Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Dec 1991

Vol. 414 No. 10

Estimates for 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 Services 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 estimate 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.)

I was talking about the essential trust, confidence and mutual respect which is a feature of the partnership element in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I was assuring the partners, more particularly the trade union partners, that the Government are determined to act in accordance with that trust. We want particularly to assure the trade unions that we are aware of the understandable anger and resentment on the part of a number of their members in the PAYE sector having regard to some of the scandals and tax evasion that have been widely spoken about in public recently. Because of the major contribution made to this programme, particularly by the trade union partners, the Government are all the more determined to ensure that this programme will remain intact.

Attempts have been made to undermine that trust but I am glad to say that that trust will remain a major feature of the discussions we will have with our trade union partners.

I wish to refer to some other matters in the industrial relations field. Apart from trying to spread collective blame across the business sector, which is unfair and unreasonable, there have also been attempts to undermine confidence in the Government even where there is no basis for improper or irregular behaviour on the part of the Government.

For my part I have in the past been made a target by certain people, particularly by some members of the Opposition with no basis whatsoever, as having tolerated practices I have always unequivocally condemned when I was Minister for Agriculture and Food. As Minister for Agriculture and Food I have always been consistent in implementing sanctions against anybody involved in irregularities. Nevertheless, Members opposite decided to deliberately undermine confidence in the Government by levelling all kinds of spurious allegations which they knew in their hearts were false. That is not the way to maintain confidence. That is almost as reprehensible as the actions of those who have undermined mutual respect here through tax evasion and other unlawful activities. I hope we will re-establish some standards of trust and respect for each other so that the partners who look to us to get a programme through will see that we are giving the proper example. The irony is that, having stayed at arms length from some individuals in the beef industry — which my predecessor never did — I am accused of this. I never accompanied anybody on any promotion trip. My predecessor did. I assure the trade unions that I will follow through with the same standards as Minister for Labour as I did as Minister for Agriculture and Food.

To turn to industrial relations matters, these may be a matter of frivolity for the Deputy opposite but not for the Government or me. I hope we will not see another chapter such as we have seen where people attempt to undermine confidence in the Government in the full knowledge that the allegations they make are not true. In my 26 years as a Member of this House I have never seen this happen until recently.

In relation to other industrial relations matters, this year saw the establishment of the Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, with the specific role of promoting good industrial relations. I am glad to note that it has been very effective.

Since January there has been a substantial increase in the volume of activity in the conciliation service and also in the proportion of cases being settled at conciliation. Of course, primary responsibility for the resolution of disputes rests with the parties and an important objective of the Commission is to bring about a change in attitudes. Employers and unions must realise that the resolution of disputes lies in their hands and the automatic referral of cases to a third party is not conducive to the creation of a good industrial relations climate.

While the level of settlements at conciliation is encouraging, I would like to see more emphasis being placed on the resolution of disputes between the parties with the services of the LRC being used only when genuine efforts at settlement at local level have failed. Through its various services the commission will encourage and facilitate this more active approach.

The commission's responsibility for drawing up codes of practice is one which has received a considerable amount of attention over the past few months. I hope to be in a position to introduce the codes of practice by ministerial order early in the New Year. I am glad to say that the general pattern of industrial disputes has been diminishing because of the trust and understanding that exists between the partners, and that includes the Government. The involvement of ICTU and the FIE in this is something we greatly appreciate.

I assure the House that I will continue to implement the proposals consistent with the Programme for Economic and Social progress. I assure our partners — especially our trade union partners — that we recognise their commitment and respect the issues they must now face. However, I am confident that the partnership trust which we have built together over the past number of years can be used to overcome the issues we have to deal with now and that the programme will remain intact. It is in that spirit we have built up the programme and nobody wants to throw it away lightly. I am convinced that we will be able to maintain this programme.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Estimate. The reaction of the Government, through the Minister for Social Welfare, was the meanest proposed legislation I ever heard in the House prior to Christmas. The Government's "Christmas box" for the poorer sections of the community is nothing short of disgraceful. Indeed, part of the proposals may be illegal and unconstitutional, but I will come back to that matter.

The Minister did not say how much revenue would be collected from the measures he announced, nor did he say what categories, if any, of social welfare recipients will benefit from the change. This is a knee-jerk reaction to the perilous situation in the Exchequer. The Government have reneged on all the basic principles of fair play and decency. They have decided that the poor and the sick must carry the can for others, some of whom could make millions of pounds on a single deal in a couple of months. People who are sick, who do not have a job — or who had one and lost it — are revolted by being told a few days before Christmas that there will be changes in social welfare which will leave them worse off than they are at present.

Many of the measures outlined by the Minister will have devastating effects. For instance, the rerouteing of short term sickness benefits through the employer and allowing such payments to be taxed will greatly hurt people. When a doctor certifies an employee as sick it will be up to the employer to pay him or her for the first four weeks. People working in small struggling enterprises will find it extremely difficult to pay a sick employee out of the firm's resources. The Minister should re-examine the question of taxation of long term social welfare benefits. When you come down to brass tacks, if an employer — big or small — is unable to pay an employee for four weeks it means that the employee will not have any money for four weeks until social welfare benefits come into effect. That is grossly unfair and should not be tolerated.

