes, but on the staff of this House some one who has been guilty——
On a point of order, I have only been a Member of this House for a short time and I have never heard an allegation as bad or severe as that allegation. If this Parliament is not to be dragged through the mud and is to be taken out of the sewer where it presently seems to be, that remark should be withdrawn.
It is indeed, Deputy, a very serious charge.
I am well aware of the serious allegation I have made.
On reconsideration, perhaps the Deputy would like to rephrase it.
Before I said that, a Cheann Comhairle — I do not wish to cross you in any fashion — I referred to the abuse of privilege. I was conscious of that before I made the allegation. I know my facts and I am certain of them. In those circumstances I cannot withdraw what I have said. I have already clarified that the abuse of privilege in this House is a serious matter.
Where a serious charge of that kind is made the Chair would much prefer if it was dealt with by way of a substantive motion.
I accept your advice in that regard. Thank you for your intervention.
I hope that out of all of this a climate will be created where people who have made money the hard way and worked hard will be regarded and where profit will not be regarded as a sin or a dirty word. We should remember that if there are no profits there are no workers or business acumen. The alternative to the present system which people want to destroy really worries me. I accept that some members of the business community have been wrong but equally some members in other sections of our community have been wrong. We need to assure business people, people with acumen and with patriotism that we are not trying to get at them but rather are trying to ensure that they are given a lead in bringing about our economic recovery which I believe is only a short time away. I wish to share my time with Deputy John Browne.
I would prefer, Deputy Davern, if you had intimated that fact to me earlier.
My apologies.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
(Limerick East): May I inquire from the Deputy before he sits down if he intends communicating the information he has given the House about criminal acts to the Garda?
The Chair has indicated a course of action in that regard.
I expect that the Garda are well aware of it. Most of us are and I think the Deputy, as a former Minister for Justice, would be well aware of it as well.
(Limerick East): I certainly am not.
I will tell the Deputy afterwards.
(Wexford): As a politician who has been here for the past nine or ten years, I am saddened by the muckraking by Deputies——
We have heard a bit of it now.
(Wexford):——on all sides over the last three days.
The Deputy is a fair hand at it himself.
The Deputy should be allowed to utilise the rather limited time available to him without interruption. We have had a good debate up to now, let us keep it so.
I would not agree.
(Wexford): At present, the public image of politicians is not good. I am a full-time politician. I have no business or other interest from which I earn money. My only income derives from being a full-time politician in this House. I have no hang-up about declaring my interest in any new document the Government may bring on stream and I am sure most other politicians feel the same. Indeed, if the truth were known about most full-time politicians in this House, the bank managers would be the people to declare the interest on our behalf because of the situation in which we find ourselves from year to year, and particularly from election to election.
We have heard much about elections in the last three days. Everyone on the far side seems to want an election. I have never seen as many smiles on the faces of politicians as I did this morning when the word came out that the Progressive Democrats and the Fianna Fáil Party were about to come to an arrangement and were to continue in Government. If all politicians were honest, they would admit to being happy that there was not to be a general election.
There never was any doubt that there was not going to be one.
(Wexford): Certain members of the Fine Gael Party were very worried last night, and they were very happy this morning when they saw the deal that had been hammered out.
The Deputy's party have enough worries without worrying about ours.
(Wexford): If we were in the Deputy's party we would be far more worried with only 26 per cent in the polls——
What about the Presidential election?
What about Mary in the Park?
If Austin had been in the Park that would have been a worse result.
He is the man who helped her into it.
(Wexford): The allegations and the financial scandals in Greencore and Telecom of the past four to six weeks are not normal in this country. The truth needs to be established and the public informed of that truth. I hope the investigation committees, which are now in being, will establish the truth so that we will know who are the guilty people. I am very concerned about Greencore because of the massive amounts of profit made by individuals or by groups of individuals within that company. There is a need to get to the bottom of this allegation, to establish the truth and to have that truth made known to the general public. If there has been wrongdoing and it can be proved, then these people should face the full rigours of the law. As a Fianna Fáil politician I have no hang-up about people being brought to justice. I hold no brief for such people and I would be only too glad, when the inquiry report back on Greencore and Telecom and the truth is established, if action is taken.
As Deputy Davern said, all business people should not be tarnished with the one brush. The majority of business people are decent hard working people who make an honest living and provide jobs. It is important that those people who are providing a service should be recognised and that we would not tarnish the good name of business people in Ireland because of what happened to a minority.
We need business people to invest and create jobs. Unfortunately, during the past six weeks the real problems of unemployment have been sidelined on all sides of the House, including this side. There must be serious concern about our high unemployment problems. Too many of our young people are unemployed and too many of them have to leave Ireland. In some housing estates, including some in my constituency 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the working population are unemployed. This is a national scandal. It is important, regardless of our political persuasions, that we put our heads together and try to resolve our unemployment problems. It is not good enough for politicians to continue to pay lip service to our escalating unemployment problem. We must have concrete proposals to deal with these unemployment problems.
I hope the Programme for Government agreed today between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats — which includes very positive ideas and actions to deal with unemployment — will be pursued and that we will get the full support of the political parties on all sides to resolve the serious problems that exist.
