Deputy Yates was in possession and was in the course of sharing his time with Deputies Connaughton and Theresa Ahearn. Fifteen minutes remain within that time slot.
Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government.
—(The Taoiseach).
Before Question Time I had been dealing with the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald and the Minister for Finance, who could not explain away the contraditions between what he and Monsieur Jacques Delors had said.
It is quite clear that the Tánaiste has dropped the ball again. Unlike the Spanish, who were able to obtain a written agreement at all stages, specifying something of the order 40 billion ECUs, he got a mere handshake and was left hoisted on his own fourchette as a result of his exaggerated claims. His recollection of events is amazing. Early last week when Mr. Delors said that he had expressed to him a doubt about these funds on 4 October, he said he had some vague recollection of having had some fleeting conversation. Yet this week, when the pressure was on in “Morning Ireland”, he was able to say that he recalled this conversation so well and it was of such significance that he relayed its contents to the Taoiseach. He failed to tell the people that the share-out of these funds was the sole decision of the 17-person Commission and nobody else. He ignored the international media reports of 21 July last which has said that the most Ireland could expect was £7.3 billion.
We turn to the Taoiseach who is becoming a walking, monosyllabic sound-bite. The one consistent feature throughout every crisis is that he keeps grinning. He must take ultimate responsibility for this humilating fiasco. He has shown himself to be smug, complacent, careless and arrogant. He has brazenly kept shifting the goal posts since Edinburgh. He has led a Government that has consistently and deliberately disguised the doubts raised over the existence of this EC money. His bungling has turned the National Development Plan into a badly made can of dog food. If one knew what went into it one would not even give it to one's favourite poodles on the Government backbenches.
I must draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that Members should not indulge in personalities. It is quite acceptable and in order to be critical politically but not of personalities.
The Taoiseach was particularly subtle. He landed from a helicopter to open a school in Galway and was asked if it was wrong for Government members to say that things were in the bag when they should not. What did he respond? He said that the Tánaiste acted in good faith, when it was quite clear that it was he who had made the assertion at all stages that the money was in the bag. This sorry saga epitomises his style of Government. The Taoiseach has created a rift we can ill afford between Dublin and Brussels on issues such as Aer Lingus and the GATT deal. The assurances we heard today that Jacques Delors would draw down this money are worthless. Commissioner Millan made it absolutely clear last week when asked whether we would draw down the £7.8 billion he said "No". He said, "It would be wrong to have a misunderstanding on this point". The economic loss to Ireland is £640 million. For every pound in that plan the private sector was to put up 47p so that the loss is now £940 million which is more than the 1 per cent income levy and on the Government's own target it is a loss of 10,000 jobs. When the 1993 figures are added to the present plan they amount to £16.4 billion and not £20 billion as claimed.
Wexford): Do not worry, Wexford will still be lucky.
The fact is that Ireland had a just case for this money based on our demographic trends, our unique dependency ratio, our high unemployment levels and transport costs. Yet despite this case we have seen a widening of the standards of living within the golden triangle in Continental Europe where the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. This was our last opportunity but Spain took the lot. They received 40 billion ECUs, leaving us high and dry.
Commissioner Flynn is wearing two green jerseys. If ever a lesson lacked subtlety on how to lose friends and influence for this country he has brought it to a fine art.
In conclusion, this plan has become a national hoax. It is a humiliating fiasco and the Taoiseach should stop hiding behind senior civil servants. Above all else, the Government should not come back to this House, having lost £940 million, and ask the taxpayer to pick up the tab. It would be much better if they were to tell the truth and dump some of the projects they can no longer afford rather than persist with this policy of high expenditure and high taxation which is crippling jobs and stifling enterprise.
This motion gives me an opportunity to analyse the performance of the Government since its formation earlier in the year. The one striking observation — I think it will not be lost on anybody in Ireland — which I share with many thousands of people relates to the arrogance displayed by this Government. It is amazing that a Government in office such a short time should have developed this bad trait. Normally one associates arrogance with consistent responsibility for ruling the country; in other words, a party or parties in power for a considerable period. This Government is entirely different. Its birth was different — there is no doubt about that — its upbringing is different and if it gets the chance to mature it is likely to be regarded as the most arrogant, self-centred, ego-based Government we have ever had. Why should this be so?
(Wexford): We are doing a great job.
Only Fianna Fáil members of Government are present to listen to the debate. Where are the Government's partners?
They are confident.
They are more confident than they may be in a few years' time, but that is another story. After all Fianna Fáil got the fright of their lives after the last general election.