The proposed changes in the contribution condition for receipt of social welfare benefit will mean that most part-time workers will be unable to draw unemployment benefit despite having paid their contributions. Many seasonal workers in the tourist trade, and in Bord na Móna, etc., will be debarred from unemployment benefit because, as the House is aware, at present one must have 39 PRSI or ordinary contributions paid in the previous tax year. If the contributions required to qualify are raised it will mean that most part-time workers will not qualify for payment. The only other route open to them is to apply for ordinary unemployment assistance, only to find that the money they earned during the year will be taken into account for assessment; most of them will be over the eligibility level. Many part-time workers who become unemployed will have nothing to live on for some time. There is no social justice, equity or fair play in that proposal.

The decision to exclude from short term social welfare benefits people who do not have any insurance contributions will cause financial havoc. I refer to people who do not have insurable employment, who are not in a position to pay stamps. The only place they can approach will be the local health board and apply for the disabled person's maintenance allowance. As a result of what the Minister said today, I understand that those people are likely to be debarred, which is a woeful step in the wrong direction.

The decision to exclude top earners from dental and optical benefit will certainly be strongly opposed by people in that category, with certain justification. The spouses of such earners were supposed to get benefits but that did not materialise. People who pay large sums in income tax must be wondering if they will get any concessions. There will be 275,000 people out of work in 1992; up to now redundant workers received severance pay and provided they had adequate contributions they were entitled to 15 months' unemployment benefit. I note from the regulations that this will also be curtailed. Does it mean that they will not get the top rate of unemployment benefit? Will the 15 months' period be curtailed? If so, it will add insult to injury to a man or woman who has just lost a job. Is this a fair proposal? At a sensitive time like Christmas why have the Government decided to bring in swingeing cuts? If they implement the proposals outlined by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Daly, there will be savings in the region of up to £150 million.

It is untold what can be collected if one decides to hit what can only be described as the soft underbelly of the poor and the sick in this country. When I heard the announcement, following the Estimates and after the Government press conference, like everyone else I was appalled that the Government had accepted that 275,000 people would be without a job in 1992. I hold a very important brief as spokesperson on social welfare and it is important that we protect the living standards of the less well off and the underprivileged. It is important that we protect the people who have no voice and who do not have the strong sectional back-up which many groups in society have. It was important that the views of the poor, the aged, the disabled and the unemployed be brought to the floor of this House today and, indeed, every other day for that matter.

I had believed, innocently I suppose, despite the fact that we have such an overhang of Exchequer borrowing that we would arrive at a situation where 1992 would be a good one for social welfare recipients. Nobody could have expected that but at least we should protect the people who are not in a position to protect themselves. The Estimate which the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Daly, brought in here today is astonishing. Some people will say there is nothing wrong with taxing social welfare benefits as such. If all things were equal there is no reason any Government would not actually look at the fairness of taxing social welfare benefits. The target has been the soft underbelly, the sick and the poor, who have no recourse whatever, who have to take their medicine. Many unfortunate people who get up on a Monday morning have no job to go to, if they are middle-aged they know they will never have a job because of the manner in which the country is being run. If they receive a small amount of severance pay or redundancy they will not be entitled to unemployment benefit for which they have paid stamps for a number of years. I believe somebody will bring a case on that matter through the courts because no Government are entitled to tamper with those payments. It is certainly a knee-jerk reaction to the huge problems we have with the Exchequer.

Any Christian society worth its salt will protect the people I have mentioned. I am not silly enough to talk about huge increases. Let nobody tell me that a man and his wife and four children in receipt of long term unemployment assistance of £136 per week is doing well. Any of us who happen to have children, and particularly when they get to their teens, will know that one would almost need a money-making machine to keep the show going. Let nobody tell me that £55 is adequate to keep a single person body and soul for seven days of the week. Let us get away from the idea that somehow or other people in receipt of social welfare are OK, they are not OK. The terrible disease which is paralysing our economy is lack of jobs.

I recall being in the House 12 months ago when the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, said the average unemployment rate for the year would be 225,000 people but we know now it was almost 30,000 higher. Where were all the stategists who were supposed to know all those things? Was it not plain that thousands of exiles returned at Christmas and afterwards and remained here? Young people who would normally emigrate did not do so this summer.

Having done some calculations in relation to the cost of unemployment I find the loss to the Exchequer when a person is on the dole and everything is taken into account is £12,000 to £13,000. If that is multiplied for 50,000 one is talking about a cost in excess of £600 million. That is a monument to bad planning and bad Government. After all the discussions we had since 1987 and 1988 we are back to where we started or even worse.

I should like to refer to the Department of Agriculture and Food Estimate in so far as the whole grant-in-aid to Teagasc, the state advisory board, is concerned. The House will be aware that the State funds Teagasc to the tune of £32 million per year. The board of Teagasc have said clearly in the last few weeks there is no way they can continue to provide advice and research unless certain things happen. In a leaked document the board said they would get rid of Grange, Kinsealy, Belclare and Athenry Agriculture College. After much national pressure it appears Grange will remain open and I applaud that because I believe Grange is very important to every beef farmer in the country.

So far as western development is concerned it is important for thousands of small farming families — and many others not involved — to continue to have independent research carried out by Teagasc in Belclare. The idea was to close the most successful agricultural college in the country where there is a surplus of students and where we have nationally and internationally acclaimed courses on pig husbandry and poultry management where those young people have a job six months before they leave the college.