We have other problems in Ireland at present. Agriculture is going through a difficult time and there are problems in housing and with the economy generally. Some of the allegations made in this House are not doing politicians any good. The sincerely held view of all Members is that some of the allegations made here over the last three days are an absolute disgrace and have done much damage to politicians generally. In the real world the people are cynical of politicians today. They see this House as a cosy little arrangement making large amounts of money, being well-paid and looking after ourselves, but in many instances that is not the case. Most politicians — regardless of which party they represent — are decent hard working people and represent their constituents to the best of their ability.
During the past six to eight weeks the media have been very unfair to politicians. They have presumed by innuendo, allegation and by half-truths that politicians are all gangsters, that we are in it for what we can get out of it and that we are making massive amounts of money from big business. As we are all aware a certain amount of the allegations, innuendo and half-truths will stick and will affect us all in the long term. The media must have some sense of national responsibility. They are part of Irish society and should think carefully about the damage they are doing to some of the business concerns and business people who are working within the law and providing jobs. I am not saying all media people are guilty but, over the last six to eight weeks the majority have not come out of this situation with glory.
Today, we are discussing a motion of confidence and I have no doubt the Government will survive, that we will continue to provide good Government and that we will continue to improve the economy for our people.
Many of the red herrings introduced by the Opposition during the last three days will be seen by the general public for what they are——
Like the clinic in the Park.
(Wexford):——nothing more than political propaganda to try to embarrass the Fianna Fáil side of this Government. I say they have wasted their time and the public will continue to support this Fianna Fáil-led Government for the next two and a half years.
The Progressive Democrats-led Government.
I have given permission to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Michael Woods, to make a brief statement.
Deputy Gilmore in this House earlier made an allegation in relation to me and in relation to an individual outside of this House and he asked for an explanation. I totally refute the allegation made by Deputy Gilmore. I have never interfered in any prosecution case. There are formal procedures for such investigations. I take issue with comments made earlier today by Deputy Gilmore. He made serious allegations of interference by the Minister for Social Welfare in preventing a prosecution going ahead in a particular case arising from an investigation by officers of his Department. There is no question of interference by me as Minister in the case referred to. I can only question the Deputy's motives for making these allegations. In this connection a letter was dropped into my Department recently, which might give an indication as to what is really going on.
Is there no level beneath which The Workers' Party would stoop to try to embarrass the Government or individual members of it? I will put the record straight. Arising from an investigation, arrears of PRSI were identified by investigating officers of the Department of Social Welfare. This matter was brought to the attention of the employer in question and it was satisfactorily resolved and the arrears cleared, therefore the question of a prosecution did not arise. In any event, as Deputies in the House will know, an amnesty against prosecution was introduced by me as Minister this year for persons provided that they got their affairs in order. Since the arrears in question were paid, the terms of the amnesty were fulfilled.
Investigations of this nature are a daily occurrence. So far this year some 10,000 employers have been visited and PRSI positions have been checked. In many cases the position was found to be in order while in others persons are given the opportunity to settle their affairs. Failure to settle the affairs results in consideration being given to instituting proceedings against the person concerned. I would emphasise that interference did not take place and the normal procedures and practices were followed. If the Deputy had bothered to check the details he would have found that out. I again question his motivation. I will reply in detail to the letter which was delivered to my Department. I thank the Chair.
(Limerick East): I have no confidence in this Government. The country is in a shambles: the economy is on the brink of ruin; the budget is scuttled; millions of pounds are leaving the country causing upward pressure on interest rates, and next year's budget is increasingly looking like an instalment from “Mission Impossible”. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress which was to provide the economic foundation for this country for a decade has been abrogated by both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. Unemployment is at an all time high and our young people queue for American visas in a scramble to leave the country.
The people have no confidence in this Government. In a recent opinion poll only 29 per cent of the public expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Government. I have no doubt that this 29 per cent spoke from party political loyalty rather than from conviction or satisfaction with the performance of the Government.
The people are angry and worried. They want a competent, clean Government to get on with the business of running the country, allowing them to get on with the business of running their own lives.
The people are angry and have every right to be so. They are angry with the Government, because when economic success was within reach they have let it slip through their fingers as a result of incompetence, greed and lack of cohesion. The people are angry because they cannot make ends meet. The burden of income tax on PAYE people is overwhelming. Small business people see their turnover decreasing. The building industry is at a standstill, there is a bus strike, the post is not being delivered and the country is rocked with scandal. These scandals involve what the Minister for Industry and Commerce described as a "golden circle" of people in the business world. Now, a circle always has a centre. The people are angry because they believe that the Taoiseach is the centre of that golden circle.
In passing, I should say that the people are angry not only with the Government, they are angry with the Dáil. Most of what happens here is remote from their day to day concerns. The concerns are of mothers trying to make ends meet, to manage their families, to ensure that their children are well dressed going to school. The concerns are of parents worried about their older children who cannot get jobs, who become increasingly depressed hanging around the house, who have the look of despair in their eyes when their hundredth job application is not even replied to and who feel ashamed when they join the dole queue. Finally there is the sorrow when these young people finally emigrate.
