Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Dec 1991

Vol. 414 No. 10

Estimates for the Public Services (Abridged Version) 1992 and Summary Public Capital Programme: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Finance on 18 December 1991:

That Dáil éireann takes note of the 1992 Estimates for the Public Services (Abridged Version) and of the 1992 Summary Public Capital Programme."

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil éireann" and substitute the following:

noting that the 1992 Estimates for the Public Service and the 1991 Summary Public Capital Programme

(a) fail to provide for a number of commitments freely entered into by the Government including those on public service pay, the reduction of the pupil/teacher ratio at primary level, and an increase in Overseas Development Aid;

(b) provide for an increase in the daily charges for hospital patients of 25 per cent, representing a total increase of 50 per cent in 12 months, but do not include any specific commitments to assist the plight of the mentally handicapped and their families, despite the clearly established need in this area;

(c) will result in further reduction in capital expenditure on areas like public housing and the construction and equipping of primary schools;

(d) include no new initiatives to deal with unemployment, despite the fact that the Government estimates that the average jobless level in 1992 will reach 275,000,

calls on the Government to withdraw the Estimates and to redraft them in such a manner as will ensure that essential public services are re-established on a sound basis and to enable employment to be tackled by stimulating a more rapid rate of job creation.

—(Deputy De Rossa.)

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Daly)

It is important to note that, in the 1992 Estimate there is no provision at this stage for any increases in the rates of payment that might be granted in the forthcoming budget. Neither is there provision made in the Estimates for a 1992 Christmas bonus. In accordance with normal practice that will be decided later in the year. In order to understand how the net figures has been arrived at one should consider how the social welfare services are funded. The total social welfare expenditure is comprised of insurance-based payments, funded from the Social Insurance Fund, and assistance payments which are totally Exchequer-funded.

The Social Insurance Fund is financed mainly by PRSI contributions from employers, employees and the self-employed. The Exchequer makes up the balance to meet expenditure for the year.

Gross expenditure for 1992 is projected at £3,270 million compared with a projected outturn of £3,100 million in 1991. This is the amount required to finance and preserve all existing schemes and services, a huge amount of money by any standards. Each day of the year we spend nearly £2.6 million on the elderly, the same amount on the unemployed, around £2.3 million on family support, and over £1 million on the sick. The 1992 Estimates show the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund at £101 million which, though 33 per cent lower than the provisional outturn for 1991, is strictly not comparable with that figure for the reason I gave earlier.

The Exchequer makes up the shortfall between the income of the Social Insurance Fund — mainly PRSI contributions — and the expenditure on benefits. This is done through Subhead C of the Estimate. Included in the 1992 Estimates is increased PRSI income arising mainly from higher earnings next year and from indexation of the earnings ceiling.

Therefore the Estimates are not strictly comparable because the 1992 Estimates at this stage do not include provision for whatever budget increases may be granted next year or for a Christmas bonus. These will significantly change the position so far as the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund is concerned.

The 1992 Estimate for unemployment assistance shows an increase on the 1991 provisional outturn of 13 per cent. This is due mainly to three factors:— a higher projected level of recipients; the additional cost in 1992 of the 1991 budget increases, and an extra pay day in 1992.

The live register underlying the 1992 Estimate is 275,000.

Payment for more than 12,000 small holders is included in this allocation which is necessary to supplement the income of small farmers and their relatives.

The lone parent's allowance brings together means-tested schemes for persons bringing up children on their own. The categories covered by the scheme are: unmarried persons; separated persons; widowed persons and prisoners' spouses.

The 1992 Estimate for lone parent's allowance is up 14 per cent. This is due mainly to a projected increase in the number of recipients, particularly unmarried mothers, which, on present trends, are expected to increase from an average of approximately 20,200 this year to 22,650 in 1992. There is also an extra pay day for these recipients next year and, of course, the 1991 budget improvements will cost more because they will be in force for the full year in 1992.

The cost of the pre-retirement allowance is expected to increase very significantly in 1992 because of increased numbers. The scheme was introduced in March 1990 to provide more flexible signing arrangements for older unemployed persons. Initially, it was made available to persons aged 60 years or over. In April this year, the qualifying age was reduced to 58. Over 2,000 persons have availed of the extension. The total number in receipt of pre-retirement allowance is currently 8,300.

As well as increased numbers, other cost factors in 1992 include the carry-over of the 1991 budget improvements and an extra pay day.

The increase of 13 per cent on family income supplement is due mainly to the additional cost in 1992 of the improvements introduced in the 1991 budget. These included the abolition of maximum rates and increases in income limits.

The cost of the carer's allowance is expected to increase in 1992 by a very sizeable 68 per cent. This is due mainly to the extension of the scheme to persons caring for recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance with effect from the end of July this year. The additional recipients will be in receipt of carer's allowance throughout the whole of 1992 and this will add significantly to the cost of the scheme.

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme is administered by the health boards and caters for persons in need who do not qualify under any of the other social welfare scheme or who may be in receipt of an interim payment until their claims are processed. The cost of the scheme is financed by my Department by way of advances to the health boards. There has been a big increase in expenditure on this scheme in 1991 and the reasons for this are being examined. They mainly stem from the fact that unanticipated demands for rent and mortgage interest supplements, as well as interim payment claims, have greatly increased costs. The decrease of 4 per cent in the amount required in 1992 is due mainly to certain once-off arrears payments to health boards in 1991.

As in other areas of Government expenditure, it has been necessary to make certain adjustments in social welfare expenditure in 1992 in the light of the severe financial constraints facing the Government. The main thrust of these adjustments is to use social welfare resources more effectively and more efficiently.

The measures include the re-routing of short term sickness payments through the employer, thus facilitating the integration of short term sickness payments with the taxation system; better control of social welfare expenditure and a number of adjustments in schemes designed to achieve better targeting of resources at those most in need.

There are specific measures on which decisions have been taken by the Government and which will be given effect in legislation early in 1992.

The Government have decided that with effect from next April all weekly disability benefit and occupational injuries benefit payments will be treated as income for tax purposes. The mechanisms for implementing these arrangements are currently under urgent examination in my Department. It is envisaged that they will include a combination of a statutory sick pay scheme under which for an intial period — say four weeks — responsibility for sickness payments will be transferred to employers with an appropriate compensatory arrangement and, for claims in excess of four weeks duration, other arrangements will be made to integrate disability benefit with employers' payroll systems and with the taxation system generally. Some payments under the occupational injuries benefit scheme will also be rationalised.

Relevant aspects of the proposals will be presented to the central review committee of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress for discussion with the employer organisations. The necessary legal provisions will be included in next year's Social Welfare and Finance Bills.

Contribution conditions for receipt of social welfare benefits require claimants to have, in the first instance, a certain minimum number of paid contributions and, thereafter, a minimum number of paid or credited contributions in a recent contribution year.

At present people can be entitled to short term social welfare payments mainly on the basis of credited contributions and without any recent record or paid contributions. The Government have decided that, in the interests of better targeting of benefits, entitlement to disability and treatment benefits will be subject to a minimum number of paid contributions in the previous year. These arrangements will apply to new claimants only. Existing recipients will not be affected.

In line with the approach that schemes should be better targeted, the Government have decided that from April next persons earning in excess of £25,000 a year will not be entitled to treatment — dental and optical — benefit.

Legislation was introduced earlier this year in the Social Welfare Act, 1991, for the discontinuance of the `old' maternity scheme. The scheme has been largely superseded by the maternity scheme for women in employment which was recently extended to cover part-time working women. Arrangements are now being made to amend the scheme for women in employment in order to cater for a certain small number of working women who would otherwise not be covered by that scheme.

The Government are concerned with recent trends in relation to the claiming of unemployment benefit which is being used to top up voluntary severance payments and early retirement packages. Measures to control this development are currently being worked out. Details will be announced in next year's Social Welfare Bill.

As a further measure to target payments to those most in need, entitlement to deserted wife's benefit will be restricted where recipients have substantial earnings from employment in addition to their benefit. It is intended that the restriction would apply above the level of average earnings, that is around £12,000 a year. The details will be provided for in next year's Social Welfare Bill. This restriction will apply to new claimants only. Existing recipients will not be affected.

A series of control measures will be implemented during 1992 aimed at improved PRSI collection and the elimination of fraud and abuse of social welfare schemes. Considerable progress has been achieved this year, particularly in reducing PRSI-related fraud, and that progress will be continued into next year. The PRSI system is central to our policy of providing an adequate social welfare system and no abuse of any kind will be tolerated.

Nineteen ninety-one has been a further year of improvement in our social welfare services which demonstrates once again the Government's commitment to maintaining the value of social welfare payments. In the past 12 months, we have implemented the increases in weekly social welfare payments announced in the budget. They were: a general increase of 4 per cent; special increases of 11 per cent in short term unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance; a special increase of 6 per cent in long term unemployment assistance.

We have introduced improved payments for children through higher rate of child benefit for the 4th child onwards; minimum payment of £12 for each child dependant; child dependant allowances to continue up to age 21 for children in full-time education whose parents are on long term payments; made further improvements to the family income supplement which will be developed further as a central support mechanism for working families on low incomes; introduced pro-rata pensions for people who have a mixture of full-rate and modified rate contributions. I signed regulations to that effect recently.

We have also allowed recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance to retain their entitlement to free travel when they enter residential care. By virtue of having their free travel pass, they will also be able to avail of the "companion" pass introduced in 1990. We have reduced the age limit from 60 to 58 years for qualification for the pre-retirement allowance. Under the scheme, the long term unemployed aged 58 or over have the option of transferring to a pension book system which they can cash at their local post office. That avoids weekly attendance at their local employment exchange.

Another area of significant achievement in 1991 was in developing links with the voluntary social services sector. This support will be continued next year despite current financial restrictions.

A number of schemes are involved in this area. In 1991, £500,000 was made available to provide support and assistance to over 350 locally based women's groups. This scheme will be continued in 1992. In 1991, £750,000 was spent on community development programmes including six new projects in north Dublin, north Wicklow, Waterford, west Cork, north Mayo-west Sligo and Kilkenny. The programme will also be continued in 1992. In 1991, £750,000 was made available for this scheme of grants for once-off projects in the voluntary social services area. This year, 161 organisations were funded under the scheme.

All of the necessary preliminary work associated with the preparation of the charter for voluntary social services has now been completed. Proposals for consideration by the Government on a White Paper are currently being finalised.

The most significant and far-reaching development during the year was the launching of a regional management structure for my Department. This development represents a very important change in the way my Department delivers their services.

The new approach to delivery of services is being achieved through: developing the one-stop-shop concept which will provide a broad range of services at a local level; improving and modernising buildings and offices around the country; giving greater autonomy to regional and local managements; improving liaison with FáS to ensure the best possible mix of training and employment opportunities for the long term unemployed, and improving local information services.

Under the new regional management structure, the country has been divided into eight regions with a regional manager, supported by a small management team, in charge of each region. The regional management centres have been established in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Dundalk, Sligo and Longford. Regional managers will be responsible for the delivery of social welfare services in their regions. My Department's offices in those areas will be converted into one-stop-shops for all social welfare services.

A new social welfare services office was opened in Ennis in September 1991 which, as well as catering for unemployed people, also provides a range of services to pensioners, lone parents and other social welfare claimants. This brings to 11 the number of new offices opened since 1987. Work on a new office at Finglas, Dublin, has commenced and is due for completion in July-August next year. I am glad to report to the House that planning is proceeding for offices at Navan Road and Tallaght with a view to construction starting in October-November 1992.

As part of the decentralisation projects planned for my Department, new offices will also be provided in Longford, Kilkenny, Wexford and Dundalk.

A programme of improvements is also underway in our existing offices around the country. These include: a new fresh claims area which was completed in Waterford; a major refit of the Cavan office which is nearing completion and a new base for social welfare officers in Galway which is also nearing completion. In addition, a contract for an extension and refit of the Mullingar office has just been placed and work is expected to start in the New Year. Plans for major work at Carlow and Athlone are well advanced and work should start next year.