So far as the Estimates are concerned the Government have decided to reduce the grant-in-aid by about £1 million. If you take the rate of inflation at approximately 3 per cent into account that will amount to another £800,000 or £900,000. However bad the financial position of the Teagasc board was a week ago they are £2 million worse off now. Ministers and Deputies in the Government parties tell me they will ensure — I hope they are right — there will be no reduction in the activities of Teagasc. That is a very poor way of showing it. Grant-in-aid to Teagasc was reduced in 1987-88 by 47 per cent and they have never recovered from that cut. That organisation are at a level now below which they cannot withstand the demands on them.

So far as the west is concerned, anything less than keeping a research station, a flag ship outfit — Mellowes' College in Athenry — open as the only State-run agricultural college in the west, from Clare to Donegal, is totally unacceptable.

I am sorry to have to interrupt, but the Deputy's time is up.

I am just finishing. This has been a black day for the poor and the underprivileged having regard to what we heard from the Minister for Social Welfare today. I hope that saner counsel will prevail over Christmas and that this most vulnerable section will not be hit in the way now proposed.

The framing of next year's spending Estimates and the putting together of the overall budget for the year ahead takes place against a background of very difficult economic conditions. These conditions demand a political response that is imaginative and caring but one which is also firm and fiscally responsible. The unemployment crisis which sadly is set to worsen in the year ahead is the overriding priority of the Progressive Democrats in Government. The thrust of the recently revised Programme for Government for the next two and a half years is focused on that issue. That is why so many of its provisions highlight the need for major changes in how we run our affairs, including such fundamental matters as industrial policy, tax reform and major institutional change at both central and local government levels.

The challenge here is to bring imagination and efficiency to the way Government operates. A caring ethos also prevades the work of this Government in framing the Estimates and in preparing next year's Estimates. It is essential that our social services in health, education and social welfare combine to ensure the welfare of the weakest and the less well off in our society, and protects them from the economic retrenchment that must follow at times of worldwide economic recession. We must also have an approach that is firm and fiscally responsible. The economic fortunes of this country in line with some of the world's leading economies, notably the US, Britain and many of the European Community countries, having worsened over the past year. As a major exporting country with a small open economy we cannot insulate ourselves from the effects of recession overseas.

The turnaround in the country's economic fortunes has been sudden and dramatic. In 1990 we experienced a record growth of 7.5 per cent GNP. The total number employed, according to a labour force survey, increased by 36 per cent and unemployment reduced somewhat. This year as a result of the biting international recession economic growth has ground nearly to a halt. The increase in the workforce has outpaced the growth in employment and with a dramatic reduction in emigration, along with the influx of returned emigrants, we continue to experience further growth in unemployment. The situation facing us is very grave on a number of fronts besides the unemployment crisis, the level of public debt while still falling remains unacceptably high. Servicing the interest payments of this debt alone consumes three-quarters of all income tax receipts or £2.4 billion approximately and we continue to add to the debt mountain. Our borrowing requirement for 1991 will be higher than that achieved last year and in cash terms will turn out at about £600 million. That is why it is misleading and irresponsible for some people to claim that because the pace of fiscal correction in the past few years has exceeded target, we can afford to further loosen borrowing next year. That would be fine if we did not have the overhanging debt mountain of £26 billion.

There are some very positive economic features amidst the gloom of the present situation. Employment levels in industry have held up very well. This is in marked contrast with the dismal performance of manufacturing industry during the previous recessional periods of the seventies and the mid-eighties. Employment in the services sector has continued to grow. The preliminary labour force survey studies for 1991 suggest that an overall increase of 27,000 jobs was achieved in this sector over the last two years.

Our trade balances remain very healthy. Our most recent figures for September show the best export figures in 18 months. The Progressive Democrats are confident that if the various sectors of our community continue to pull together, we can as a nation win the battle against high unemployment, high taxation, excessive debt and poor economic growth. The Progressive Democrats are convinced that the solutions to these problems require a series of inter-related responses.

Firstly, we must recognise that the unemployment crisis in our society cannot be cured by short term expansionary budgetary measures. Our existing level of debt is far too high to contemplate that. Our debt must be reduced and we must bring our current budget into balance. That is why the revised Programme for Government's mid-term target of reducing the EBR to 1.5 per cent by 1993 is crucial, as is our target of reducing the current budget deficit to 1 per cent by the end of 1993. In particular, we must reduce our borrowing for day to day spending purposes. It is indefensible that we as a nation continue to run up bills that our children will have to pay. We must learn to live within our means.

Investment in our economy is sensitive to the overall level of fiscal stability and to the Government's capacity and determination to underpin it. We must also recognise that the goal of participating in European Monetary Union at the earliest possible time is dependent on maintaining certain macro-economic targets, which are in themselves prudent and desirable for any properly managed economy.

We must also recognise that, along with fiscal stability, other structural reforms must also be undertaken. In this area the Progressive Democrats lay particular emphasis on the need for major tax reform and to remove its distorting and inhibiting impact on work, effort and enterprise.

The gross Book of Estimates published on Tuesday allows for a 3.9 per cent growth in public spending next year. This exceeds the likely rate of inflation and therefore involves a real increase in spending. One-quarter of the increase, however, is to cover the projected rise in the live register.

The Estimates do not provide for potential pay increases of £70 million for public servants, and neither do they anticipate the possible budget day increases for social welfare recipients. These are matters to which the Government must give further attention over the next month in framing the budget. It is possible, therefore, that these Estimates will have to be further revised, and cut back next month when the overall budget aggregates are firmed up.