The debate in this House has been far removed from the concerns of the old — the loneliness of being alone, the inadequacy of the transport system in rural Ireland which prevents old people from visiting their families, the fear they have of illness, of overcrowded public wards, of delays in being admitted to hospital.
The debate in this House has been far removed from the concerns of the poor and the homeless, their struggle to survive below the poverty line, the impossibility of being motivated when all around you 80 per cent of your friends and neighbours are unemployed.
The debate in this House did not reflect the views of the farmers who now have no confidence in the Government to protect their way of life in the Common Agricultural Policy renegotiation. The debate does not express the concern of workers in the food processing industry who will lose their jobs through the same botched renegotiation, nor the views of the rural communities of the west who are on the brink of annihilation.
When Cromwell planted the country, the native Irish were banished to Connaught. Is it not ironic that a native Irish Government are now involved in planting Connaught with coniferous trees, in denuding the countryside of people, and out-Cromwelling Cromwell?
What is the response of the Government, and in particular of Government Ministers in this House — a barrage of charge and counter charge, the politics of the smear, the allegation, the innuendo, made by those "willing to wound but yet afraid to strike".
That type of politics dominated the House yesterday, but reached its climax in Deputy Dick Roche's contribution. The Deputy spread slurry in all directions and in the process became a "bawd in the way of good service" to his Taoiseach. I have no doubt but that he would qualify for one of those anti-pollution grants from the Department of Agriculture to clean up his act.
I have no doubt that the ordinary decent members of the public deplore this type of politics and are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated at the failure of the institutions of State to address their real needs.
There is a social cohesion which is always necessary to underpin parliamentary democracy. The consent of the governed is a prerequisite of Government. The events of the past six weeks have delivered a very serious blow to the foundations of our system of Government. If the rules do not apply to the privileged few, the consent of the many to be ruled, cannot be expected.
When ordinary decent people no longer believe that the country is being governed in their interest and in the interests of their children, a Government cannot continue. When ordinary people believe that the Government, the parliament and the courts no longer are capable of responding to their needs, a Government are finished.
The people no longer have confidence in this Government and that lack of confidence does not arise from their dislike of one aspect of policy or another, but from a fundamental doubt about the ability of this Government to do anything at all now to meet their needs.
The scandals of recent weeks have contributed in a major way to the erosion of confidence, and the inability of the Government to deal adequately with the scandals has further eroded public confidence.
There is no evidence available to me that Government Ministers are personally stained by these scandals, but the responsible Ministers are and were guilty of gross negligence in not having proper arrangements in place to ensure the accountability of State agencies under their control. They are also guilty of gross incompetence in not dealing with the scandals when they emerged.
Circular 1 of 1983 issued by the Department of Finance, when Deputy Alan Dukes was Minister for Finance, in March of that year lays down in the most explicit manner the arrangements which should have been in place to ensure the accountability of State bodies to their parent Department and the Department of Finance. Not the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture and Food nor the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications properly performed their duty under the terms of this circular.
When the various scandals became public the first inclination of all Ministers was to distance themselves as far as possible from the events in question and only half-hearted action was taken. Consequently, the Taoiseach impulsively dismissed Mr. Parceir and Mr. Smurfit in the course of a radio interview. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, had to replace Mr. Shields as his inspector within a matter of days of his appointment. The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, rushed into a departmental inquiry which failed to establish the key facts. He then appointed an inspector under section 14 of the Companies Act who has no power to follow the money trail of the various transactions rather than appoint an inspector under section 8 of the Act who would have such power. The Minister's inquiry is now stymied through lack of power under the Companies Act and procedures being taken in the courts.
In respect of the Carysfort College controversy the Minister for Education has consistently failed to answer the key questions. She is running from it in case it damages her reputation. The ball is being passed to her by the Taoiseach but she refuses to field it and runs further away.
She has gone to a press conference.
(Limerick East): There are questions which must be answered in this House. Was the property offered to the Department of Education for £8 million prior to its sale to Mr. Pino Harris? When the then owners had almost agreed to sell the property to Mr. Harris for £6.5 million, did not the then owners again offer the property to the Department of Education for £6.5 million? This being so why did the Department refuse to buy it and within six months agree to its purchase for a higher price of £8 million? The Minister who spoke shortly before I got to my feet again failed to answer these precise questions. That is where the issue lies; it is not a question of who told who what six months later.
I would now like to turn briefly to the latest agreement between the Coalition partners. I find the whole charade of renegotiation between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats farcical. The Progressive Democrats in July 1989 signed on for four years. They participated as Ministers in the two budgets which have eroded the economic progress made between 1987 and 1989. They actively participated in all the decisions which during the two years have increased public expenditure by £1.1 billion, an increase of 14 per cent against an inflation rate for the two years of 7 per cent.
One of the Ministers, the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has specific responsibility for job creation has presided over the highest level of unemployment since the foundation of the State. There is no change in this reheated document today, in this policy, which will deliver a single job. Not only did the Progressive Democrats actively participate in the key decisions which have led to the present economic shambles but they actually boasted of their contribution and frequently upset their Fianna Fáil colleagues by claiming all the credit for the so-called miracle — some miracle. The Progressive Democrats actively supported the unfortunate Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This programme is a policy of great detail for the next three years and purports to lay down the foundations of economic and social policy for a decade.