I have already referred to the continuing need to control expenditure in the social welfare area. Despite that constraint, we are committed to maintaining and improving our social welfare system and to making sure that special consideration is given to the most vulnerable sections of our society. Much has been achieved in recent years but there is much still to be done.

During my term in office, I intend to make a meaningful contribution to the development, consolidation and delivery of our services, particularly to those most in need. I want to ensure that our schemes and services are fair to our social welfare customers and at the same time that the taxpayer who pays dearly for these services gets value for money.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am particularly pleased that I am speaking in this debate after the Minister for Social Welfare because much of what I want to say relates to expenditure on social welfare and, in particular, to three aspects of it. The first is the almost complete lack of targeting. We do very little to zone in on those who are less well off so as to give them more assistance. Yet we give hundreds of millions of pounds to people who do not need it. Children's allowances are a case in point. For example, some very wealthy people get free telephone rental, free travel and free electricity allowances while many of those who are living in poverty do not get these allowances. That is one area I want to address at some length.

The second area relates to the creation of abuse and anti-social problems by our social welfare policy. I have in mind, in particular, the unmarried mothers' allowance. Far be it from me to attack the concept of the unmarried mothers allowance but the reality is that tens of thousands of young girls have been caught in this trap because if they get married they will lose this allowance. The Minister gave the alarming figure of a 14 per cent projected increase in the lone parents allowance next year. This is only one aspect of the problems created by our social welfare policy.

We also create problems by refusing to grant unemployment assistance to young unemployed persons who are living at home. These young people who are forced to leave home not only qualify for unemployment assistance but for a medical card and a rent subsidy. This costs the State a great deal more money as well as having the effect of breaking up families and creating problems in the rented housing sector by increasing demand and pushing up rents which, in turn, adds to the Exchequer cost as the rent subsidy has to be increased. This is just a flavour of what I want to say about expenditure on social welfare.

The third area relates to poverty traps. The Minister did not refer to this in his speech. The Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds causing poverty, trapping people in poverty and causing unemployment. Over the past four years I have written articles before the budget to show what the Government are doing. The table I produced last year shows that a married couple on unemployment assistance with four children already poorly off will be worse off if they take up a job on the average industrial wage. After the 1991 budget they would have been £23.08 worse off. That poverty trap has got wider over the past four years. I want to emphasise that people who are living on unemployment payments are living in poverty and are not getting too much. Yet if they take up a job on the average industrial wage — most people on social welfare will take up jobs on less than the average industrial wage — they will be a great deal worse off. How can we expect people who are already living in poverty to make their situation worse. This is a real problem.

It seems that Governments have difficulty in co-ordinating their policies. There is no Minister for employment. I plead with the Government to set up a Department for employment which would look at all aspects of Government policy and how they affect the workplace. The Minister for Social Welfare is doing one thing and the Minister for the Environment is doing another in terms of differential rents which affect the value of social welfare. The Minister for Health deals with medical cards while the Minister for Justice deals with the issue of civil and criminal legal aid.

People who are working have such deductions from their basic pay as PAYE, PRSI and occupational pension contributions. They also have to pay their transport costs to work plus an additional differential rent if they live in a corporation house, or a mortgage repayment if they live in a private house. They also have to pay their trade union contributions and minimum VHI cover. They do not get a Christmas bonus, a medical card, a family income supplement or a free fuel allowance. After all those adjustments, a couple with four children on the average industrial wage will have a disposable income of £118.75 this year whereas a couple with four children on unemployment assistance will have £141.83. These people are not well off. Not alone do the unemployed have to deal with the humiliation and depression of not working but they are trapped in this position because of the Government's failure to face up to a number of problems. As I said, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent in causing unemployment and poverty.

Over the past four years I have pleaded in this House — when I was in Government I wrote a memorandum to the then Minister for Social Welfare on this issue — for the introduction of a single means test. At present there are something like 17 means tests. As I have said before, the Minister for Health heard me talking about this only last week, we degrade those who lose their jobs and are on social welfare by putting them through the hoop 17 times for their entitlements. Most of the means tests involved different criteria and all a great deal of official time.

Three or four years ago, when Mr. MacSharry was Minister for Finance the Government set up an interdepartmental committee to look at the idea of having one national eligibility test. I urge again that this be brought about so that people will not have to go to 17 different offices, sometimes 17 expensive bus journeys away, but will be able to go to the local health centre to be assessed for means. I would urge also that any certificate granted be valid for the next year even if there is an improvement in means in the intervening period because that is one of the factors that comes into play when a person is offered a job. He has to ask himself if he will be better or worse off, if he will lose his medical card, if he will lose his rent subsidy, if he will lose help with his ESB bill. I urge those two points for the reason I have given and because officials based locally would have local knowledge and this would minimise abuse of the system. If people did not have to give up these benefits as soon as they got a job they would not be discouraged from improving their lot.

Another thing I would urge is that the means test be based on net pay rather than gross pay. It is absurd that somebody who is working should be ineligible for benefits on the basis that their gross pay is over the guideline when their take home pay is under the guideline. This is one of the greatest anomalies. It is one of the things that is causing unemployment and encouraging the black economy. People are forced to abuse the system. They are forced into poverty or to staying in poverty. It is the Irish equivalent of the Indian caste system. India is a poor country. I was there and I was appalled by the poverty. I do not see Indian poverty ever being relieved because no matter how good they are they cannot rise above their caste. Our social welfare system is just like that. If people try to improve their lot legally, they will be worse off. So they are trapped in poverty and we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on that system. I therefore urge the idea of one means test a year, done locally and based on net pay. If a person's situation allows any improvement during the year in question, that should not be taken into account. A person should not lose his medical card or other benefits during that full year.

Another thing I would urge is that young people who are unemployed and living at home should get their unemployment assistance or at least a large proportion of it and should not be disqualified because of the means of their father or mother or other family members. This would be cheaper for the State because it would not force people out into private flats where they then qualify for rent subsidy, for medical cards and other benefits thus costing the State a fortune and breaking up families. Here are two areas where the State can remove anomalies, cut down on abuse and save hundreds of millions of pounds.

The third area of social welfare spending is the very delicate and very tricky question of unmarried mothers' allowances. The appalling revelation in the Minister's speech that we are budgeting for a 14 per cent increase in unmarried mothers' allowances in 1992 will shock the entire country. It would be wrong to make changes in unmarried mothers' allowances which did not provide for the girl who finds herself pregnant and in distress. However, it is equally wrong that we should continue a regime which traps young women and young men in an unmarried state when they want to get married, because if they marry they lose out. As this is a matter that needs to be handled very sensitively I suggest the setting up of an inter departmental task force to report within a short number of months to look at the social problems that the present regime is creating and avoid adversely affecting those who really need and deserve the assistance of the State at a time of crisis in their life without creating all the anomalies that are so evident. As public representatives we know there are thousands of unmarried couples living together while the woman is in receipt of unmarried mothers' allowance. I know that theoretically cohabitation is a disqualifying factor but the present regime leads to that abuse. It leads to other social problems. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to consider setting up an interdepartmental task force which would consult with the Council for the Status of Women and other interest groups on how to address this problem.

When I went to study the social welfare system in Great Britain about two years ago I was very surprised to discover that they do not have an unmarried mothers' allowance. Nor is there one in Northern Ireland. I am sure the country will be shocked to hear that. In Great Britain a single parent is considered on means just like other unemployed applicants.

The one thing single parents here must not do is to take up a job because they would lose the single parent allowance. That is another poverty trap, another anti-marriage trap. We are now providing something close to £130 million under this heading alone for next year at a time of crisis, at a time of poverty. The present unmarried mother's allowance is not means tested. It is an endless commitment, not confined to one, two or three years. This does not make sense. It means that if a girl gets to the stage where she wants to marry she loses that and is worse off, and she probably loses her medical card and lots of other things as well. It is a trap. I am not asking that the payment itself or the gentle, caring consideration of single mothers be abandoned. That would be absolutely wrong and very much against all I believe in. However we should not be stupid. We should not force young women or young couples into poverty traps or into anti-marriage traps. At the same time, by bringing about the improvements I suggest we could save the Exchequer a lot of money.

The main point I want to talk about is the appalling unemployment figures and the irrelevance of this House in regard to them. At the moment our unemployment figure is 264,800. Add to that 11,229 on pre-retirement allowance and credits who used to be on the register and the figure goes up to 276,000. If we add those who are on social employment schemes and on FáS training courses it goes up to 300,000. In the last seven years 188,000 people net have emigrated from the country. I checked these figures this morning with the Central Statistics Office. Leaving aside social employment schemes and FAS and adding the 188,000 people who left the country to the 276,000 who are now registered as unemployed we have an appalling figure of 450,000 unemployed. That is close to 39 per cent of our workforce.

This is not a failure of the Government but of society. To extrapolate the problem ahead, our workforce is increasing at a rate of 30,000 per year. In nine years time, at the end of this century that is 270,000 people. This doubles the present register of unemployed without taking emigration into account at all. We clearly cannot sustain this. It is an emergency. Words like "emergency" and "crisis" are used far too often in discussions in this House.

There is a national emergency in relation to unemployment and emigration and that is why I called for a Department of Employment and a Minister. It is often asked what difference that would make; in Britain when they created a Department of Employment, in the following five years unemployment fell by 44 per cent. It was not just because a Department of Employment had been created, economic growth obviously helped, but also that the Department of Employment looked at employment and the workplace and implemented policy changes. For instance, they decided that means testing for State benefits would be levied on net pay, not take-home pay. They also started the process of reducing income tax so that the value of gross pay was higher.

I appeal to the Government to accept the offer of this side of the House to set up an employment forum, similar to the New Ireland Forum on Northern Ireland. We need such a forum because some of the measures which will have to be taken will be politically difficult for any one party. Measures will only be put in place if we all agree the necessary changes.

In a recent article in The Irish Times Deputy Garret FitzGerald highlighted the fact that economic growth in Spain and Portugal, although less than in this country over the past ten years, created more jobs than had been created here. He called for a study into the reasons for economic growth not creating jobs. It is central to the problem facing the country to create a Department of Employment and to accept Fine Gael's proposal for an all-party forum on unemployment as the Estimates are being increased by the ever-growing unemployment figures.

Minister for Health (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I listened with interest to Deputy Jim Mitchell's contribution. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on the Department of Health where, despite a particularly difficult financial climate, the Government have been careful to ensure that there will be sufficient resources for an efficient, responsive health service in 1992. To this end we have allocated a gross total of £1,748.003 million to the health services next year, representing an increase of £95.8 million, or 5.8 per cent over the health expenditure outturn for 1991. When account is taken of Appropriations-in-Aid, the net vote for the health services in 1992 will be £1,529.003 million.

By far the most significant element of health spending is the non-capital element. The Government non-capital provision for the health services has increased by a total of £86.709 million, which is 5.4 per cent higher than the non-capital outturn figure for the year just ending. This underlines our commitment to protecting and, where possible, carefully developing, our health services in a time of severe financial constraints. A smaller but very important component of health expenditure is the amount allocated each year for capital purposes. I am pleased to remind the House that the total capital provision for health services in 1992 will be £43 million, which is slightly higher than last year's figure. This will enable us to meet our priority commitments and proceed with the planned development of selected community-based and hospital services.

On the question of the Tallaght Hospital, I want to put on record the Government's commitment to the provision of a hospital to cater for the people of that area. Tallaght and its hinterland have a population of about a quarter of a million people. In the context of the restructured health services in the Dublin area it is essential that Tallaght, as one of the five new areas, should have adequate hospital facilities. To this end, I am taking two initiatives: The recommendations made by the Dublin Hospital Initiative Group, chaired by Professor David Kennedy, played a key part in the Government's consideration of the new structures to be put in place in the Dublin area. I, therefore, as the first of these initiatives, met Professor Kennedy and his group yesterday and I formally requested them to consider the most appropriate way of providing hospital services for this area including possible funding mechanisms, and to report to me within six months; the second initiative I intend to take is to meet immediately after Christmas with the Tallaght Hospital Board and with all the many groups in that area who have a keen interest in the early provision of hospital services.