The Progressive Democrats are committed to ensuring that the overall borrowing target, or EBR, does not exceed 2.5 per cent of GNP in 1992. We recognise that in the current economic climate, achieving this will be difficult and we cannot rule out further expenditure cuts to achieve this.

It can be seen from the individual departmental Estimates where the additional spending arises, compared with this year's projected out-turn. Additional spending is limited to a small number of Departments, and increases in education, health and social welfare make up over three-quarters of the total. Many Departments will experience cuts in real terms.

The issue of public sector pay has loomed large in recent months and the slump in economic growth has obliged the Government to adjust the pay proposals contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Such a move, while regrettable, is provided for in the programme when sufficient levels of economic growth are not realised. The public sector wage bill amounted to £3,160 million in 1990. Next year, with the revised pay arrangements presented to the unions last week, it is set to rise to £3,681 million. This represents an increase of 16.5 per cent over two years, when inflation will be less than half that over the same period. It is questionable whether we can even afford this level of increase, not to mind increasing it by a futher £100 million as we are now being urged to do by the unions.

I would ask all public sector employees to reflect on the economic and financial difficulties which the country and the Government now face. I am sure that most public servants would not welcome futher increases in taxation to meet the Exchequer's wage bill, nor do I believe that workers or trade unions want to see public services cut back further to provide the money which the Exchequer does not otherwise have.

I can understand the annoyance and upset of workers at having to countenance further delays in wage increases which they had expected, but the plain truth is that the Government have sought to go as far as we possibly can in trying to meet next year's projected wage bill. I am conscious too, that an appeal for further sacrifices on the part of public servants is made all the more difficult in the light of the recent business scandals that have unfolded. Workers, like teachers, nurses, prison officers soldiers and gardaí providing vital public services, can rightly ask why they should go without legitimate pay demands while a handful of people in this country can apparently amass millions of pounds, with little or no tax liability.

The Progressive Democrats share that sense of outrage and that is why we, along with the whole Government, are pursuing the various public inquiries so zealously to ensure that any proven wrong doing in these recent business transactions will be properly dealt with.

It is also evident from these recent business scandals that some aspects of our taxation laws, and our tax enforcement and collection systems are in need of overhaul. The Progressive Democrats are fully committed to such initiatives, and a particular measure in the agreed Programme for Government, proposing the introduction of a universal ID system, would be a major step forward in this regard.

I hope that in the coming budget it will be possible to introduce this measure, and to provide for the application of a universal ID number to all business and financial transactions. Through that one measure, decisive action could be taken against tax evasion and the black economy and it could be the foundation of greater social equity in our society.

I would also remind public sector workers, and workers generally, that the Government's tax reform programme will give many of them more money in their pocket. It is surely preferable in our present economic circumstances that improved take-home-pay arises from tax reform rather than increased Exchequer payroll costs.

Turning now to my own departmental responsibilities, the net Energy and Forestry Estimates for 1992, of £6.4 million and £9.5 million respectively, represent only a fraction of 1 per cent of the total 1992 Estimates for Public Services. Net expenditure in my Department has been reduced by 41 per cent over the past four years. The over-riding policy objective of this Government in relation to energy is to facilitate its provision at competitive cost, with every possible regard to security of supply, along with environmental and safety concerns.

The strategic importance of both the Whitegate Refinery and the Whiddy Oil Terminal was brought to the forefront by the Gulf conflict earlier this year. Officials of my Department, together with the INPC, are continuing to evaluate projects for the modernisation of the refinery, and upgrading of the oil terminal to further underpin supply security and reduce costs.

Natural gas now accounts for over 15 per cent of primary energy demand. Against this backbround, and to provide for assured supplies into the future, I have, as the House knows, given the highest priority to planning for interconnection with the UK gas grid. The project is on target to meet its completion date of October 1993.

I am pleased to announce that the Government have today given final approval for this project which they estimate will cost about £250 million. Following my meeting with Commissioner Millan last week I was satisfied that the project would receive 35 per cent grant support under the EC Regen Programme and I am glad to be able to inform the House that the formal decision confirming a Regen grant of over £80 million has just been made this afternoon.

One of my main priorities as Minister for Energy is to bring this project to effective implementation. Because of the critical reliance on one source of supply gas interconnection had to command priority.

The linking with European energy grids will not, however, stop at gas and I have already asked my Department and the ESB to look at ways which will best facilitate the bringing forward of an electricity interconnector as well. My ultimate aim is to ensure that we can provide secure sources of energy for our industry and services at internationally competitive prices.

It is hoped that the recently negotiated agreement with Marathon Petroleum Ireland Limited, which will involve the drilling of seven exploration wells in the period to 1996, will also help to provide domestic supplies of gas into the future.

In 1991, the demand for electricity has continued to grow at over 5 per cent per annum. If this trend were to continue it would draw closer the time when extra generating capacity would be required.

On the nuclear side, the most important development this year has been the passing of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, providing for the establishment of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, to replace the existing Nuclear Energy Board. I hope to formally establish the new institute early in the new year.

On the issue of minerals exploration, I am aware that the whole issue of mining gives rise to great and understandable concern on the part of those who, like myself, wish to see our natural environment preserved. I would like to take this opportunity to say again clearly that it is Government policy to facilitate the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the country only where this can be done in an environmentally acceptable way.