I welcome the Minister for Finance to the House and I am glad he is still a member of the Government.
A Deputy
The real Taoiseach.
(Limerick East): I do not think I would have his patience, I would have gone.
The Deputy always runs away.
(Limerick East): The Progressive Democrats enthusiastically endorsed the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and claimed credit for the agreement and all its details. That was done less than 12 months ago. How in all honesty can they now claim that there is some kind of alternative programme which they always had in their hearts but which they were not allowed to implement by their big brothers in Government?
Their flexible friends.
(Limerick East): Is not the whole bogus negotiation process of the last few days simply an attempt by the Progressive Democrats to justify to their supporters their willingness to continue in this failed Government? Is not the posturing about policy simply an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the public to blind them to the fact that the Progressive Democrats have sold out on every principle they purport to have and are now merely a convenient annex to the Fianna Fáil Party supporting their failures, ethos, leading personalities and narrow mono-cultural vision of Ireland and every policy issue which flows from that vision or lack of it?
Rusty old halo.
(Limerick East): This new whiter than white policy document is a microwave document, a reheat of yesterday's dinner, a loin cloth to hide the indecent exposure of the Progressive Democrats. It is as dishonest as it is shameful, a policy which reveals all the carrots but none of the sticks, a document which fails to state the specific tax decisions——
This will get the Deputy on "Scrap Saturday".
(Limerick East):——which will be taken to fund the tax promises. A conservative estimate of the tax proposals comes to not less than £600 million and yet not a penny has been identified to pay for this. Commitments to cut expenditure by in excess of £400 million are made to achieve specific fiscal targets. Where will the axe fall and what are the implications for the health services, education, public service pay and social welfare? Do the Fianna Fáil backbenchers realise the pig in the poke they have bought? Paragraph 3 of the tax section states, “the tax system should not unduly influence choice”. Does this mean mortgage interest relief and VHI relief are gone?
No.
(Limerick East): When the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Finance, assured the Fianna Fáil backbenchers this morning that this was not so, did they actually believe him? Did they have the confidence to believe him? Did he ever cod you before?
Watch this space.
(Limerick East): Where is the £1.1 billion, the total cost of this document, going to come from? Paragraph 7 states that employee PRSI will be restructured to make it more progressive. Does this mean that the PRSI income ceiling is being abolished and can it mean anything other than that? The section on social welfare makes a commitment to further broaden the scope of social insurance. Can this mean anything other than an extension of the top rate of PRSI to teachers, gardaí, prison officers, public servants of all sorts negativing any progress they might make through lower income tax bands?
What magic formula has been discovered to enable the Government to fund a £1 billion package of tax promises and expenditure cuts to achieve the objectives of this programme if the Taoiseach can assure the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party that none of the explicit measures which they fear are going to be taken? Where is the money going to come from?
Big business.
(Limerick East): I would like to have a full debate on this programme but I will confine myself to one further issue today and I ask the Minister for Finance to deal with it when he replies. Minister, are you a man or a mouse?
He has not made up his mind yet.
(Limerick East): How can the Minister diminish his high office and its position which is enshrined in the Constitution by allowing himself to be undermined by two of his Cabinet colleagues and by persons outside of this House.
Never.
(Limerick East): How can he sit idly by and agree to a policy which is driven by the political requirements of the Progressive Democrats and not by the needs of the people of this country? How can he agree to the detail of the next budget now when he does not yet know the outturn of the present failed budget, when he has no idea of the level of growth in the economy or of the tax buoyancy which he can expect on which to base the 1992 budget? Why does he participate in this charade and cede the functions of Government to the strident advocacy of persons outside this House, some of whom failed to be re-elected to this House?
The Ayatollah.
(Limerick East): We now have a Government and Government parties where, to quote W.B. Yeats, “the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The Government may survive today with this cobbled arrangement——
And tomorrow and the day after.
(Limerick East):——but they are finished. The Progressive Democrats are finished and Fianna Fáil are badly in need of a long period on the Opposition benches to recover their soul and restore their heart.
The issue we are addressing here today is one of confidence. We are asked to affirm confidence in the Government and in their management of the economy. The revised Programme for Government issued in the past few hours is an innovative and creative document agreed in a spirit of partnership by the two parties.
It sets out the economic and budgetary strategy for the next three years. I advise Deputy Noonan to get a copy and to buy a pair of glasses and perhaps he will then appreciate the parameters of the economic and budgetary strategy in the document.
If it is as good as the last one——
I did not interrupt anybody. When I set out on this road in 1989 I said in my budget speech that the level of income tax is a major disincentive to initiative and hampered the drive to increase employment. I pointed out then that in the interests of employment and equity the tax burden had to be reduced.