(Wexford): It was nothing to the fright you got.
Speak for yourselves. The hounds were out for the Taoiseach.
We elected the Taoiseach.
The hounds were out for the Taoiseach and some Members were trying to hang him in mid-air. It was only when he went to Brussels and secured the £8 billion that Members quietened. Fianna Fáil Cumann members openly called for his head. However, there was no room for complacency or arrogance.
The supremo, Deputy Dick Spring, arrived on the scene following an election result beyond his wildest dream. I understand that on their first day in the House the Labour TDs had to be introduced to each other as they had neither seen nor heard of each other previously. The Labour Party enthralled the country with their policies to get approval for the forthcoming marriage to a partner which most Labour voters despised. However, the magic formula was hammered out and a Government was formed. The Taoiseach headed the pack, Deputy Spring became Tánaiste and we had the arrival on the political scene of the infamous programme managers. We now have a Government with the greatest voting majority in history and that is being proved here as they can do what they like when they like. According to some commentators, the Government will be in office for the next eight or ten years.
Or longer.
As a result, the people are paying heavily for that arrogance. Due to its poor foundation the structure of this Government is shaky. The Taoiseach drew the first blood. He needed a boost after the general election and so he convinced the people and the Fianna Fáil cumainn that he had performed miracles at the Edinburgh Summit. He announced boldly that Ireland's Structural Funds were £8 billion over a six year period and said he was absolutely sure of that. Nobody was more convinced of that than Deputy Spring and his cohorts. When he became Tánaiste he appointed the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, to oversee the spending of the £8 billion. The Labour Party were really in business as they had access to the loot. They made wild election promises to Aer Lingus and believed the Structural Funds would pay for some of those promises. The Minister of State did herself justice in regard to the task of consultation. She became known as "Minister moneybags" and everywhere money was distributed she was there. I sincerely hope there will be more money on the way, as the Government suggest, because she has spent considerable sums during the past six months.
However, all is not well. It is unlikely that the Tánaiste will ever forget the night of 20 July 1993. He went to Brussels to bring home the bacon. He was sure the deal for £7.84 billion was agreed. I want to put it on the record of the House this afternoon that regardless of the methods used to decide on a deal in the small hours of the morning it is surprising that out of a group comprising the President of the EC Commission, a Minister, a Commissioner, a departmental secretary and an ambassador that nobody asked the next morning what was agreed. If you bought a dog licence you would be issued with a receipt. In a deal involving £7.8 billion someone must have taken a memo of what happened that night and if not it was gross incompetence.
The plot thickened when the Government allowed a two-day debate here on the national plan. That was the greatest insult ever inflicted on the people, the Members of this House and more particularly on the thousands of committees throughout the country who spent weeks and months trying to ensure that their particular project was accorded priority, on the basis that we would obtain almost £8 billion. The Government did not have the courage to say they were not sure of it.
I listened to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste on that occasion and they conned me into believing that the money was available. The Tánaiste, sitting in the Minister's place last week, was uneasy; he was like a clucking hen. He genuinely believed the bad news was coming his way and decided to spread it around. For some peculiar reason he decided to meet Jacques Delors earlier this week to mend the fences. He wanted to ensure that the Taoiseach was in the same gravy pan when he said: "But I told the Taoiseach". The Tánaiste showed great incompetence.
Over the years Government Ministers of all persuasions have put up a fine case for Ireland around the table in Brussels. Because of his shameful and devious behaviour the Tánaiste has dented the high esteem in which Irish people have been held and I believe this has done untold damage where it counts most to the future of the country. I will now hand over to my colleague, Deputy Seymour Crawford.
The Deputy has one minute.
I will not go over the ground that was covered by my colleagues. I have no confidence that this Government will deliver on the many promises of Structural Funds for Cavan-Monaghan made during the election campaign.
During the debate on Northern Ireland, Members spoke about the need to co-operate with Northern Ireland. But what do we see? A promise was made that Structural Funds would be spent on the routes to Northern Ireland. However, in the National Development Plan the money will be spent on a road that comes out through Longford, up to Sligo and then back to Blacklion, linking up with Letterkenny. This will force the people of Letterkenny to travel down to Sligo and Longford. Obviously, the Taoiseach wants a good road to Longford. He succeeded in getting all of Counties Longford and Roscommon reclassified as severely handicapped areas while much of the area in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan which I represent has not been classified as a disadvantaged area.