Bord na Móna derive about 60 per cent of their turnover from milled peat sold to the ESB at a price agreed between the two boards. The remainder of their products are sold on a competitive basis into the solid fuel and horticultural markets.

The company's financial situation continues to be a cause for concern in spite of the price it receives for milled peat sold to the ESB. The report recently published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies generally confirmed the conclusions of my Department and their consultants.

Rationalisation and further cost reduction appear to be inescapable. In these circumstances, and in the present financial situation, it is not possible to provide Exchequer aid for the company, but I am satisfied that a substantial reduction in debt can be achieved without it.

Energy conservation is acknowledged as a potentially significant contributor to redressing environmental damage, as well as reducing costs to energy users. A sum of £300,000 is being provided in the 1992 Estimates for energy conservation activities.

The Government have identified forestry as a key development activity, and the increased resources being allocated to the Forestry Vote in 1992 is ample testimony to the Government's commitment to this.

The gross Forestry Vote for 1992 shows a 42 per cent increase over the outturn for this year which is largely offset by an increase in EC funding. Nearly all of these additional resources are being channelled into afforestation grants and forestry research. It is very much a case of putting the money into areas where the maximum wealth creation and employment benefits will accrue.

I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that the level of afforestation in 1991 will be a new record high. I expect that the combined planting by Coillte Teoranta and the private sector this year will exceed 23,000 hectares.

We cannot, however, rest on our laurels. It is of vital economic and strategic importance to our economy that the area under forest in Ireland be increased from its present level of around 6 per cent to a level, over time, which is more closely aligned with the EC average of 24 per cent. The drive towards increased afforestation must continue. The expansion of planting and wood production in the public and private sectors planned under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress will generate upwards of 300 extra jobs, gross, in 1992.

The public forest estate of some 400,000 hectares which transferred to Coillte Teoranta on 1 January 1989 is a major asset base and resource which the company must manage and develop on a commercial basis. This year, Coillte Teoranta will plant 12,000 hectares, more than 50 per cent of total national planting, and I expect a similarly good performance from Coillte Teoranta next year.

Timber production from public forests has increased steadily as a greater percentage of the estate reaches exploitable age. Revenue from timber sales in 1990 increased by 16 per cent to nearly £32 million. Unfortunately, the market situation has deteriorated since the last quarter of 1990. There has been a weakening in demand for construction timber in Ireland and for palletwood and fencing in Britain. This situation has continued in 1991 but Coillte Teoranta still expect timber production to be reasonably close to last year's level.

Production from public forests is set to rise to 2.3 million cubic metres by 1995 and to over 3 million cubic metres by the end of the century. This increase will allow Ireland to become a major exporter of timber products, and will transform Coillte Teoranta into a very profitable and financially sound company.

I am very pleased also to record the exceptional level of expansion in private forestry in recent years. Last year an all time record level of planting of 9,217 hectares was achieved. This year, planting by the private sector is projected to exceed 11,000 hectares, of which it is estimated more than half was by farmers. I intend to see this progress continue well into the future because forestry can play a very important role in supplementing rural incomes.

The voted allocation of £15.64 million in 1992 for private forestry development will support planting of over 13,000 hectares, the building of over 20 kilometres of private forestry roads, investment in forestry harvesting machinery and various other back-up measures.

In promoting increased afforestation, it is essential to ensure that such development is compatible with the environment. While the primary objectives of forestry are to produce raw material and create wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas, its potential effects on wildlife habitats, the landscape and recreation and leisure cannot be ignored. The grant schemes operated by my Department have been structured to encourage the establishment and management of forests which contribute positively to the environment.

I thank the Minister for his co-operation in the matter of time. We hope for evidence of the spirit of goodwill and ingenuity from the triumvirate who will share ten minutes between them.

I assume I do not need to seek the permission of the House to share my time with Deputies Rabbitte and Garland.

I think the House agrees to that, but could the Deputy give some indication as to the time each speaker will take.

About three minutes each. I rise to briefly respond to what I see as the outrageous proposals contained in the package presented to the House by the Minister for Social Welfare. I am shocked, amazed, angry and outraged at the savagery of the proposals. They are an attack on the rights of insured workers. The emphasis in the media on this matter has been on the taxation of disability benefit. This measure is effectively a taxation on sickness rather than on the unemployed. It is a tax on short term payments made to people to compensate them for lack of income during a period of unemployment. These payments are made when workers are at their weakest and most vulnerable. It is effectively a new, additional tax on PAYE workers.

It seems that the Government, rather than dealing with poverty, are determined to increase the numbers of those living in poverty — at present one million people are deemed to be living within and below the poverty line. This is the thin end of the wedge in an attempt by the Government to tax all short term social welfare payments. I remind the House that the payment amounts to £55 a week and this will now be taxed.

It should be noted that this package contains other measures. There is provision for means-testing for deserted wives' benefit, optical and dental benefit and unemployment benefit for people who are made redundant. Persons who are long term unemployed will no longer be entitled to disability benefit. They will be forced, if they become ill during a period of long term unemployment, to go cap in hand to the community welfare officer to get the wherewithal to live. That is a most retrograde step which must be condemned by this House. I ask the Minister to prevail on his colleagues in Government to withdraw these savage attacks on workers and the unemployed. Alternatively he should do the honourable thing — he has not been in this office long enough to be involved in the drawing up of these proposals — and resign from his position as Minister for Social Welfare. He is an honourable man and I believe that these are not his proposals.