Those guiding principles have been applied in each of my subsequent budgets in 1990 and this year. That is what we were doing then and that is what we are doing now. It is my contention that the record of this Government speaks for itself. Unfortunately for the people sitting on the benches opposite their record, too, speaks for itself and the people of this country know all about their record. They remember that the very people who today have had the effrontery to put forward a motion of no confidence were the very same individuals who, over five years of pathetic indecision and mismanagement, brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy.
The facts and the dismal record of their period in government make it clear that their pretensions — or their aspirations to office have no credibility. I have to point out that Deputy Bruton has achieved some unenviable distinctions in his mercifully brief periods as Minister for Finance. One of those distinctions — worthy perhaps of the Guinness Book of Records— is that he never got an annual budget through the Dáil.
The other was that in 1986 he presided over the biggest budget deficit ever recorded in this country. It amounted to a staggering £2,145 million — and even that figure represented an overrun of £144 million on the intended target. Deputy Bruton, Deputy Spring and their colleagues in that very poor administration are hardly qualified to lecture us on economic management.
The Leader of Fine Gael is given to expressing concern about the national debt. He points out — quite rightly — that the national debt is a huge burden not only on this generation but on our children. I agree with him. What a pity then, that the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition, of which Deputy Bruton was a leading member, virtually doubled the national debt in their time in Government — and added some £1,000 million a year to the burden on the PAYE worker as a result. Credibility indeed.
Another prominent member of that administration was Deputy Noonan who is the Fine Gael spokesman on Finance. I have to say that Deputy Noonan displays some kind of consistency — the wrong kind. He consistently maintains the lack of responsibility on economic matters which was the hallmark of that Government. I visited Germany last week for discussions with the German Finance Minister and with German parliamentarians with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to seek amendments to proposed tax legislation which might as originally drafted damage the prospects of the International Financial Services Centre. The centre is a success story of which Fianna Fáil and indeed the whole country have a right to be proud. Despite the cynicism of the critics when it was established it has already attracted 180 projects including many of the biggest names in the international financial world.
Tax fiddles.
Deputy Carey will restrain himself.
You would expect that my mission to Germany would have the full support of all political parties here at home. That is the normal practice in most countries when an important national interest and valuable job opportunities are involved. That I am sorry to say was not the line taken by Deputy Noonan. Instead he issued a totally misleading statement calculated to pull the rug from under me. There can be no excuse for his blatant act of national sabotage and his blatant lack of responsibility towards our economic interests or towards the jobs and future job prospects at the centre. This is reckless behaviour from a man who is spokesman on Finance for the leading Opposition party.
That example of "top of the head" opportunism heedless of the consequences is, unfortunately, typical of his performance and that of his party; the "top of the head" response to any situation — regular calls for more and more spending and in the same breath a lecture on the need for tight fiscal control. This type of double-speak is not lost on ordinary people. They are far more intelligent and perceptive than Deputy Noonan thinks. They are wise to his double-speak.
Now let us coolly and calmly look at the facts on our management of the economy. The economy grew strongly for several years, most particularly last year. Our rate of inflation was reduced to one of the lowest in Europe. Our exchange rate is rock steady in the EMS. The trade balance has shown a healthy surplus for some years, mainly on foot of a strong performance in exports. Our strong trade balance has given us a substantial surplus in our balance of payments — one of the strongest in the EC.
What were the factors which led to the strong growth over 1987-90, which by any definition amounted to a boom period for the Irish economy? A favourable international environment clearly helped. However, the real transformation stemmed from our own better handling of our affairs in a number of crucial economic and financial areas. That transformation started the day Fianna Fáil returned to office.
First, we greatly improved our competitiveness. If there is one lesson which the past four years has taught us it is the importance of competitiveness to our economic performance. The pay agreement in the PNR gave us the kind of competitiveness gains that our employment needs require. At the same time, workers' real take home pay increased substantially aided by continuing tax reductions.
The importance of improved competitiveness cannot be overstated. We depend for jobs primarily on exports, on what we can sell abroad. By adhering to these moderate pay agreements, the Irish workforce has contributed and is still contributing greatly to progress. That moderation is especially important in the present difficult trading conditions.
This Government and their predecessor played a major part in the economic turnaround. We devised the overall strategy and persuaded the social partners to join in implementing it. We encouraged wage moderation by reducing income tax rates and improving the tax structure. We also maintained a firm stance of the exchange rate.
Since 1987, consistent policies have been implemented by this Government and their predecessor with the aim of creating more jobs. In the three years to April 1990 total employment rose by 40,000. That contrasts with a fall of 23,000 in the preceding three years under the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition. This increase in jobs between 1987 and 1990 took place despite the need to reduce the size of the public sector. Between 1987 and 1990, the number at work in the private non-agricultural sector rose by almost 70,000.
There was, of course, another important ingredient behind those achievements and this brings us back to the central theme of this debate. This special ingredient, this "Factor X" of recent Irish economic progress, was and is confidence — confidence among our own people at home and among investors from abroad.
The confidence of foreign investors in the strength of our economy was evident, and still is evident, in the £4 billion worth of Irish securities that they continue to hold, and also in the steadiness of the exchange rate. It was also evident in the narrowing of the differential in interest rates at home and abroad. The gap between Irish and German interest rates is now less than 1 per cent; a year ago it was 2 per cent and four years ago, when Fianna Fáil initiated our strategy for recovery, it stood at a massive 9 percentage points.