The Estimate will make it possible to: maintain acute hospital services at approved 1991 levels, with a continuing availability of 12,000 beds; fund a number of hospital developments commissioned in 1991, notably those at St. James's Ardkeen, Wexford, Sligo, and the acute psychiatric unit at Naas; and——

Mr. Durkan

I thank the Minister for that.

Mrs. O'Rourke

——undertake a number of very important improvements in services, in both hospitals and the community.

While this is, of course, a very satisfactory prospect, and one which I am glad to report, I must emphasise that it will continue to be necessary for all agencies to manage their affairs very tightly, so that the agreed objective are achieved without incurring any excess expenditure. I must also, of course, acknowledge that despite the significant increase in resources they will not be sufficient to meet all the needs which agencies have brought to the attention of my Department.

I have made provision in these Estimates for the further development of services for persons suffering from AIDS or from the HIV virus and I intend to give particular priority to this during the coming year. The new National AIDS Strategy Committee (which I announced recently at the conference in St. Brendan's Hospital to mark World AIDS Day) and which I myself will chair, will have its first meeting tomorrow.

The Estimates have made provision for the following measures in particular: the appointment of a second consultant in this specialty on the north side of Dublin, to complement the services already provided in St. James's Hospital. This new post will be filled early in 1992; additional hospital beds will be provided, as needs arise, to care for acute phases of the condition; funding will be provided for health education programmes in the media, in schools and at community level; there will be additional funding for community-based services including services provided by the voluntary agencies; and there will be additional funding for services aimed at drug misusers.

I am very concerned at the waiting lists for services in the mental handicap area, and in my statement in the Dáil on 11 December I make it clear that I intended to make the development of mental handicap services one of my main priorities. The Estimates for 1992 will enable me to provide: more residential and day places to meet the needs of urgent cases on the waiting-lists; additional respite facilities to assist family carers; and emergency residential services for circumstances in which family caring arrangements break down suddenly.

The Estimate provides for a wide range of urgently needed service developments in a number of acute hospitals throughout the country. In the Eastern Health Board area, funds are being provided to enable a new phase of St. James's Hospital to be brought into service immediately. This major new 279 bed facility, involving a capital investment of approximately £70 million will replace sub-standard accommodation on the St. James's site. It will also provide a new suite of 11 operating theatres, a new burns unit and a coronary care and intensive care unit. Funds will also be allocated to develop the national neurosurgical unit in Beaumont Hospital. This will involve the appointment of two new neurosurgeons, who will be taking up duty in early 1992.

A new special unit for oncology patients has recently been built at Crumlin Children's Hospital. Special funding will be allocated to enable the unit to be brought into full service during 1992. Funds are also being provided to enable cardiology services at Crumlin Hospital to be expanded by the appointment of a second paediatric cardiologist. The metabolic unit at Temple Street Hospital provides the national screening service for the detection of PKU and other metabolic disorders in newborn infants. Because of the increasing demands on the service, additional funds are being allocated to allow for expansion.

Funds are also being allocated to expand orthopaedic services at Cappagh Hospital and to improve oncology and anaesthetic services at St. Vincent's Hospital, Elm Park. The Government will also allocate funds to facilitate a gradual increase in cardiac surgery activity in Dublin.

In the South Eastern Health Board area funds are being allocated to enable further phases of the major new 470 bed Ardkeen Regional Hospital in Waterford to be brought into service during 1992. This major new facility costing some £60.5 million involves the transformation of an old dispersed sanatorium building into a 21st century hospital.

Apart from enhancing those services these excellent new facilities incorporate a wide range of additional services including a new geriatric assessment unit, a new coronary care unit, and new departments of dietetics, speech therapy and occupational therapy. There will also be a major expansion in operating theatre facilities and in the radiology department.

Funds are being allocated to enable a range of facilities at the new Wexford General Hospital which cost some £13 million to build to be brought into service immediately. The additional services include a new surgical department. The new hospital also includes new operating theatres and recovery area, together with new radiology, out-patients and casualty departments and the provision of a specialist paediatric service for the Wexford area.

In the North-Western Health Board area, funds are being allocated to enable the new Sligo General Hospital, which cost £30.5 million to build, to be brought fully into service during 1992. Additional funds are being provided to facilitate the commencement of an in-patient orthopaedic service at Letterkenny General Hospital. In the Midland Health Board area, funds are being allocated to expand specialist services at Tullamore, General Hospital.

In the Mid-Western Health Board area, funds are being allocated to implement service improvements at the Limerick Regional Hospital and at Croom Orthopaedic Hospital. These are further examples of the Government's approach to a planned and careful response to emerging health needs throughout the country.

In the Southern Health Board the Government are allocating funds to expand specialist services at the Cork Regional Hospital and also at Tralee General and the South Infirmary/ Victoria Hospitals. An additional cardiac surgeon post is being approved at the Cork Regional Hospital to reduce the present waiting list for heart surgery. Improvements will also be implemented in the board's orthopaedic services.

In the Western Health Board area, the Government are allocating funds to improve ENT services at University College Hospital, Galway and in the NorthEastern Health Board area, we are making funds available to develop ENT services for the region.

Shortly after taking up office I met the chairperson and director of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. I confirmed to them the availability of the £100,000 previously committed by my predecessor and we discussed the centre's development needs in 1992. I am now glad to be able to confirm an additional £52,000 for the centre in 1992, on top of the £100,000 already agreed. Of the additional £52,000, £25,000 is by way of further funding from my Department and the balance consists of services to the value of £27,000 which will be provided by the Eastern Health Board. In addition, the Government are providing further funding to the rape crises centre in Clonmel, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterfod to bring their funding per centre up to £25,000.

I should like to put on record that I am very pleased that we have been enabled to take a very careful look at the fine work which is being done in the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and, indeed, in the other rape crisis centres throughout the country. Following the anouncement which I have made here today, I intend to visit the various centres and to talk to the many fine people there, both professional and voluntary workers to work out with them a planned programme for their necessary work and for the support and succour they give to so many women throughout the country.

Provision has been made in the Estimates for the payment of £6 million to haemophiliacs, in accordance with the agreement which was reached earlier this year with their representatives and recently approved by the High Court. This brings to £8 million the total amount which has been made available to help this group.

In regard to the liver transplant programme, my Department entered into a formal agreement earlier this year under which public patients from this country have surgery at the King's College Hospital in London. Under the agreement, Irish medical and nursing staff are being assigned to King's College Hospital to receive training and experience so that a liver transplant programme can be re-established in Ireland as soon as possible. The Government are providing funds to St. Vincent's Hospital, Elm Park, and Crumlin Children's Hospital to facilitate the eventual resumption of the programme in this country.

On the capital side, Deputies will be aware that, as I noted earlier, my Department's allocation for 1992 is £43 million. This level of allocation gives some scope for starting new building projects such as the continuation of development projects at Ardkeen Hospital, Waterford, Sligo General Hospital, the Rotunda Hospital and for the commencement of construction of an important extension to St. Luke's Hospital, Kilkenny. This much needed extension has been sought for a long time. I pay tribute to the excellent staff who work in St. Luke's Hospital and who have for so long worked in unsatisfactory conditions. The Government are particularly pleased that the commitment which was given last year is to be implemented and that the formal award of the contract will be announced in the first few days of January. After that has been done, I hope to visit the hospital and to meet with all the people who work here and with the patients also.

We have also been able to provide for the development of the laboratory and psychiatric unit at the Mater Hospital, and the bone marrow unit at St. James's Hospital. There will also be a number of minor hospital improvements at different locations around the country. Provisions will be made for final account payments for a number of ongoing projects, the purchase of urgent replacement equipment and a number of urgently required fire precaution and asset renewal schemes.

In line with the recommendations contained in the report on the development of our psychiatric services "Planning for the Future", the policy of diverting capital resources towards the psychiatric services will be continued in 1992 as resources permit. Hostels, day hospitals, day care facilities and other community facilities are envisaged. I am pleased to tell the House also, that a new mental health centre will be built at Longford in 1992 and construction work will also commence on a new centre for autistic persons at St. Vincent's Hospital, Fairview.

In the case of services for people with physical and mental handicap, the Government will ensure that the available capital funds will be concentrated on the provision of the community services necessary. For example, a capital contribution will be made towards the cost of providing new Cheshire Homes at Monkstown and Sligo and capital funding will also be provided for a new acute unit and residential accommodation for mentally handicapped persons at St. Vincent's, Navan Road.

On the community health side, the building work on the major new health centre at Shannon will be continued and investment will be made in a number of other areas, including the fluoridation of water supplies around the country. The Government have also decided to make funding available for various community welfare projects such as the provision of an AIDS centre in Dublin and for projects in the child care area, including one in Cork.

We have been able to make a start in the task of creating a viable infrastructure for community-based service for the elderly and we will press ahead with our plans. I believe that within the general budgetary constraints faced by the country as a whole, these are very significant and worth-while developments.

The public hospital in-patient charge applicable to non-medical card holders, currently £12.50 per day, will be increased to £15 per day. I am making the announcement in the House so that there will not be cries afterwards that I sought to evade the issue.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister should never have announced it at the same time.

Mrs. O'Rourke

This is a small but essential increase in the contribution. The overall health budget is remarkable in the circumstances. Deputy Ferris and everyone in the House knows that despite the very difficult circumstances appertaining at present, the Government have very clearly nailed their colours to the mast with regard to health services.

Mr. Ferris

This group are paying twice.

Mrs. O'Rourke

This is a small but essential increase in the contributions made by patients in public hospitals, and medical card holders will continue to be exempt. Other exemptions include women receiving services in respect of motherhood, children up to six weeks of age, children receiving treatment for certain long term conditions, children referred from child health examinations and persons suffering from infectious diseases. It is important to note — and I have insisted — that charges will not be levied in any other cases where the hospital is satisfied that hardship would result; patients who would otherwise be liable for the charge may be granted a waiver. Deputies will also be aware that it is possible to insure against the charges under a low-cost VHI plan.

In the time available today, Deputies will appreciate that it has only been possible to give a general overview of how my Department's 1992 Estimate has been framed in the context of the broad Estimates position. However, I look forward to dealing with issues relevant to the Health Vote in much greater detail when my Department's 1992 Estimate is taken by the Dáil in the next session and, indeed, in many other debates which will take place in Private Members' time, Dáil Questions and various other arenas.

I would like to conclude by saying that despite the overall budgetary situation the Government have clearly recognised the need to make significant additional funding in real terms available to the health services for the development of key areas. While the demands on resources are considerable, the Government's response must be seen as a major commitment to the steady improvement of our health services.

I must make clear, however, that the benefits which this increased spending will yield must be maximised. Initiatives at present under way in improved efficiency, in the development and application of value for money techniques and in management strategies must continue so that our health services can give the best service possible to the patient — which is the ultimate test of any health service.

I commend the Estimates to the House and thank the Chair and the House for the opportunity to speak on them. I look forward to this job and, despite some testy debates, I look forward to a strong thread of co-operation and continuity in the way we deal with health matters in the Dáil.

Mr. Durkan

I am sure the Minister will get the degree of constructive co-operation necessary from all sides of the House in dealing with health. That co-operation is forthcoming with regard to all Government Departments. It is our responsibility to co-operate, particularly at a time of economic crisis.

I was glad to note the Minister's commitment to Nass Hospital, as it is in my constituency. I ask the Minister to have regard to the second and third phases of development of that hospital which are tied to the Tallaght hospital development programme. These phases are essential in providing an integrated health service in County Kildare and the back-up or "in tandem" facilities with the Tallaght hospital. I say that in the knowledge the the Minister is fully aware of the situation and will be keeping a watchful friendly eye on proceedings.

The health services generally have always been dominated by experts. In the past it has been difficult to make changes in those services. It would not be any harm to make a thorough review of thinking in the health services. I draw the Minister's attention to the orthodontic services in the Eastern Health Board region. There is a nationwide problem in regard to orthodontics and it is getting worse. It is appalling that people who qualify for the service, who have medical cards, find that their children cannot gain access to what is a highly specialised and important service. In the Eastern Health Board the consultant orthodontist may resign. Since I became a member of that board ten or 12 years ago there has been a crisis in relation to orthodontics. I hope the new Minister will deal with the problem so that we will not have to continuously appoint new specialists to fill the vacancy which recurs every year or so. There cannot be a proper follow-up in a service of that nature, it becomes disjointed.