On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I am opposing these Estimates. In the Minister's speech and, indeed in the speeches of the main Opposition parties, there has been much talk about growth in output and in our national product. The Green Party have no objection to growth per se but the growth we have had here and the growth that all other political parties aspire to is not sustainable in that it presupposes further growth in the inputs of nonrenewable energy and in industries which clearly do not comply with acceptable environmental standards. This type of growth will not result in a real increase in living standards in the long term.

I notice that the social welfare Estiamte is based on an average unemployment figure for next year of 275,000 people. This is an appalling indictment of the Government's failure to tackle unemployment. The cost to the country next year of this increase in unemployment is estimated at £66 million. This money is paid by the Government to people on condition that they do not work or take study courses to improve their chances of re-employment. The continued failure by the Government to introduce a basic income scheme for all Irish citizens is to be deplored.

While there has been a small increase in the health budget allocation, it merely keeps pace with inflation. The poor, unemployed and mentally handicapped will continue to suffer as a result of inadequate services. If the Government are intent on tackling tax avoidance and tax evasion they should provide adequate sums. Money collected from them would help alleviate unnecessary suffering. The overseas aid budget, at £48 million, is still scandalously low, representing 0.6 per cent of Government expenditure. There is real poverty here but it does not compare with the poverty in the Third World. The Government's response in this area was very poor. Finally, I would like to refer to the Environmental Protection Agency for which a sum of £700,000 is provided. It is quite obvious from this derisory sum that this agency will not come into operation until 1993, four years after it was promised by the Government. That shows the level of commitment by the Government to the environment.

In the couple of minutes available to me I wish to comment on the literal despair provoked by the Minister for Health in her failure to find £6 million to permit the Tallaght regional hospital to commence in 1992. That is in stark contrast to her ability to find £6 million almost this day last year to purchase Carysfort College for UCD. I regard as ominous her comments today that she is examining alternative sources of funding for the Tallaght hospital. What is required by the people of west County Dublin is a people's hospital, not a Blackrock type institution for graduates of the Carysfort-Smurfit School of Business. It is a slap on the face to the people of west County Dublin and the surrounding region, a hugely populous area of almost 250,000 people, with no acute general hospital, that the Minister was not as capable at the Cabinet table this year in providing for that hospital as she was last year.

I support entirely the remarks of Deputy Stagg about the social welfare provision which is now almost £3.5 billion. The fact that so much money has to be paid in social welfare highlights the reason we can make no progress in this economy. While there is such a large number of people unemployed and dependent on social welfare, as is evident from this Book of Estimates, there is little hope that this economy will turn around. The Minister provides for an additional 22,000 people on the live register next year, bringing the number to 275,000. If that forecast is as much out of line as was the forecast last year, which was 14 per cent out of line, the unemployment figure for 1992 will be about 314,000 people. That is the disastrous position facing a stagnant economy and a disprited people. That is the Christmas present the Minister has provided.

It is proposed that there will be social welfare cuts and pay cuts. The pay cuts have brought a reaction from the trade union movement that is more explicable in terms of their confidence in the Government to deliver on promises than it is an immediate reaction to the cuts as have been announced. From my contacts with the trade union movement they greatly doubt the commitment of the Government to deliver on the undertaking given for January 1993. They do not believe the Government will find the money — the Government have given no indication of this — to make retrospective payments.

It is sad that we are going out on a note of more cuts for the poor and the disadvantaged in our community. We managed to agree an increase in ministerial pensions last night but we cut the budget for those on social welfare. The area I represent desperately needs a hospital service but there is no ability to find the relatively small amount of money that would enable a start to the hospital in 1992.

I am now calling the Minister for Finance.

Could I put on record the decisions——

The Deputy should please resume his seat.

——that have affected my constituency?

Deputy Allen came to the Chamber one second ago and he is not going to be disorderly.

The rich have creamed off——

The order of the House is that the Minister be called at 4.50 p.m.

The poor have been scandalously victimised.

The Deputy should have been here earlier to make his case for the poor.

I could not because of the structure.

The Minister, without interruption, please.

When opening this debate, a Cheann Comhairle, I expressed the hope that we would hear wide-ranging, informed and constructive contributions from Deputies. Deputies have certainly ranged over the full spectrum of the Estimates. It is disappointing to note, however, how some contributions were of the set-piece variety, making predictable and parochial criticisms without any regard to the wider economic realities.

Deputies opposite have painted a picture of a land and an economy full of doom and gloom. This is hardly a true and fair evaluation of our recent experience or current situation.

Ask the unemployed about that.

Prior to the current international downturn, we witnessed the highest ever annual increase in private non-agricultural employment. We have seen our inflation rate drop below the European average and have achieved international recognition as a stable, low-inflation economy.

The national accounts which were published recently by the Central Statistics Office, and the results of the 1990 labour force survey, confirm that 1987 to 1990 was a period of outstanding economic success. During those three years, gross domestic product expanded at an annual average rate of 6 per cent. Inflation averaged just barely over 3 per cent per annum. There was an annual surplus on the balance of payments which averaged over 2½ per cent of GNP. The national debt-GNP ratio was reduced by over 20 percentage points.

All that created was more unemployment.