From the further narrowing in interest differentials this year, one can only conclude that the financial markets are not as worried as some of our domestic commentators profess to be. The judgment of international investors is thus in direct contrast with the nonsense that is being spewed out by the Opposition.
This year the startling pace of recent economic growth has faltered. It has faltered among our main trading partners as well, but despite the recession in some or our main trading partners, the fact is that our economic performance is holding up very well. Our inflation remains one of the lowest in the EC. This year we expect to see a balance of payments surplus equivalent to 3 per cent of GNP.
Manufacture output was 2.5 per cent higher in the first seven months of this year compared to the same period last year. The volume of exports increased by an estimated 4 per cent in the first seven months of this year with industrial exports performing even more strongly. The trade surplus exceeded £1 billion in this period. Excluding garage sales, the volume of retail sales has increased by almost 2.5 per cent in the year to June, a quite creditable performance.
I am particularly heartened by the recently published estimates of employment in manufacturing which showed an underlying increase in the second quarter of the year. The latest official figures published last Friday show that industrial employment went on growing even in the very difficult conditions of the first half of this year. In the first six months of this year, industrial employment was up by almost 1,500 or 0.7 per cent on the first half of 1990. Employment in manufacturing industry was up by 2,000 or 1 per cent.
Unemployment remains a most serious problem. We are acutely aware of the hardship and frustration for those directly involved and for their families. That is why the drive to grow our economy and thus generate lasting and viable jobs is and will continue to be our first priority. Naturally, unemployment also has serious effects on the public finances through higher spending on social welfare.
In contrast to the pattern over the first half of the eighties the rise in unemployment this year is not due to job losses. It has been due to a cessation, if not indeed a reversal of net emigration. It is not the result of a fall in employment. All the available indicators bear this out. The total at work will on average be higher in 1991 than in 1990. Indeed, some of the more dramatic increases in the live register this summer have been due to students temporarily signing on the live register because they could not get summer jobs abroad.
The Government have been attacked in this debate because of the increase in unemployment. I have not heard anyone across the floor make even one sensible suggestion as to how we might avoid this increase in unemployment, much less reverse it. We have set up the Task Force on Employment to draw on the knowledge, experience and ideas of all the social partners to produce new ways of reducing unemployment.
Our achievement in dealing with the public finances stands in stark contrast with the situation before we took office in 1987. In that context I am expecially concerned that several Deputies have referred specifically to the budgetary performance this year and implied that the budget was presented in the knowledge that the targets were unrealistic. Deputies Bruton and Noonan and many of their Fine Gael colleagues have, with their customary recklessness, suggested that we introduced a false and fraudulent budget. That is a contemptible allegation which casts an unacceptable and entirely unwarranted slur on the integrity of the Government and of the Department of Finance officials who prepared the forecasts.
I have explained on several occasions, beginning with my Budget Statement — that the budget was framed against a background of exceptional international uncertainty. Last January I noted that the favourable international environment was changing for the worse——
You took no precautions.
——and that the international slowdown would have repercussions on our growth prospects in 1991. Domestic growth was, therefore, more than halved in the budget projections, to 2.25 per cent as compared to the recent economic growth rate which had run at 5.6 per cent in 1989 and 6 per cent in 1990. That was, at the time, a realistic and prudent expectation.
The simple fact is that underlying international economic trends have been weaker than anticipated by my Department, of by the international agencies including the EC and the OECD or indeed by most of the leading stockbrokers. Even at this late stage, there are still conflicting assessments of the eventual growth outturn.
(Interruptions.)
Let us give the Minister a good hearing.
Deputies do not want to hear the facts. The truth always hurts. Germany, France and Italy have also been obliged to introduce corrective packages this year to restrict budgetary overruns. During this week, the half-year Exchequer returns in the UK indicate that rising unemployment and lower than expected tax receipts will result in very significant budget overruns. Some commentators estimate that the British outturn deficit could overshoot target by £2 billion or more. Do the Opposition spokesmen believe that the German, French, Italian and UK budgets are fraudulent?
The factors which have led to the emerging overrun on the 1991 budget target for the EBR are at this stage well known. The slippage has arisen under a very few heads and for reasons that are readily identifiable. For the most part, the drift can be put down to the fact that the international downturn has been even worse than could have been foreseen in the very uncertain climate at the start of the year.
There is no question of any loosening of the strict control of spending. We reduced the annual Exchequer deficit from £2,145 million in 1986 to £462 million last year, that is from 12.8 per cent of GNP to 2 per cent. The overruns this year will result in a budgetary EBR of close to 2.5 per cent, less than half the German rate. That is still a very far cry from the budgetary track record which we inherited in 1987. In addition, this dramatic turnaround in the national finances was achieved while, at the same time, we managed substantial reductions in income tax and VAT. In fact, of course, the actual EBR will be more than one percentage point below that level when the proceeds of flotation of Irish Life, an extremely successful flotation, are taken into account. Thus the actual situation is that Exchequer borrowing is set to decline in 1991 for the fifth consecutive year.