In my brief comments on the issues facing the country I will keep in mind the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Health, whose brief I could only refer to briefly, and the Minister for Social Welfare who has spoken and with whose contribution my colleague, Deputy Mitchell, dealt at length. Our huge unemployment problem is getting worse. We are only dealing with the symptoms of the problem and not the source. We need to reappraise what has gone on over the past few years to see where we have gone wrong, how and why. Then we should tackle the problem at source rather than trying to deal with the end product, the vast number of people who are unemployed.

The economic Departments such as Agriculture and Food and Industry and Commerce, will have to accept responsibility for providing job opportunities. The problem is much more serious than people realise. There is nothing I or anybody can see on the horizon which is likely to solve the problem or attempt to do so at source. As I said in a debate two weeks ago, we have the highest rate of unemployment in the Community, yet we do not seem to be able to capitalise on the benefits or perks available to us as members of the club. It is not good enough to say over and again that Ministers and deputations have gone back and forth to Brussels to listen to the finer points of Eurospeak in which they tell us in a variety of ways that we have a nationwide problem or a European problem. There are ways of resolving the problems.

We are not getting our fair share of the investment available in Europe for one reason or another. We are part of Europe. If an investor from Japan, Korea or the US considers investing in Europe, first he looks at the market and the workforce. We have the workforce. We are in Europe, admittedly on the western fringe, but that does not preclude us from gaining access to markets on the Continent. Japan is an island and they do not seem to have any problems. I tabled a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce asking for an indication of the proportion of new industrial investment this country achieved in comparison to that achieved by our European partners. The information was not available because the Minister did not have responsibility. That vital information should be examined if we are to improve our position. If we do not do that shortly, unfortunately, the young generation who form a large proportion of our population will become more and more sceptical.

There are indications that young people are taking little interest in politics because the political system does not seem to be able to tackle the problems that directly affect them. I can understand why they feel annoyed, frustrated and upset. It behaves us to attempt to address the problem, and not wait until we are facing a crisis. We need to change our tactics and tackle the problem. In regard to agriculture, for example, we have what is known as the review of the Common Agricultural Policy taking place.

I should say initially that everyone worldwide recognises that the Common Agricultural Policy pursued by the European Community had to be changed because it was unworkable. It costs millions and billions of pounds and ECUs to store food in intervention. Indeed, it would cost less to give it away than store it over a period of time. It should also be remembered that at this moment there are people strarving all over the world. In Europe but outside the Community there are serious food shortages. It takes so much time and energy to unravel this bureaucracy that it is almost inaccessible. That is a sad reflection on the European system and on our ability to deal with crises of that nature. After all, we can fight wars and deliver bombs and armaments all over the world very quickly in an emergency but it seems we cannot unlock the stores to deliver food quickly to those who badly need it. This matter should be addressed by our negotiators at European level during the next 12 months. I have no doubt that they have taken this matter up in the past and will continue to do so in future but the problem is getting more serious.

At the outset I referred to the attitude of young people towards public life and politics and their expectations in regard to what we can do for them. I know they should expect us to do things for them but there is an obligation on us to chart a course and lay down the foundation stone on which they can build and achieve their objectives to some extent and provide for themselves as opposed to the nation providing for them by way of unemployment payments. Our young generation, who are highly qualified and capable, are more than anxious to avail of any opportunities we create for them. If we cannot create them however there is no sense in us complaining and carping about the high cost of unemployment payments and so on.

I have said in the House before, and I make no apology for repeating it now, that, in relation to job creation, agriculture has vast potential and it is amazing we have no worthwhile national plan. There is a European plan, the purpose of which is to limit production, and a GATT plan which will not help farmers one iota but no national plan which lays out clearly defined objectives to enable us respond to the demands of consumers and identify those areas where jobs can be created. Such a plan does not exist and the Government will have to accept responsibility for this because the scene is changing. For that reason we need to address the problem quickly and effectively. We should use our imagination and flair and get away from the idea of bureaucrats telling us that we cannot do certain things because if we do we will impinge on someone's rights. We should attempt to resolve the problem and then talk about what will happen afterwards.

Similarly, in industry we are in a straightjacket in the sense that this is an island nation and we do not have ready access to the main markets in Europe unlike some of our partners on the European mainland, but that is no excuse and it does not stand up. It is now possible to travel long distances over a very short time using for example large ferries for which funds are available from the European Community. We should utilise the funds available for infrastructural development to create a worthwhile industrial base.

I am all for protecting the environment. This country could have a clean environment, be a lovely place to live or to visit on holidays but unless we provide jobs as a matter of extreme urgency there will be discontent, which is something an economy or a country cannot live with for too long.

A few weeks ago we dealt at length with the subject of the environment but at that time there were a number of matters which I did not have the time to address in regard to local authority funding. Let us be honest and admit that the system has long since broken down. It is not as if the legislation which was put in place years ago did not stand the test of time; it did but for a variety of reasons changes and modifications were made which has resulted in the system creaking and being almost unworkable in some instances.

I wish to draw the attention of the House particularly to the condition of our roads and the question of housing, two major problems in both town and country at present. One of the problems which comes up again and again in our clinics is housing. However we are not in a position to help because we cannot provide local authority houses as they were provided in the past. Again, the Government must accept responsibility for this. I am not making a political point but the fact is that more and more people now wonder where they are going to be housed with the result more and more people are being ushered into private rented accommodation. If they are unemployed they can seek assistance from the health boards, and while they will not be able to live in luxury they will at least have a roof over their heads. However, their difficulty is how to get out of this trap, the type of poverty trap which Deputy Mitchell referred to. If a husband and wife with two or three children living in rented accommodation are in receipt of assistance from a health board to help them pay their rent and so on they will just about survive for a period of time. However if either the husband or wife obtains a job, then straight away most, if not all, the subvention is withdrawn with the result that they find themselves in rough seas once again. They then have to provide for themselves and their family and think about where they are going to be housed because the landlord may well decide to sell the house or flat, when they will find themselves out on the road.

The social housing programme announced by the Minister a year ago has been an abysmal disaster. No imagination has been shown, and there are many things that should have been done since then. For instance, legislation should have been passed long ago. I accept that interim measures have been taken but, unfortunately, many people who had hoped to be in a position to provide themselves with their own houses have been disappointed. It was announced at the beginning of the year that 1,000 houses would be provided under this plan but they have yet to materialise. The Minister for the Environment must accept responsibility for the failure because it is up to him to bring forward the legislation. Equally, many people who have been seeking local authority housing have been disappointed. In each local authority area there are between 600 and 700 families seeking to be rehoused but it is unlikely that they will be accommodated because no houses are being built to meet that problem.

In conclusion, I assure the Minister sitting opposite me that he will receive our full support if he introduces any programme to tackle crime. The problem is becoming more serious as time goes on and it is not going to go away. One of the main reasons for the upsurge in crime — the Minister may not agree there is an upsurge — is that there are too many people who think there is a good chance that they will get away with it. Perhaps the system and our courts are cluttered up, our prisons are full and parents are not accepting responsibility but no excuse can be made for the hooliganism, albeit in isolated cases, which we have heard and read about in recent times when firemen and ambulance men were abused and stoned. That simply is not acceptable. Until such time as the perpetrators of such violent acts, including car thieves, recognise that as soon as they pursue such a course there is a very good chance they will be caught and will pay the price for it we will not solve this problem.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Burke)

Increased provision is being made in respect of each Vote within the Justice group for 1992. This is an indication of the Government's concern to ensure the protection of our citizens from wrong doers. Even at a time of economic difficulty we cannot afford to cut back on law enforcement. The primary duty of a Government is to ensure that people can live in peace and harmony, free from the fear of criminal attack on their persons or property. This is a duty that this Government takes very seriously indeed. I intend in 1992 to continue to pursue the aims which I set myself when I was appointed Minister for Justice in July 1989, that is to reform and up-date the criminal law; to support and strengthen the Garda Síochána and to enhance and improve the effectiveness of the penal system.

As the House will be aware, I have announced that a sum of £341 million is being provided in the Garda Vote in 1992 which represents an increase of 4 per cent on the provisional outturn for 1991.

There will be an increased emphasis by all the agencies under my aegis, especially by the Garda on practical measures to deal with crime problems being experienced in certain urban areas. The paramount right of law abiding citizens to go about their daily lives in safety and confidence will be safeguarded and underwritten in every possible way. A multi-disciplinary approach will be taken to the underlying problems of certain urban areas under particular pressure. This approach will be based, in part, on the advice of the recently established interdepartmental group of senior officials and gardaí which have already commenced their examination of the issues involved. Side by side with this examination, the Garda assessment of policing requirements in areas of greatest difficulty, will be updated on a continuing basis so that effective response can be provided as and when required.

The policy of increasing the number of civilians in Garda stations so as to release gardaí for outdoor duties, the work for which they were actually recruited and trained, will be pressed ahead and provision has been made for the recruitment of an additional 120 civilians of whom 70 will be clerical staff and 50 traffic wardens.

The neighbourhood watch and community alert schemes will be expanded in 1992 and a new business watch scheme will be introduced reflecting recognition of the fact that business premises of all kinds continue to be seen as a major and lucrative target by criminal elements. Arrangements will be made for regular contact between the business community and senior gardaí at local and national level; 1992 will see the release of a special Garda video for schools. The Garda schools programme already in place in Dublin and Limerick will be extended to Cork and Waterford and the special programmes for teenagers at risk will be continued in Southill in Limerick and in Coolock, Ronanstown and Killinarden in Dublin.

Some teething problems which have been experienced with the use of the computerised command and control system in Dublin will be dealt with and the matter, which involves certain industrial relations issues, will be examined as a matter of urgency by the Irish Productivity Centre. Arrangements to recruit a further 1,000 gardaí will proceed. Over 8,580 applicants sat the written test in September last and interviews of successful candidates from the test commenced earlier this month. The management of the force will be strengthened by the promotion of 214 members at various levels to vacancies arising during 1992.

The extremely successful community policing initiative approved by me last summer and put in place at 100 rural stations on 23 September is being fully reviewed at present. The scheme has involved a drastic reduction in the time spent by rural gardaí on routine administrative and form-filling tasks. The members of the force involved have been re-deploying on patrol duties, visits to the elderly, to schools and to community groups. The scheme has been very warmly received in the areas which benefit from it. One of the specific issues which will be examined following the review to which I have referred, in the matter of when the scheme will be extended to other areas.

Fifty extra gardaí were specially assigned to traffic duties in 1991, bringing the total specially assigned to 340. Seventeen clerical assistants were also assigned to release gardaí for traffic duties and ten more clerical assistants will be assigned to the Traffic Corps in 1992. Six additional in-car traffic camera units will be installed in 1992, bringing the total to nine and 30 new speed guns will be supplied to the force, bringing the total of these to almost 300. Extensive use of road checkpoints, of which there were over 10,000 per month over the past year, will continue in 1992. The number of road deaths up to end September 1991 compared with the same period in 1990 showed a drop of 13 per cent with the number injured down by eight per cent. However, the sad fact that over 300 people lost their lives on the roads up to the end of September 1991 shows that there are no grounds for complacency.

Violence against women will be the subject of specific attention by the law enforcement authorities in 1992. I will host a national conference on the subject in Dublin Castle next October which will be addressed by leading experts from the professions, women's groups and voluntary agencies. Senior Garda representatives, including the Garda Commissioner and senior management from relevant Government Departments as well as members of the Judiciary will attend.

There will be a complete review of Garda procedures for dealing with cases involving violence, including domestic violence against women and an examination also of investigation procedures. A review of Garda training on this subject, which has been ongoing for the past six months, will be finalised. Further important law reform measures will also be introduced following enactment last year of the rape Act. Violence against women is a criminal offence and once reported it must be investigated on the basis of the seriousness of the offence committed and the public interest. The desire not to exacerbate a difficult family situation will not deter the bringing of a prosecution where a violent crime has been perpetrated against a women.