Never before had there been such a period of sustained success.

As we all know, some of these trends were interruputed in 1991. There was no way that Ireland could escape unscathed from the slowdown in the international economy and the associated uncertainties. This was accepted when the 1991 budget was drawn up. But 1991 turned out to be a year in which the reality did not measure up even to our modest expectations.

It is important, however, to keep things in perspective and to maintain a balanced view. True, growth this year may be low compared with 1987-90. Investment certainly took a knock this year but this has to be seen against the background of the increase of no less than 30 per cent in the volume of fixed investment between 1987 and 1990. Some favourable and very important trends did continue through 1991. The inflation rate, as expected, remained well below the European average. Another healthy balance of payments surplus will be recorded.

Increased unemployment is, of course, the major blackspot; but this substantially reflects the huge job-losses suffered in the UK and other economies and which was not paralleled in Ireland essentially because of the improvements brought about here in recent years by the pursuit of sound economic and budgetary policies. Nevertheless, we realise we have a serious situation to address on the unemployment front and I will return to this topic later in my speech.

Deputy Noonan made the serious but unfounded charge that the Estimates, as published, were bogus. I totally refute that allegation.

(Limerick East): On a point of order, Sir, I said the Estimates were presented in a bogus fashion. I never said they were bogus Estimates, that is a different thing altogether.

If the Deputy withdraws from that, we will accept it. The point that the Deputy made was that the figure was not in the Book of Estimates, but it was in the speech and in the tables.

(Limerick East): It is like “no `such' matter”.

I said that the Government took £600 million off departmental expenditure demands. Deputy Noonan argues that these were notional cuts on extravagant demands made by Departments, which the Government pretended to be resisting. This is most definitely not the case.

All Ministers, and their Departments, are well aware of the severity of the budgetary problem for 1992. They are also aware of the important statement in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that the objective of reducing the national debt to GNP ratio towards 100 per cent by 1993 will be attained principally through restraint on current public expenditure.

The context in which departmental expenditure demands were to be framed was thus clear and well known. But in order to highlight it, my Department made sure that Departments were reminded of it. Departmental demands were, from the point of view of those running spending programmes, not extravagant. Very few Departments put in proposals for new programmes, or submitted wildly overcosted Estimates of what existing programmes would cost.

The Government faced a difficult task in reducing these departmental demands. There are severe constraints on the degree to which expenditure can now be pruned back. There are large areas of expenditure where we receive EC Structural Funds, and it would make neither economic nor budgetary sense to cut these back. The cost of higher unemployment, largely due to developments abroad, has to be met. Worldwide, governments face a problem in controlling spiralling health costs, as medical technology improves, and grows increasingly more expensive. Departments, of course, naturally included in their Estimates provision for the non-pay elements of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

The Government went through the departmental demands extremely carefully. We eliminated all over-provision and all demands for new or improved programmes. We amended schemes in ways that would generate saving without unacceptable economic or social consequences. Finally, when it was clear that these steps alone would not be sufficient to generate the savings we need on budgetary grounds, we decided to eliminate provision for further improvements in 1992 in non-pay areas on the lines envisaged in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. We also decided that the emerging public service pay bill in 1992 was too high, and settled the additional provision at £70 million to be implemented on lines which we have made known to ICTU.

The reductions we have made are real. They are, in all cases, backed up by clear policy decisions. There is no fudge in our decisions. There are no arbitrary cuts thrown in just to make a big imposing figure, without any clear ideas as to how the required savings are to be made. The Government are determined that spending in 1992 will remain within the levels settled, subject to any changes I may announce in the budget.

It was suggested that somehow the Government have been remiss in not including the allocation of £70 million in the Estimates for the pay arrangements announced last Friday. I would like to assure Deputy Noonan, in particular, that there is nothing unusual about this. The normal procedure on the publication of the abridged Estimates volume is that public service pay allocations are based on pay rates actually in force on the day — no more. Successive Minister for Finance have followed this procedure down through the years.

I will be making the necessary provision in the budget to fund the increases set out in the Government's decision on public service pay — estimated at £70 million. It gives me no pleasure to have to repeat to the House that this is the absolute limit of what can be afforded without severe cuts in the major social services of social welfare, education or health. In constructing the package on public service pay, we have attempted to strike a balance between the concerns of those public servants who are due special pay increases, those who are in relatively lower paid grades and the overall needs of the community in what is undeniably going to be a difficult year.

These are the facts of the situation now facing us all as a community. I hope that most public servants will, on reflection, come to see things this way also. I am aware that there are some issues, such as the treatment of pensioners, on the verges of the policy we have announced with which some groups of public servants are particularly concerned. I believe that it would be useful to discuss with the public service unions such issues and any other issues which they may deem relevant within the overall parameters of the Government's decision. I am available for such discussions at short notice.

Deputy Noonan said that capital expenditure is being increased by 8 per cent. This is true of the Public Capital Programme as a whole. But the Exchequer element of the Public Capital Programme is set to increase by 3 per cent in 1992. The main force leading to an increase in public capital spending in 1992 is spending by State agencies which is funded out of their own resources, and without recourse to the Exchequer. That spending is set to increase by 13 per cent. The reasons behind this increase are commercially sound, and reflect the fact that although growth slowed down this year, we still have a growing economy which creates needs for capital spending by State agencies which should go ahead.