The trend in the debt-GNP ratio, which had increased rapidly over the early to mid-eighties to reach 131 per cent in 1987, has since been dramatically reduced. By the end of last year the ratio was under 110 per cent, and it will fall again this year. What we are witnessing this year is a disruption in the underlying budgetary trend. This disruption reflects the slow-down of domestic growth and the different external environment. This is not to minimise the difficulties I have to overcome in framing next year's budget. It is only to set 1991 in its proper context.
Discussions are taking place at official level with the social partners under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress consultative mechanism on a range of issues which have a bearing on next year's budgetary problems. I hope that from this process, proposals towards a satisfactory solution to our budgetary problems will emerge to which all interests represented will subscribe.
At the heart of the policies followed by this Government and their predecessors has been a concern to ease the overall burden of taxation and at the same time to bring about real tax reform in the interests of economic growth, job creation and social equity.
A central thrust of our policy has been to maintain sustained downward pressure on public expenditure as to enable us to do that. We did not, as had been the case in the past, and more especially from the opposite benches, look to the option, a misguided option of increased taxation to correct the budgetary position.
A large part of that increase in the tax burden through the early and mid-eighties came from income tax. The proportion of taxpayers paying at more than the standard rate increased from 11.5 per cent in 1980-81 to 44.1 per cent in 1987-88.
The key to our success lies in the firm management of expenditure that we introduced. Consider the record. Current Government spending increased from 41 per cent of GNP in 1980 to over 48 per cent in 1986. That trend was reversed from 1987. Current spending has been reduced from that 48 per cent peak to less than 40 per cent last year.
The message is clear. Tax reduction and reform requires prudent control of expenditure. That is the only sustainable policy, and that is the policy that has been followed by this Government and that has allowed reform to be achieved simultaneously with the reduction in the level of Exchequer deficits that prevailed over the early years of this decade. That is how we propose to proceed, so that we can continue to move steadily toward a more equitable, simpler and more economically efficient tax system through a widening of the tax base and lower rates of tax.
Since 1987, both the standard and top income tax rates have been cut by six per centage points, the top VAT rate has been cut by four points. Income tax allowances and rate bands have been increased and tax reliefs for low paid families have been dramatically improved. Over the same period our restrained approach to excise duties has brought our rates much closer to UK rates and the requirements of the single market.
Reform in the corporation tax code over the past four years has more than doubled the yield from that source. Revenue from capital taxes also has been more than doubled.
Far reaching reforms and improvements have been made also in the tax administration system. These include self-assessment, current year assessment for the self-employed, power of attachment on tax defaulters and a radically improved system of tax enforcement. Under the reviewed programme announced today a comprehensive series of measures will be promoted to effectively tackle unemployment and ensure greater equity and social justice.
The reviewed programme stresses resolute adherence to the Government's medium-term budget targets. There will be no deviation from the budget discipline which has been central to the economic achievements of recent years. To this end the EBR will not exceed 1.5 per cent of GNP in 1993. In successive budgets we delivered extra cash increases, significantly ahead of indexation to families on lower welfare rates in the interest of social equity. Deputies will also be aware that despite the budgetary difficulties this year, arrangements are being made to pay a Christmas bonus to all long term social welfare beneficiaries at a cost of £28 million.
(Limerick East): On a point of order, with the agreement of the House I wish to propose an extension of the time available to the Minister.
I am sorry Deputy.
(Limerick East): The Minister has dismissed the programme in two paragraphs.
Deputy Noonan, the procedure in this House has been determined by the Dáil this week. The Minister should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
(Limerick East): But it is with the agreement of the House.
The Deputy is wasting time.
Deputy Noonan, resume your seat, please. Deputy Noonan is of set purpose and is seeking to frustrate the business of the House.
(Limerick East): I would like the Minister to explain the programme in the House——
Deputy Noonan got a good hearing and he should accord the same good hearing to the Minister.
(Limerick East):——it costs over £1 billion and the Minister——
Deputy Noonan, resume your seat forthwith.
(Limerick East): This is outrageous.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): We will give the Minister until 6 p.m.
I will send the Deputy a free copy of the programme if he wants it.
Try to control your Fascist——
Deputy Noonan is being totally disorderly. The Minister for Finance without interruption.
The Deputy has just wasted three minutes of my time.
We have recorded notable successes in the discussion so far on economic and monetary union, in particular in blocking what would, in effect, have resulted in a two speed union. Quite recently the current presidency proposed a procedure for the passage to the final stage of the European monetary union under which those member states who met certain criteria would proceed by themselves to European monetary union while other member states would be kept outside until they fulfilled these conditions. On behalf of the Government I vehemently opposed this proposal for a two speed Community, and, with the support of like-minded colleagues, succeeded in having it quashed. The procedure now under discussion in the conference is one which is much more in keeping with the spirit which has informed the development of the Community up to now.
Moreover, I was a prime mover in ensuring that the crucial subject of economic and social cohesion was put on the agenda of both intergovernmental conferences. In January last, I presented a well argued position paper together with proposed Treaty amendments to both Conferences. My initiative is clearly reflected in the draft Treaty texts which are under discussion.