A total of £88.1 million is being provided in the Prisons Vote compared with the provisional outturn in 1991 of £84.8 million. The provision being made for pay and overtime is £58.1 million compared with a likely outturn in 1991 of £57.827 million. The increase reflects the full year cost of 196 additional staff which were provided for in the 1991 Estimates and which have been recruited on a phased basis this year. It also reflects the provision which has been made for the bringing into operation in the autumn of the new health care unit at present being constructed within the grounds of Mountjoy Prison. This unit will have accommodation for 57 prisoners and will provide enhanced basic health care, short or full hospital treatment, for those who require it. Included in the provision is an allocation of £10.3 million for overtime. This reflects my objective of restricting overtime expenditure at about 18 per cent of the pay bill.

The events of the past few months have demonstrated a need to make special arrangements for prisoners intent on provoking unrest in the system. The majority of prisoners are satisfied to serve out their sentences in peace and to avail of a range of services in the system to help them cope with their sentences and to prepare for their return to the community. They can be frustrated in this by a small number of troublemakers whose only concern seems to be to create as much unrest as possible and to challenge the insititutions of the State. It is essential to identify these troublemakers and to separate them from the main body of prisoners if the prison system is to remain stable. For that reason, I have obtained Government approval to take over the military detention barracks at the Curragh for this group of prisoners. It has accommodation for 47 and will be operated exclusively by prison service staff without any input from the Army. A total of £1.5 million is being provided next year to cover necessary adaptation works and staffing costs. I expect the new prison to be operational by about the middle of the year and I am confident that it will make a major contribution to the stability of the prison system.

The total provision for the Probation and Welfare Service, including the community service orders scheme, is £8.6 million, compared with just over £7.5 million in 1991. This additional provision will ensure that the development of alternatives to custody for those whom the courts decide do not require prison custody will continue. Alternatives at present include fines and compensation orders, deferred and suspended sentences, and community service orders. At present, there are about 3,200 offenders under supervision in the community as an alternative to custody, of whom 750 are on community service orders.

Last year, I announced a new scheme for intensive supervision in the community of some 200 offenders at any one time who would otherwise merit a prison sentence. The idea was to recruit a total of 31 additional probation and welfare officers to operate the scheme and to provide a number of resource centres, principally in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, to service the scheme. By the end of this year 18 of the 31 officers will have been recruited and considerable progress will have been made with the provision of the resource centres. I am providing sufficient moneys next year to enable these arrangements to be completed as soon as possible so that the scheme can come into full operation before the end of the year. The process of up-grading and consolidating the prison building stock will also continue.

Work will start early next year on the renovation of the women's prison in Mountjoy which, when completed next year, will have the same level of facilities and services, including in-cell sanitation, as was provided this year in the D Wing of St. Patrick's Institution. In the meantime women prisoners are being accommodated in the D wing and, therefore, already have the benefit of much better physical conditions.

The adequacy of services provided in the prisons is kept under constant review and improvements made as necessary. On the recommendation of the Director of Prison Medical Services, I am providing additional moneys next year to improve the standard of medical care. The additional provision will enable general medical and psychiatric care facilities, including clinical arrangements, to be improved. I am also increasing the number of psychologists for the prisons from four to eight.

There is an overall increase in the provision on the Courts Vote of about 12 per cent compared with the provisional outturn for 1991. The principal areas that account for the increase are post and telecommunications services and office expenses. The general efficiency and operation of the courts is, of course, a matter of great importance and the Courts Vote provides the funding necessary to equip the courts to function as effectively as possible. Computerisation of manual operations is helping to improve the efficiency of the court service and I am glad to say that provision under the heading of office machinery is being increased in 1992. As well as enabling the existing systems to be supported the increase will provide for some development in new areas.

The increase in the provision will enable the service by recorded post of District Court summonses in cases of summary jurisdiction. This will be introduced on a pilot basis in the Dublin metropolitan area in 1992 and will relieve a number of gardaí of summons server duties and make them available for normal duty. The increased provision for office machinery will allow for the purchase of sorting equipment which will be required for the service of summonses by post.

The recent introduction on a pilot basis of the small claims procedure within the District Court structure provides for a quick and inexpensive forum for resolving disputes in certain circumstances where the claim does not exceed in value the sum of £500. Expenses such as those relating to publicity material in connection with the scheme will be met from the 1992 Courts Vote. I am pleased to be able to announce that the grant-in-aid to the Legal Aid Board for the purpose of administering the scheme of civil legal aid and advice is being increased again in 1992. Two new law centres have been opened by the board this month, one in Dundalk and one in Letterkenny and I am advised by the board that the new centre at Castlebar will open later this week.

Turning now to the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, Deputies will be well aware that improving the quality of the service provided by those offices has been a priority for me since my appointment as Minister for Justice. The basic problem with the registries in recent years has been their incapacity to cope fully with the growing volume of business being addressed to them. This has resulted in lengthening delays in dealing with cases and the accumulation of arrears. The main factors contributing to this development have been inadequate levels of staffing and inadequate investment in new technology. These factors have arisen because, as part of the public service, the registries have been subject to the various embargoes on staffing and cutbacks in public expenditure which have operated since the early eighties. At the same time as the staffing levels were being severely reduced in the registries, the volume of business being addressed to them was increasing significantly.

Since my appointment I have taken a number of significant steps to deal with these problems and to improve the services of the registries. I will mention these briefly.

I had the post of registrar and a number of other senior posts, which had been vacant for some time, filled in 1990. The total combined staffing at two registries has been increased from 473 at the end of 1989 to 519 at present. A firm of management consultants was commissioned last year to produce a stategic plan to link the organisation structure and technology infrastructure to the business goals and objectives of the registries. I have since approved for implementation, the five year information systems plan recommended by them and elements of the plan are already being implemented by the registries.

Towards the end of last year, I launched a programme for computerising abstracts of memorials in the Registry of Deeds. Studies of the workings of the registry had shown that computerisation of abstract records was essential if a quick and effective service was to be provided to the conveyancing market.

Work is underway at present on the preparation of a data model of the two registries, as a prelude to further computer systems development.

Finally, arising from my overall review of the workings of the registries, I sought and received Government agreement in principle to the reconstitution of the registries as a semi-State body. I consider that in order to provide the public with the standard of service to which they are entitled and for which they are willing to pay, it is necessary to free the registries from the constraints in the areas of staffing and funding that apply within conventional Civil Service structures.

Following this decision by Government, I set up a small working group who reported to me earlier this year on the problems of the registries and advised me on appropriate solutions to these problems in the context of their re-constitution as a semi-State body as well as on the legislative and other preparatory work of an organisational nature which needs to be undertaken before the registries can be converted to a semi-State body. I intend to proceed as quickly as possible with the conversion of the registries.

I am glad to be able to report to this House that the steps taken to improve the services of the registries are now beginning to bear fruit. The growth of arrears and delays at the registries, and particularly the Land Registry, have been arrested and in fact a small but significant reduction in arrears has been achieved over the last two years. This is the first reduction in arrears in a long time and it was achieved on foot, not only of the increased staff numbers, but also through improved management. Also, it reflects the excellent commitment of the registrar and her staff who are, it must be acknowledged, working under difficult circumstances. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment them on their efforts. I look forward to a continuation of this good work in the year ahead. Further reduction of arrears and improvement of the services provided would be a most appropriate way to mark the centenary of the Land Registry, which was established in 1892.

Over the 100 years of its existence the registry has provided a very valuable service to property owners in providing them with a secure and relatively simple means of registering their titles. There is yet some distance to go before all property in the country is brought within the registration of titles system but efficient use of the new technology, hardly dreamt of in 1892, will greatly assist us in travelling the rest of the journey.

In the 1992 Estimates £11.4 million, an increase of 20 per cent over the 1991 provisional outturn, is provided for the operation of the registries. This provides for the additional staff and computer equipment required to implement the consultants information technology plan and to prepare the registries for conversion to semi-State status.

I am proud of the progress which has been made in the areas under my remit. I am confident that the programme for 1992 which I have outlined in the limited time available to me today will further improve law enforcement and enhance the administration of justice.

Mr. Spring

I had intended in this speech to refer to the forgotten Ireland — the Ireland of poverty and isolation that has been forgotten by this Government. Instead, I have discovered in this debate that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have not forgotten poverty — instead, they have set out, quite deliberately, to make it worse. The range of social welfare cuts announced this morning, in the face of a million poor, is totally and absolutely scandalous. I am reasonably sure that when these details are spelled out, the public outrage that will result will bring this Government down.

The social welfare cuts must bring the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to an end. If the trade unions stand by and allow benefits for which people pay, week after week, to be taxed in the interests of short term expediency, it will be seen as a totally cynical approach, and a demonstration that social partnership means nothing except pay negotiation.

The whole package of measures announced this morning — which we warned was likely to happen in our response to the Estimates — are aimed at ensuring that increasingly fewer people will be entitled to decreasing levels of benefits in the future. We intend to have the legality of these proposals examined in detail, as we do not believe that such arbitrary cuts in entitlement can possibly lead to equality of treatment.

But above all, we intend to do everything in our power to ensure that everyone is aware that this is only the thin edge of the wedge. If they get away with this, it is only a matter of time before every element of support — unemployment benefit, child benefit, and so on — will be taxed.

I hope that the outrage which is inevitable will mean that these Estimates come to represent a suitable epitaph for this Government who are rapidly running out of steam. They lack vision; they lack hope; they fail even to paper over the cracks in the social fabric of our country. To that extent, they are a suitable symbol of the decay and lack of basic compassion that permeates the Government.

This debate, the last debate we will have in 1991, is a suitable one to look back over the past year and to attempt to look to the future. The past year will be remembered as the year when honest and decent businessmen were shocked at the degree of venality that was revealed in some quarters of the business sector. It will be remembered as the year when politics was debased and diminished by the revelations of a golden circle of people enabled to enrich themselves as a direct consequence — to put it at its mildest — of complacent and lax regulation.

Why have people lost faith in this country? Why is there now so little respect for politicians and politics? Why, in the end, will these Estimates have so little impact on the way in which people live their lives?

The year just ending has marked a considerable turning point in the history of our country, but it will take some time for that turning point to be fully recognised for what it is. In the past year more progress has been made towards the selling out of the interests of the Irish people, in mysterious and sometimes sinister ways, than at any previous time in our history. In the last 12 months, democracy has taken second place to the interests of wealth and power in our society.

At any time in the life of a small open economy such as ours there is going to be a tension between the interests of the wealthy, and often faceless, minority, and the interests of the people as a whole. At any time it is possible to find industrialists, entrepreneurs and people of privilege seeking to manipulate the system in which they operate to their own advantage — and in a small economy, that can be easier to do.

But when struggles of that sort are going on the people have to be able to rely on one thing — they have to be able to rely on the fact that they have democratically elected a Government and have charged that Government with the responsibility of ensuring that the interests of the people are served first and that the people are protected in any conflict.

It has been said that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the Nation — I have said before, and I shall repeat it here, that the first duty of Government is the defence of the people and of the democratic imperative.

If a Government are to succeed in that task they must be capable of resisting the efforts of those who try to pull strings and of those who seek to build platforms for their own interests only. Democratically elected governments must see it as their responsibility to resist any and all interests that are purely sectional and to ensure that the consequences of all decisions must be reflected in the common good and not in the interests of one group only.

It will frequently happen, particularly in a time of scarce resources, that a Government who are motivated only by the highest democratic instincts will have to make choices that are both unpalatable and difficult. Such a Government will often find themselves the focus of deep unpopularity and will be accused of being out of touch with the will of the people. But it is only when a Government allow sectional interests to pull the strings — when a Government in effect become a puppet for more powerful interests — that they lose touch with democracy. And a Government who lose touch with democracy have lost the right to govern.