It is also relevant in considering capital expenditure to remember that much of this spending, both that funded by the Exchequer and that funded by State agencies themselves, receives EC support. Spending on national roads, for example, attracts European Regional Development Fund receipts. To look simply at the increase in expenditure, without allowing for these receipts, is to form an exaggerated view of the net impact of such capital spending on the borrowing requirement.

I would agree with the Deputy that it is not possible in the long term to increase public expenditure in real terms unless the economy is growing at a rate sufficient to fund this increase. He is right when he says the Government must otherwise resort to increased taxation or extra borrowing. This is the message of the NESC report, which is reflected in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I have no intention of introducing a budget which would increase Exchequer borrowing as a percentage of GNP. My attitude to tax reform is that changes must be budget neutral.

Deputy Noonan also argued that the increases in PRSI income limits amount to an extra tax on jobs. This is not the case. The increase in the PRSI limits underlying the Social Welfare Estimate, reflects the normal practice of increasing those limits in line with the expected increase in average private sector earnings.

The Deputy also referred to the fact that the rates support grant in 1992 is being held at the 1991 level. This is a small reduction in real terms. Furthermore, the rate support grant is only a small part of total local authority income. The reduction in the rate support grant of £6 million on the level that would have applied had we maintained the grant in real terms must be seen in the context that the overall spending of local authorities, excluding loan charges, is about £750 million. Six million pounds is less than 1 per cent of this.

Finally, I would point out that the Deputy is not being consistent. On the one hand he is arguing that the Estimates are increasing by too much, while arguing that the reductions we have made will hit jobs. Would he have preferred that we did not make these reductions? If we had not, the Estimates, would have shown a major increase.

The Government have, within the constraints that we face, done as much as possible to sustain job creation in the Estimates. As I have remarked already, the Public Capital Programme overall is set to increase by 8 per cent. This will benefit the construction industry, and the Department of the Environment estimate that the direct impact in that industry will be an additional 2,000 jobs. On top of that, there should be additional jobs in areas such as professional services for the building industry. The Estimate for Labour shows an increase of 22 per cent in the allocation for the social employment scheme, bringing it to £72.9 million. That increase reflects the fact that EC aid will not be available for the scheme in 1992. With the withdrawal of EC aid the Government could have cut the allocation for the scheme, which would have resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of persons availing of the scheme. We decided that this would be unacceptable, and have made up for the shortfall in EC funding.

It was also argued that in providing in the Estimates for an average unemployment level of 275,000 in 1992 the Government have signalled that they regard that as an acceptable level. That is not the case. We are determined to do everything possible to reduce that figure, as is shown by the imaginative initiatives we have announced. We could, of course, have produced an Estimate for Social Welfare which reflected a lower figure for unemployment. We decided not to do so, but to accept the official advice that before allowing for the impact of the new employment initiatives, the level of unemployment could be 275,000. That figure will, naturally, be reviewed in the budget.

The Estimates are an appropriate vehicle for the end of session debate, given that when we resume it will be time to deal with the budget. I should like, a Cheann Chomhairle, to thank those Deputies who made very many relevant points. As I said at the outset, other Deputies made merely the normal parochial and political points. I thank all Deputies for their contributions to the debate and I hope that my colleagues, who have dealt with the main issues raised, have answered most of the questions.

Once again I commend the Estimates to the House.

It will be a sad Christmas for the unemployed.

Does the Minister acknowledge the presence of the Opposition benches? Could he not have written privately to Deputy Noonan?

Question put: "That the words proposed be be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 71.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

The question now is: "That the motion be agreed to."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 70.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Shea, Brain.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Rayan, Seán.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.

Sar a scoraimid i gcomhair na Nollag, ba mhaith liom Nollaig faoi shéan agus faoi mhaise a ghuí ar gach Bhall den Tí. I should like to wish all Deputies on every side of the House a very happy and enjoyable Christmas. I look forward to meeting them all here again on 29 January refreshed and restored by a pleasant recess.

I should like to join in wishing Members on all sides of the House, including the Taoiseach, a happy

Christmas and, in particular, you, Sir——

And Deputy Enda Kenny.

On behalf of my party, and I am sure others, I should like to congratulate Deputy Enda Kenny on his good news. It is a match——

Made in Heaven.

——which will win support on all sides of the House. Christmas is a time when we can all be with our families, which is very important, and a time for good cheer. I suppose it is also a time for repentance and re-examination. I have no doubt we will return to the House with our consciences thoroughly re-examined and be in cordial good humour to get on with the work in 1992.

I should like to join in wishing you, a Cheann Comhairle, Members of the House and everyone in the country a very peaceful and happy Christmas. Hopefully we will be refreshed to renew our differences in 1992, which I hope will be a more prosperous year than 1991.

I, too, should like to wish a happy Christmas to all my colleagues in the House and all the staff. I was going to recommend some Christmas reading to the Taoiseach but as he did not take up my other suggestions during the year it is unlikely that he would go for my choice in Christmas reading either. I wish the Taoiseach a happy Christmas.

Taoiseach and Parliamentary colleagues, I thank you for your kind wishes and extend to you all the compliments of the holy season, and also to your loved ones and the staff of the House. Peace, happiness, prosperity and joy to you all at Christmas and throughout the New Year. Nollaig shona agus athbhliain faoi shéan agus faoi mhaise daoibh go léir.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 12 noon on Wednesday, 29 January 1992.

Top
Share