Our economy had not gone into reverse this year, as some contributors to this debate have suggested. Indeed what has happened here is no more than what has been happening to our trading partners. Indeed our results this year will be more in line with the average of what is happening across the EC. That is real evidence I suggest of the potential and good foundation for growth when the international recovery commences. The international experts in the OECD and the European Community forecast that the recovery should begin during the second half of this year and strengthen in 1992. We are engaging in bilateral discussions with the social partners with a view to keeping our house in order and to make sure that we can take full advantage of the opportunities that will arise when the recovery gets under way. On this side of the Chamber, we live in the real world. On the other side of the House they live in cloud cuckoo land.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Bruton, for example, says he will not be part of a Coalition with Fianna Fáil unless his party are in the majority and he will become the Taoiseach. When is that going to happen? I suggest, never.
He will be Taoiseach before you, Minister.
Who is he kidding anyway? Himself obviously. I regret to have to suggest that he will remain on the Opposition benches or as he suggests himself, on the shelf, continuing to gather dust.
The Minister has not the guts to tell Deputy Charlie Haughey to stand aside.
In cloud cuckoo land, one does not have to address real issues, provide real leadership or come up with real alternatives, all one has to do there is to posture and point the finger. I have no fears whatsoever on that score. As far as I am concerned I go along with my colleagues in Government. I wish to put it on record that at all times I carried out my duties in a totally impartial manner in every Department in which I served.
At the heart of the allegations now under investigation there is the question of trust. Trust, and the integrity and sense of public duty of individuals is the only basis I suggest on which our system of Government can work. That same sense of trust is essential in every business. That is why the serious breaches of trust, which appear to have occurred, must be rigorously investigated. I know and share the anger and dismay of the man and woman in the street following these events.
I expressed my strong feelings, shared by every member of the Government, on these matters early in September. I repeated that view subsequently many times in the public arena. I said there would be a thorough investigation and that the facts would be fully disclosed, that nothing would be swept under the carpet and if heads had to roll so be it.
The Government have acted promptly in initiating the most searching inquiries and examinations into these allegations but we are also concerned to ensure that the things which have been alleged cannot happen again. The Secretary of my Department has just completed, at the request of the Government, a report on the principles governing the relationship between Departments of State and State bodies under their aegis together with subsidiary and associated companies of the bodies in question. This examination was designed to ensure that (1) the traditional standards of integrity and conduct which are appropriate to the public service are maintained, and (2) the interests of the community and the State, as owners of these bodies, are taken fully into account in their operation.
Among the questions examined were tendering for contracts; the monitoring of acquisitions, reporting and accountability. Together with my Cabinet colleagues I will be examining the findings of this report very closely with a view to preparing and implementing updated guidelines for State-sponsored bodies.
There is a responsibility on parliamentarians at a crisis time not to be cheaply opportunistic. No matter what side of the House one is on, one has to hold on to certain prime values. People are innocent until proven guilty. That does not change, just because there is the chance of a quick bit of publicity. Let me make it absolutely clear that those who may be guilty should face the consequences but only after their guilt is established. Nobody is above the law. What we have been witnessing, over the past few weeks, is more than a witch-hunt. It is a feeding frenzy. These allegations tarnish our country's image. Prospects for investment and for jobs will have been damaged.
The Opposition too have serious responsibilities in these matters. They should stop acting like unsupervised children around a halloween bonfire; never mind who or what gets burned or who gets hurt — build it higher, make it hotter, listen to the crackling, feel the heat on your face. But, let me make it clear, right now.
That is the last of the testimony of Deputy Charlie Haughey and Deputy Dessie O'Malley.
Deputy Sheehan please desist.
I do not accept most of what I have been hearing over the past few days from the Opposition as a fearless hunger after truth and justice. Most of it has been brazen, political opportunism and self-promotion. The reckless behaviour of the Opposition is in sharp contrast to the restrained and responsible attitude taken by Fianna Fáil when we were in Opposition at a time when the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition presided helplessly over a series of disasters. The mysterious evaporation of Irish Shipping——
Disasters — Deputy Lenihan going to America to undermine the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Listen to them. There was the Insurance Corporation of Ireland disaster; the collapse of Dublin Gas; the PMPA — an endless string of disasters all associated with those people.
Which Minister was running a private company?
We could have chosen to make political hay with those difficulties——
(Interruptions.)
Please, Deputy Farrelly.
We could have hounded out of office the Ministers responsible in those areas, and perhaps deservedly so. We did not choose to travel that road. Instead——
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister——
Could I suggest, a Cheann Comhairle, that we check the clock? Three minutes of my time was taken by Deputy Gilmore and two minutes by somebody else up there.
I am sorry——
An Opposition Deputy
You got injury time.
In accordance with the Order of the House——
I want to talk about power and the abuse of power which is being——
In accordance with the Order of the House I must announce the conclusion of the debate.
(Interruptions.)
This is a new start, a new beginning. It has been a tough week in Irish politics. Let us put it all behind us and start afresh in the interests of the ordinary people of this country.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 84; Níl, 81.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- 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.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 October 1991.