I believe that the first task of Opposition in a democracy is to ensure that the elected Government of the day maintain a deep and abiding commitment to democratic principles. As the leader of an Opposition party, I have tried to fulfil that mandate since the day this Government were formed. I believe that the time has come when this Government must be accused of having abandoned the democratic principles from which they derive their power and influence.

I cannot stand in front of this House and say that I can prove that members of this Government have subverted the democratic interests of the people they are supposed to represent. But I believe that the questions that are mounting up every day about the commitment of this Government to democratic values demand answers, and no attempt is being made by anyone on the Government side to answer them.

The public contempt shown for anyone who tries to ask legitimate questions in the House is paralleled by the arrogance which has become a feature of the style of this Government.

In short, 1991 will best be remembered as a year that should be forgotten.

But, of course, 1991 will not and should not be forgotten. The scandals we know about must be used to ensure that whatever is rotten in our political and business systems is eradicated. If we can learn no other lesson from the year, let us at least learn the lesson that transparency, honesty and openness are essential ingredients for both politics and business. Let us resolve that we will not accept what might be called the Haughey legacy — the legacy of strockes, winks and nods, and under the counter deals involving non-existent friends.

Let us remember that 1991 was also the year of hidden scandals — in some ways more deep-rooted than the ones with which we are all familiar. For the first time this year, we saw visible evidence on the streets of some neglected Dublin suburbs of the beginnings of the breakdown of society. The sight of children burning cars and stoning gardaí and firemen ought to be one of the symbols that is most deeply engraved on the memory of 1991.

Because let us make no mistake about it, all these events are connected. The poverty, alienation and isolation that are all too prevalent in our cities and towns go hand in hand with the ostentatious displays of wealth and exaggerated lifestyles that are so popular with some of our leading gossip columinists. That contrast will become all the greater if the Government are allowed to get away with the vicious cutbacks in social welfare announced this morning by the Minister for Social Welfare.

I do not want to suggest any simplistic connections, neither do I want to deny the role that can and must be played by responsible parents even in the face of grinding poverty and hopelessness. But Ireland used to be a place of community, a country famous for its ability to look after its own, a country where people would rally around anyone in need. That Ireland is in serious trouble and the reason it is in serious trouble is because of the atmosphere of "me first" that has begun to pervade our politics. That atmosphere has been one of the most poisonous things that has happened in many years in Ireland. It has left us with a forgotten Ireland of social welfare dependency, poverty, unemployment and crime which realises this Government have no intention of representing them, never mind assisting them through a co-ordinated job-creation policy. At least Margaret Thatcher had the good grace to admit that she could continue to politically survive by ignoring the three million unemployed people in the United Kingdom. Our Government attempt to pay nothing more than lip service to the forgotten Ireland — and now even that lip service is to be abandoned.

What is happening in our suburbs is a destruction of core values in a community that has been neglected for a long time. These communities were created in the late seventies and early eighties when inner city communities were literally dropped onto green field situations with solely four walls and no facilities whatsoever and told to live and survive there. Some ten to 15 years later some of the same people are still awaiting basic facilities such as shops, public transport and schools. In addition, in many of these estates up to 80 per cent of the population is unemployed. It is no wonder we have the problems we have experienced in the past months.

The Government started the year by boasting of the great economic miracle that Ireland was undergoing. Unfortunately, most people never experience that miracle and unemployment and poverty continue to rise to staggering proportions.

The Government persistently refused to accept a realistic forecast of the prospects for the Irish economy for 1992 from the Labour Party and other independent economic commentators. The irresponsible action of the Government in the negotiations of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress created false expectations among the social partners and has led to a climate of economic instability with which the new Minister for Finance must deal.

It would appear that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, which has not survived even one year, was negotiated primarily by the Taoiseach, who was prepared to issue a post-dated cheque to the unions in return for political survival. It is now evident that the Government's cheque is about to bounce and the real victims will be the ordinary people of Ireland.

How is it that when the Government make a major faux-pas in relation to the economy and in entering into an agreement like the Programme for Economic and Social Progress so haphazardly they automatically turn to the PAYE sector and the unemployed to pay the piper without the ability to call the tune? Why is it that the Government perceive the PAYE sector and low-paid public servants as the only feasible option to rectify their wanton mismanagement of the economy?

In recent times the annual report of the Revenue Commissioners and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General made it quite clear that very substantial sums in outstanding taxes could be returned to the Exchequer with an improvement in auditing and collection procedures. Irrespective of the current financial difficulties faced by the Government their priority must be to rectify the position obtaining in the public finances by effective measures to get moneys owed paid on time. If the Minister for Finance would give the requisite level of staffing to the Revenue Commissioners, particularly in relation to the auditing of the self-assessment sector, those taxes could be brought in on time.

The recent revelation that fewer than one in 25 self-employed taxpayers, including married couples, are willing to declare incomes of more than £25,000 per annum is indeed an astonishing figure. Above all else what it reveals is a lack of political will to provide the resources necessary to enable the Revenue Commissioners carry out the kind of checking and auditing required to secure fair adherence to the tax laws.

We know already from old Central Bank studies that the value of the black economy here could be as high as £2 billion. The under-reporting of income in the way revealed constitutes a grey economy of huge proportions. Failure to initiate an all-out attack on both the black and grey economies inevitably narrows the options in terms of tackling unemployment, poverty and tax reform. Good tax administration is symptomatic of good government. As the Government refuse to pursue this very reasonable option they have pushed themselves into a corner, seeing no other possibility but to take the easy option and demand that the public finance the Government shortfall.

That is why the Estimates with which we are dealing with lead to greater hardship across the entire community next year. That is why the housing crisis is not and will not be addressed. That is why the health services will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis. That is also why local services will continue to be decimated and indeed fewer and fewer people will be entitled to ever smaller levels of social welfare support.

In relation to the contribution of the new Minister for Health this morning, I have to say that she would want to decide very quickly to which side of the House she belongs. For example, there is no provision in the Estimates for the commencement of the hospital in Tallaght. Yet she says that all the research shows that it is vital to complement the development of the Tallaght area and that there will be more reports. Why does she not have the integrity to come out and say that all the reports have been prepared and produced, that Tallaght needs a new hospital, the city of Dublin needs a new hospital in Tallaght, yet money is not being provided for it? Why have not the Government included that in their priorities? The truth is that this Government have passed the point where they care any longer. It is not merely a matter of day to day survival for members of this Government. At least half of them spend most of their time, publicly and privately, admitting to wondering how they can change the leadership of Fianna Fáil, paying no attention whatever to the ever-crumbling framework surrounding them. Unfortunately, the remainder in Government are concerned only with their short term future.

A particular aspect of the Estimates which has gone relatively unnoticed is the provision in relation to an anticipated 22,000 extra people on the live register next year. It is quite extraordinary that this House is not in extraordinary session to debate the unfortunate concept, with unbelieveable consequences, for 22,000 people in 1992. The Taoiseach does not bat an eyelid. We will have unemployment at such a high level that surely people must begin to question the effectiveness of the political system, the response of the political system, indeed, of the political parties themselves. This House had better make up its mind that it will address the question of unemployment before it becomes so over-bearing on this economy there will not be a democratic response. As a political system, we must begin addressing it in a realistic manner.

Yesterday I sought information from the Taoiseach in this House in relation to the task force on employment announced many months ago. That task force must have gone into hiding. Certainly I have not seen or heard of their report. Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture and Food who is present might enlighten the House whether that task force is still in existence, whether they are due to report, or whether the Government will come before the House in January with any hope for those people now facing the prospect of joining the already 260,000 people, approximately, drawing unemployment assistance and other benefits, pushing that number up in the region of 285,000. It is a daunting prospect for this State. I am afraid I do not have confidence in the Government of having the resources, willingness or determination to get on with the job of sorting out that problem.

I would say to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Government, in facing up to 1992 and the challenges and tasks of that year — despite the claims of having an economic miracle here, we had some component parts of economic recovery such as low inflation and low interest rates — I can say of 99 per cent of my constituents, or indeed those of most Members of this House, that whereas they are aware of the so-called misery index being reduced, they are becoming so over-burdened by unemployment, through lack of hope and opportunity, that as a matter of urgency, the Government would need to get their act together. They will have more than a month within which they will not be subjected to the pressures of this House in which to do so.

If they are unable to do the job they should accept that. If, because of the internal problems within the Fianna Fáil Party, if because of the difficulties of the purer than pure, whiter than white, Progressive Democrats, who do not want to take responsibility for any decisions — obviously there are tought decisions to be taken by Government — who appear in their public statements to feel that all the problems with Government and the low ratings of Government and Government personalities can be attributed to Fianna Fáil only, I say to them they too have a responsibility and would want to make up their minds whether they are actually participating in Government or want the luxury of hanging on the fringes. Mind you, the amount of time one can hang on to the wreckage itself is quite limited.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food is faced with enormous difficulties in the complex area of agriculture. The first disappointment was announced in the course of this week that the headage payments expected, in respect of which promises had been given to the effect that they would be paid before Christmas, will not now be paid to many hard-pressed small farmers in our society.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Barnes)

I might remind the Deputy he has one minute remaining.

Mr. Spring

As I said at the outset, I wanted to refer to many aspects of the forgotten Ireland. This Government had better make up their minds that they will become the forgotten Government if they do not settle down to the task they were elected to undertake. They must make some effort to solve these problems. All of the problems may not have solutions; they may be unable to solve all of them. But in 1992 let us have an aspiration and hope that a better job can be done for our people.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Dr. Woods)

I think Deputy Spring forgot — although I am sure he intended — to wish everybody in the House a happy Christmas and you, madam chairperson.

Mr. Spring

I will do that at 5 p.m. this afternoon.

Dr. Woods

I would like to wish Deputy Spring a happy Christmas. I will wait with bated breath for Deputy Spring to wish me a happy Christmas. There is no doubt but that this has been a very difficult year with difficult tasks faced in the course of the year. Deputy Spring inquired about the task force on employment and what they were doing. Of course, one thing that task force have done is come up with 25,000 job placements for the coming year and provided the funding for those placements, offering considerable opportunity to many people with whom I deal as a constituency representative, as would Deputy Spring in his constituency.

Before dealing with my own Estimate I would like to refer to some issues of major concern to the future of our agriculture industry.

CAP reform and GATT discussions are the principal focus of attention at Community level. Ministers in recent Council meetings have devoted much time to considering both matters. No one can deny that Ireland has benefited greatly from our membership of the EC — support through the Common Agricultural Policy has helped our agriculture to develop. Family farms — the mainstay of Irish agriculture — have retained their viability and have provided a good standard of living for thousands of families. At the outset I would like to reassure Deputies of the Government's commitment to seeking the continuation of this development. Any change in the present arrangements will not be acceptable to me unless the specific needs of countries such as Ireland with our very heavy dependence on agriculture are met and the future viability of farming in this country is secured.

The Common Agricultural Policy no longer meets its original objectives and reform is inevitable. This is not disputed by anyone who knows agriculture. It has been clear for a considerable time that the build-up of surpluses in several products and the very substantial increase in the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy cannot continue. Expenditure in the EC on agricultural support increased by one third last year and £1.4 billion was received by Ireland from the Community to support market prices and structural development in 1991. Despite this expenditure farm incomes throughout the EC continued to decline. The situation here has reflected the trend in the Community, even though in 1991 we had record purchases of beef into intervention in Ireland and there has been a 50 per cent increase in receipts under Common Agricultural Policy since 1989. I am happy to say that intervention beef levels are coming down. Piecemeal reform without compensation, as has been happening, has eroded the benefits which we had from the Common Agricultural Policy. What is needed is a proper planned reform of the way the EC supports agriculture so that we can have a permanent stable, properly financed structure for the future.

Ireland is not alone in questioning the Commission's proposals. Several member states have difficulty in almost all areas of the proposed reforms. It is clear that difficult negotiations lie ahead. From our point of view the Commission's approach represents too great and too fast a switch from market price supports to direct payments. They go too far, too fast. They are too restrictive in relation to our production of beef, milk, our potential to seek out additional export markets, and the future development of farming in Ireland. I am demanding a more gradual and moderate change while at the same time insisting that market price support continues to be principal source of farm incomes in the years ahead. Reform of any kind must be secured by adequate and durable EC financing.

The proposed milk quota cuts, the price reductions for milk, beef and cereals, the eligibility criteria for livestock premia and set-aside aids and the quota and flock ceiling proposed for sheepmeat are not acceptable as they stand. There will have to be substantial changes to all of these proposals before I could consider accepting them.

Meanwhile the GATT negotiations are continuing in Geneva and elsewhere. Mr. Dunkel, the GATT Director General, proposes to present draft framework agreements in all the negotiating sectors in Geneva tomorrow, 20 December. At this stage it would appear that several important issues for Ireland and for the Community will not be adequately covered in Mr. Dunkel's texts. Member states will have an opportunity at a Council of Trade Ministers meeting in Brussels on 23 December to give their initial judgments on Mr. Dunkel's efforts. For Ireland's part, we will be insisting that any GATT agreement on agriculture takes full account of the principles set out in the negotiating mandate laid down by Agriculture Ministers in November 1990. We will also be insisting on "green box" coverage for the various compensatory aids envisaged under Common Agricultural Policy reform and that headage payments will not be subjected to reduction commitments.

While many Agriculture Ministers — including myself — will be attending next Monday's meeting we will be insisting that Agriculture Ministers are formally consulted before any conclusions can be arrived at in relation to agriculture. The Community and Ireland are faced with difficult times on both the Common Agricultural Policy reform and GATT fronts but I am confident that the agreements which ultimately emerge from these negotiations will be satisfactory from an Irish viewpoint. Farmers and all associated with the agriculture industry can be assured that no stone will be left unturned to ensure such an outcome.

Gross expenditure on Agriculture and Food increased from £452.3 million to £472.8 million, an increase of 5 per cent on 1991. The next Exchequer cost provided for in this estimate at £185.3 million represents an increase of 3 per cent on 1991. In so far as the specific subheads of the Estimates of my Department are concerned I would like to comment on three subheads in particular, subheads B4 and 5 relating to Teagasc and M3—Aids to Farmers in Certain Less Favoured Areas. These are the livestock headage schemes. Detailed discussions on the Estimates will take place in the New Year but I would like to clarify the position for all interested parties involved.

The provisional outturn for Teagasc for 1991 is £33.025 million. This amount includes £600,000 which is the first instalment of an equal pay settlement. A similar amount will be provided for in 1992. This year for the first time the grant-in-aid towards the organisation's pensions costs is shown separately providing greater transparency in regard to the Exchequer financing for Teagasc. The actual reduction therefore for 1992 is £0.525 million or 1.5 per cent.

Teagasc, in their corporate plan, have a priority objective to become less dependent on Exchequer funding and to achieve a 50 per cent self-financing position by 1993. Some progress has already been made in this respect. This trend has been helped by the European Social Fund moneys in recent years. I am pressing for further increases for the educational programme up to the limit of this eligibility for European Social Fund co-funding.

It is imperative that Teagasc deliver their services in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. In a national organisation with resources decentralised throughout the State, this of necessity requires a reorganisation and consolidation of their assets and resources as required. Such a review is currently under way and is, in the first instance, a matter for the management and board of Teagasc itself. I have not recieved any proposals on the reorganisation from the board as yet.

I am aware that there is great concern around the country arising from speculation about possible closures of research stations and training facilities. I want to assure the House of my commitment to research, education and the advisory services. As far as I am concerned, they are an integral part of any market-based development plan for the future of agriculture, horticulture and rural development. I am personally committed to the development of these facilities and services within the regions so that they can be more responsive to local needs. I see the west of Ireland, and disadvantaged areas generally, as a priority in my plans.

A sum of £95 million is being provided for headage payments in the disadvantaged areas next year. This means that the increased rates of payment envisaged in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will apply to the 1992 schemes in all the disadvantaged areas, including the recently extended areas and those which were re-classified.

The new maximum payments will be £3,360 instead of £2,012 and £2,250 instead of £1,880 in the case of cattle in the more and in the less severely handicapped areas respectively and £2,000, instead of £1,750, in the case of sheep in both areas. The higher rates will cost £12.5 million for a full year. The increased rates in 1992 will apply to all 134,000 farmers in the scheme. In 1991, 29,000 farmers will benefit from extension and reclassification. For the first time, 13,000 benefit from the extension of the less favoured areas and a further 16,000 farmers benefit from the reclassification of their areas. The increases are worth some £12 million to beneficiaries in a full year and the annual benefit of the scheme to the farmers will increase to £100 million.

The extremely difficult budgetary situation did not permit the bringing forward of the increases into 1991. I am prepared to enter into negotiations with the farming organisations within the framework of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress with a view to clarifying what scope there is for meeting the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in as short a time frame as possible. Deputies will, of course, appreciate that not all payments due in respect of a particular year can actually be made within that year. Inevitably some have to be carried over to early in the succeeding year. This year we will pay around £82 million in headage payments, a total which exceeds the level of payments under those schemes in any previous year.

I know of the importance of headage payments to farm families in the disadvantaged areas. From my contacts with the farming organisations and from the many representations I have received from Deputies and other public representations, I know that there is dissatisfaction at what is perceived to be a cumbersome system and an unreasonable delay in making some payments, with the result that the bulk of the payments are not made until the concluding weeks of the year. I am undertaking an examination of the existing procedures governing applications, inspections and processing of claims as a matter of urgency. My aim is to ensure that the farmer receives his or her grants as early in the year as practicable.

The headage payments — which apply only in the less favoured areas — are, of course, only part of the total payments to livestock farmers. We have, in addition, the suckler cow, special beef and ewe premium schemes, which are fully funded by the EC and apply throughout the entire country, including the disadvantaged areas. Under all of these schemes a total of around £270 million is being paid to Irish farmers in the current year.

The premium schemes are 100 per cent funded by the EC who lay down the rules and insist that they are strictly applied. The rules caused difficulty for quite a number of farmers last year and many more were threatened with exclusion from the scheme. However, the EC Commission adopted a sympathetic attitude at our request and this let in a sizeable number of farmers who would otherwise have been deemed ineligible, but the Commission insited that the conditions of the scheme must be fully complied with from 1991 onwards.

Unfortunately, it seems that a certain number of applicants continue to have problems with the regulations. It is still too soon to say how large a problem it is this year but as soon as the present push to have payments made has ended the cases whose difficulties have been encountered will be carefully examined. I can assure Deputies that the approach to be adopted in individual cases will be as sympathetic and as favourable as possible but the House will appreciate that given the nature of these EC schemes our room for movement is limited.

It is, I think, clear at this stage that some of the penalties built into these premium schemes are too severe. I have taken up the matter with the EC Commission with a view to arriving at a less severe and more realistic approach for future years. The basic principle in so far as EC fully funded expenditure is concerned is that the EC Commission will only recoup member states in respect of expenditure which is "in accordance with the Community rules". This expenditure is subject to audit by a number of bodies including the EC Commission itself. To the extent that the Commission considers that particular expenditure by my Department on its behalf has not been in accordance with those rules, disallowances are proposed which in turn become a charge to the Vote of my Department.

The EC-backed Operational Programme for Rural Development, launched earlier this year, involves investment of over £100 million in the period to the end of 1993. The programme contains a wide variety of measures in support of the rural economy ranging from farm diversification to small and community enterprise, rural infrastructure, research and development and marketing in the food industry and training in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The response to this programme has been very encouraging with the funds for some of the schemes already fully committed. The 1992 provision at £11,781,000 represents the likely commitments under the measures in particular those relating to farm diversification and small and community enterprise. It represents an increase of over £9 million on the likely 1991 outturn.

A further sum of £970,000 has also been provided in Administration, subhead A. 13, for the administrative costs of the new national programme for rural development. This demonstrates in a practical way the Government's commitment to rural development. The necessary administrative arrangements are now being made to establish the new structure.

As I have already announced, 17 of the 34 applicant groups have been selected for funding under the Leader programme. This will involve total investment of some £70 million over the period to the end of 1993: £35 million will come from public funds — £21 million EC and £14 million national. I have provided £11.5 million for Leader commitments likely to arise in 1992. I will be launching the Leader projects early in the New Year.

The balance of £667,000 in this subhead is in respect of INTERREG. The INTERREG programme is a Community initiative designed to assist local populations of internal border areas to overcome the disadvantages at their relative isolation within national economies and within the EC as a whole. It aims to stimulate local economic activity by providing financial assistance through various sub-programmes covering tourism, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, environmental protection as well as regional and human resource development. The INTERREG programme was proposed jointly by the authorities in Dublin and Northern Ireland. It will run to the end of 1993 providing total EC assistance in the region of £58 million in Ireland.

The range of measures eligible for assistance under the agriculture sub-programme covers animal, avian and plant health matters, horticulture, anti-pollution measures and community development. Aspects of the other sub-programmes, tourism, environmental protection and regional development, will also be of direct benefit to the rural communities in the Border counties. A sum of £667,000 is provided to cover my Department's estimated obligations to INTERREG in 1992.

The emphasis in the Estimates for my Department for this year provides a secure basis from which we can develop. The year ahead will be of critical importance for everyone involved in agriculture and for the economy as a whole. There are encouraging signs and we have a lot of support and understanding among our partners in Europe. I am optimistic for the future. We are well placed to meet the challenges which lie ahead. It is a time for confidence in ourselves, our industry and our ability to progress in the emerging Europe.

I commend the Estimates to the House.

Mr. S. Barrett

I wish first to extend greetings for a very happy Christmas and prosperous New Year to all Members of the House and the very loyal staff. I am sure we will all enjoy the break.

I am disappointed at the format of this debate. I am not cribbing about the debate but in order to get some value from it, it would be better if instead of speeches there was across-the-floor questioning and responsibility put on Opposition Deputies to outline the areas in which better services should be provided while at the same time accepting that only so much money can be spent. I would prefer if we were given the opportunity to identify areas where services could be reduced if we want to improve services in other areas. Unfortunately, we do not get the opportunity to do this. It is time we questioned the manner in which we do our business in this House. It is a great shame that we are not given the opportunity during this debate to put forward positive proposals and suggestions and to act responsibly by telling people where we would get the money for such proposals.

This debate is merely a means of giving Minister the opportunity to outline in advance of the budget what their Departments intend doing next year. This is unfortunate. This House should be given the opportunity in advance of the budget of deciding the amount of money which should be spent on services. It must be made quite clear that if we are to provide services there is a responsibility to find the money for them. The State will be paying £6.651 billion for non-capital services. Is the taxpayer getting real value for money for that? A 1 per cent saving on VAT would produce £66 million. We are asking public servants to forego this year increases which were worked out between the social partners yet in this House we are not considering that a 1 per cent saving across the board would provide the money to honour that agreement and prevent what I anticipate will be wide-ranging disruption involving a great deal of frustration to those who are trying to keep people in jobs, to keep businesses ticking over, who are trying to make a profit. The loss to the Exchequer as a result of this disruption will far exceed the amount of money due to the public servants under the agreement reached a short time ago. Neither does it do anything for democracy that a Government can sit down, work out an agreement, share responsibility and then walk away and break that agreement without any proper discussions. That is to be regretted.

The money could be found by greater efficiency. How many times does one walk around and see public offices with lights on. In most offices the heating is on. Look at the waste of money we see around us. There are lorry loads of paper around this House, lights are left on in offices and heating is left on. That can be multiplied all over the public service. In other businesses people search for savings and are very careful where the money is being spent. Even in one's own home one would be careful. However, this does not seem to apply in the management of the public service. Yet we are asking people to forego their increases when such waste continues. I do not accept that as a way of doing business. Nor do I accept that the manner in which we are being asked to look at these Estimates is the right way for this House to do business.

I would like the Government to make proposals which are properly costed and be under an obligation to show where the money could be saved in order to have an improved service. Under the Justice Estimate, for the Garda, prisons and courts alone we are spending £446 million this year. If one wants to see bad management, if one wants to see chaos, one should visit our courts any day of the week. Gardaí waste a great deal of time in courts, hanging around. There is no proper system in the courts whereby people would have their case heard at, an appointed time and leave. Everybody is crammed into the courts in the early hours of the morning and left hanging around all day. This is costing us £16,750.

On our prisons we are spending £88 million in relation to 2,200 prison places. In my constituency I spoke to a man recently who had just come out of Mountjoy Prison, having served three days for non-payment of a television licence. This man had five children and was on unemployment assistance. He accepted his punishment because he had no choice, he did not have the money to pay the fine that was imposed. His real problem was that he had just got a notice from An Post telling him that they were about to take legal proceedings against him because he had not paid this year's licence. He told me the only thing he could do was take his punishment again and head back to prison. Did any Member ever hear such nonsense as making a man spend three days in prison for non-payment of a television licence? It is costing about £31,000 per annum to keep each prisoner in our prisons and we are putting somebody into prison for three days, costing the taxpayer about £2,000, and we do not even get the fine.

I am not saying that those who do not pay their television licence should not be punished. I recognise that we must have order and that those who do pay their licence expect those who do not to be punished in some way; but surely we should have a system where by people could at least pay their fines by instalment if they happen to be unemployed or in receipt of unemployment assistance. Surely a more moderate and modern way of punishing a person in such a position would be to ask them to do some community service work by which they would be contributing to the community. The last thing we should be doing is putting a person like that into prison.

Let me compare that to another case involving the Department of Social Welfare that I am dealing with at present. The person, using his redundancy money from his previous employment plus a £3,000 loan from a bank, purchased 10 per cent of the company his employer owned because it was doing quite well, as he thought. He was paying back this loan of £3,000 by monthly instalments. When he returned from holidays he found the locks on the doors had been changed and the shop had been closed up. Then he discovered that this gangster had two companies, one a stock company and the other the company that owned the licence and the lease on the premises and that what he had been sold was 10 per cent in the stock company which was worth nothing. The other individual has walked away with £65,000, having sold the other company, the licence and the lease. My unfortunate constituent is without his £5,000. Neither is he getting unemployment benefit because, he discovered, his employer never paid in his PRSI or his PAYE.

Later he discovered that the same gentleman had forged his signature on a form which was lodged in the Companies Office whereby he was consenting to become a director of the stock company. This employer is none other than a bank manager operating in this city at present. I have been chasing the Department of Social Welfare to take action against this person for the last four or five weeks, I have had statements supplied and I have produced evidence. I obtained a copy of the records from the Companies Office and confirmation that the signature on the form is not this man's signature. When a person with five children and on unemployment assistance is sent to prison for three days for non-payment of a television licence while this gangsterism continues, is it any wonder that in a recent survey only 8 per cent of the public said they had absolute confidence in our courts? Yet we are being told in the Book of Estimates that we intend spending taxpayers' money to the tune of £88 million on a prison system, which is achieving nothing. I am not saying that people who commit serious crime should not be in prison, they should serve their sentence and I sincerely hope that when they come out they will not want to go back in again. From the sum of £88 million, £325,000 is earmarked for educational services. We have things backwards; taxpayers consider that offenders should serve their sentence and that, while they are in prison, they will acquire skills which will enable them to find employment or at least to change their ways. I also note that a sum of £545,000 has been allocated to enforce community service orders. We seem to believe in locking everybody up but, while offenders are there, they should at least acquire skills to help them cope with life afterwards.

Crime is now big business and is paying. I note from the report of the Garda Commissioner that goods to the value of £36 million were stolen in 1990 and goods to the value of £3 million were recovered. Somebody is operating a big business in relation to the rest of the goods valued at £33 million. Putting people into prison and letting them out after a short period because of lack of places will not discourage those who steal goods to the value of £36 million. They know that if they get a two year sentence the chances are that they will be released after eight or ten months and they have a nice nest egg to look forward to. This is certainly not solving the problem and the courts should be given immediate powers to confiscate assets clearly derived from crime. It would not cost the taxpayers anything. We did this in relation to the Criminal Damage Bill and when it is enacted compensation orders can be made by the courts in respect of malicious damage, which I fully support. If somebody steals my car, takes it for a joyride and rams it against the wall, I am deprived of a car plus the doubtful privilege of repaying the bank the loan I secured to buy the car. These young thugs are just laughing at us. However, if they had to pay compensation to the person injured it might take the smile off their faces because that is real punishment. It would stop the vandalism and malicious damage occurring in this city on a daily basis. People might then think twice about going into a local authority or middle class housing estate and setting fire to six or eight cars parked in driveways. If, when they threw stones at Garda cars or fire brigades they had to pay the cost of having the vehicles repaired they might think twice about their actions.

We have not had a proper opportunity to debate (a) the overall sum and (b) how that sum will be spent; we do not get the opportunity of putting forward positive proposals which will mean that the taxpayer will not have to increase the contribution towards the cost of runing the Garda Síochána, the prisons and the courts. There have not been changes in outdated systems and practices which are costing money instead of saving it. That is why frustration is building up in the public and why they are angry.

I do not believe that people have any difficulty in paying for educational services or for proper health care for those who cannot afford it. However, they object to there money being squandered, good money being thrown after bad, no changes, outdated laws, no system in this Chamber to change the way we do business or to pass laws more quickly to deal with the problems I have outlined. If we changed our laws to give the courts new powers, changed the way we punish people, used the money available to keep certain people in prison and tried to give them the skills which would prevent them repeating their crimes when they came out, we might get better value for money.

I know that more money cannot be spent in one area without savings being affected in another area. Like many Deputies, I have been notified by the free legal advice centres that they will have to close their operations in the new year because of lack of funding. They have already let two of their four staff go. The free legal aid advice centres provide a very worthwhile service at no cost to the Exchequer. In the area of the Department of Justice alone, FLAC provide legal advice to 8,000 people per year which takes pressure off the Government funded Legal Aid Board. If we allow FLAC to fold the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. For small sums of money we can get excellent value. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen to the plea from FLAC and provide assistance. The Minister for Labour, who is present, is aware that FLAC do excellent work on behalf of individuals. I hope the Minister will consider the special plea I am making on behalf of that organisation.

Minister for Labour (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I cannot emphasise too strongly this Government's commitment to the success of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and to the spirit of partnership between Government, employees and unions which is fundamental to the programme. I am convinced that future observers will see the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and its predecessor, the Programme for National Recovery, as agreements of historical significance in the context of relations between the various social partners in this country and as milestones in achieving greater economic and social development. Prior to the Programme for National Recovery, in 1987, no previous Government were able to achieve such an agreement. As in any true partnership no one party to the agreement can claim all of the credit for its success. Both the employer's representatives and the unions were aware that they were taking a calculated risk in coming to an agreement, particularly in the context of the precarious economic situation which obtained at the time of the Programme for National Recovery.

I would like to pay a particular tribute to the trade unions in this regard. I am fully aware that they had a difficult deal to sell to their members in 1987. However, the trade unions put the long term interests of the country, the economy and ultimately of their members ahead of short term gains. Without that positive contribution from the unions, we would not have made the recovery we did during the three year period of the Programme for National Recovery.

As far as the current programme is concerned, I fully recognise that in the present climate it is not easy for the trade unions to accept the Government's proposals on public sector pay. I should emphasise, that the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was conditional on maintaining firm control of the public finances. A fact that seems to be lost sight of by many commentators is that the Government are fully cognisant of the unions' difficulties in this matter. This action by the Government results from a particularly difficult budgetary position in respect of 1992 and 1993. We have had lower tax revenue because of a drop in consumer expenditure on the one hand, and on the other hand we have higher expenditure on social welfare as a result of the fall in growth rates.

In making our proposals, the Government were very well aware of the difficulties they pose for our trade union partners and did not take the actions lightly. The Government were also aware of the great contribution which the consensus approach has made to economic and social development in this country since 1987. That process has brought us from a position of near bankruptcy to a position today where our economy is basically sound except for the over-riding issue of high unemployment. High unemployment is the big problem but let us be clear whether as employers, trade unions and Government that there is only one solution to high unemployment and that is the creation of sound sustainable employment. Such employment can only be created if we have a sound economy and to have a sound economy the over-riding principle of maintaining a firm control on our public finances must be adhered to. This is asserted very bluntly in the first paragraph on the economy in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. It is worth pointing out that the principles set out in that paragraph are the guiding principles for the whole programme. Those principles when the Programme for Economic and Social Progress came into effect were accepted by Government, employers, trade unions and farmers alike. That assertion is an over-riding principle of the programme which cannot be infringed.

The Government accept that the action we have taken has fundamental ramifications for the process of consensus in which we have been engaged since 1987. The Government, however, had no other road that it could take and while the outcome of our approach remains to be seen, we must all ensure that the process of consensus and consultation continues for the ten year period which was envisaged in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Let there be no doubt about it. This is a major test for the process in which we are engaged.

But let it also be clear that if the process cannot overcome the problems which have arisen because of an economic downturn, domestically and internationally then that process in itself will not have proved to be as valuable as anticipated. I do however believe that there is enough good sense around to enable us to continue with the ten-year approach set out in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

We have made every effort to take into account the feelings of the large groups who are due special increases and who have been denied those increases for a long period of time. As far as they are concerned, the special increases will be paid retrospectively on 1 January 1993. Effectively, from their point of view the money will be in the bank. They are not being deprived of their special increases. It will be paid in full retrospectively. The other over-riding consideration which had to be taken into account by the Government, in the difficult budget situation in which we find ourselves, was the lower paid and this has been done in the proposals which have been put forward by Government.

In the course of our recent discussions union leaders have raised the issue of tax evasion. I want to assure this House that this is an area to which the Government are absolutely determined to devote considerable attention and resources in the future. It is clear from past experience that there remain a large number of persons whose tax remittance bears no relationship whatever to their incomes. Such a situation is nothing short of a national scandal. The issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance will be addressed and attacked in the most vigorous manner possible and notably by the Minister for Finance in the budget.

We must examine existing reliefs, allowances, tax shelters and concessionary tax rates and take the necessary action to ensure that every citizen in this State makes a tax contribution which bears a real relationship with actual income. We need a concentrated attack on abuses in the business sector, the professional sector and the self-employed sector. The Government are determined that the PAYE sector will be satisfied that an even and equitable tax take is being enforced at all levels of our society and we will spare no efforts to bring this about.

I have spoken about the consensus approach which has been the mainstay of this Government's economic policy over the last number of years. The spirit of trust and partnership which has been so painstakingly built up has taken a severe denting in recent months, largely because of the reprehensible behaviour of a small and, in my view, wholly unrepresentative number of business people. Individuals who seek to amass substantial personal wealth through irregularity, tax evasion and fraudulent practices deserve nothing but our unqualified condemnation and the rigorous enforcement of the statutory provisions against such actions.

Apart from the illegality for such practices, what concerns the Government is that the entire business and enterprise community is in danger of being tarred with the same brush. This would be most unjust and unfair to those thousands of business men and women throughout this country who work so hard within the law, often in difficult trading circumstances, to build up businesses to create employment or simply to make a living without resorting to the despicable practices of a small section of the business community.

I wish to assure our trade union partners that this Government are not interested in confrontation. The only group we wish to confront are the tax evaders and those who can well afford to pay their share to the community but fail to do so. Trust, confidence and mutual respect is an essential feature of the partnership which is basic to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The actions by an unrepresentative and selfish minority must not be allowed to poison the atmosphere in which employers, employees, farmers and Government must co-operate in common cause. I want to acknowledge that there is justifiable anger among trade unions and their members at the gross injustice of wealth unlawfully accumulated and evasion of lawfully payable taxes. This makes the task of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress partners all the more difficult but it also makes Government determined to pursue every avenue to restore the programme to its full vigour.

Quite apart from the unfair and generalised condemnation of those engaged in business enterprises of all kinds, there has been an attempt to extend the same type of condemnation to those of us with political responsibility. This is a blatant attempt to undermine confidence in the Government even where there is no basis for any charge of improper or irregular behaviour on the part of Government.

Debate adjourned.