On page 108 of the National Development Plan, 1994-1999, there is a promise that money will be spent on the M2 from Dublin to Donegal, but what it says is that the money will be spent on the road from Broomfield to Castleblayney. However, that project has already gone to tender and the moneys have already been committed to it. This has nothing to do with the National Development Plan as this is already guaranteed. There are no other proposals for my constituency in the plan, no water scheme for Monaghan town, no sewage scheme for Carrickmacross, no word of the extra money needed to extend the reclassification of areas as severely handicapped.
How could anyone have confidence in the Taoiseach who looks after his own area by ensuring that moneys are provided for the roads and the railway? If one goes South, it is noticeable that all other roads lead to Tralee. I believe that this plan is totally biased, never mind that we do not know whether the allocation is £7.84 billion or £7.2 billion.
The Government not only made a fiasco of the National Development Plan but also of the currency crisis. Indeed a great many things that are happening now, such as low interest rates and the price of cattle, is not as a result of this Government but in spite of it.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Ned O'Keeffe, Hughes and Dermot Ahern.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I condemn in the strongest possible manner the appalling cynicism displayed by the Opposition parties. It is quite clear from the glee on their faces that they have taken delight in the fact that Ireland has not received the guaranteed amount of money it aspired to. Since the debate on the Maastricht Treaty various Deputies have stated what we were likely to get from Brussels. Deputy De Rossa claimed we would get £6 billion. Before the Edinburgh Summit Deputy Cox said we would get £4.5 billion and the MEP Mr. John Cushnahan said it would be between £5 billion and £6 billion. Premature comments were made on what we would get.
I think the Opposition parties should accept the bona fides of the Government, of the Civil Service and the Ambassador and those who were present at the negotiations. The Dáil should present a unified front to Brussels and to the Commission stating what it feels we deserve. In his opening address this morning the Taoiseach spelt out our excellent track record in drawing up and formulating a national plan of this kind. The return on the previous plan was very significant. Indeed we received £600 million more than we were guaranteed in the last tranche of EC funds. We received £3.4 billion instead of £2.8 billion and we spent £3.4 billion during the course of the last national plan. I have no reason to doubt that the same process will recur during the lifetime of this plan. Six years is a long time. The quality of the plan submitted has been acknowledged by President Delors. We must put the maximum number of projects forward to obtain the maximum drawdown of funds.
I am disappointed at the Opposition's approach, and so is the country at large. The people looking at this charade are deeply disappointed. The quality of the debate is poor, as are the metaphors and the language used. I think the issue has been dealt with childishly. We need to get the best deal for the country at large and I have no doubt about what motivates the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. They have a genuine motivation to achieve the best results for Ireland and, indeed, we have achieved an excellent result compared with the performance of other countries in Europe. The Greeks opposed the package and they were very annoyed that Ireland received such an excellent deal. We are receiving more per capita than any of the other poorer countries. That is a reflection of the quality of the Civil Service — I want to put that on record — and the ability of its personnel to prepare a plan that can obtain the maximum degree of funding. That is the reality. Most objective commentators have acknowledged that Ireland has done extremely well and indeed much better than other disadvantaged countries in the Community.
Members have referred to the bad relationship with the Commission. We had battles before on our fishing and on our agricultural policy. People are not going to start crying because of disagreements. That is the hard reality of political life and the hard reality of bargaining. I think such remarks are rather childish. The Taoiseach said it was indicative of our inferiority complex that we were always being careful to be good boys. It is regrettable that we have not conducted a qualitative analysis of the contents of the plan from many of the Opposition Deputies.
I am particularly impressed by the very strong emphasis in the plan on human resources. Over £3 billion is allocated to education, training and the vocational sector. There is a percentage increase to this sector which underlines the stong commitment to young people in particular in this country. It affords them an opportunity to be educated and to get the right training for employment.
I appeal to the Government to look seriously at a new tier of third level education, which is developing very rapidly with the development of post leaving cert courses, vocational preparation and training programmes and VTOS schemes. Up to 10,000 people are participating in these schemes which are outside the conventional university and regional technical college structure. I think a very radical revolution has been taking place. This sector of third level education requires national recognition as well as national funding in structures, institutions and facilities. The participants in these programmes should be provided with some financial assistance and I appeal to the Government to look at that sector. A great many young people who are qualifying want to gain greater vocational experience and training. Many of these programmes are market driven and relate directly to employment. For that reason they very much deserve assistance from the Structural Funds. I want to stress this point because it is indicative of the Government's commitment to people. This is a people driven plan. It is about people, and employment and represents an endeavour to come to terms with the significant problems facing us. The demographic position is such that during the next ten to 15 years we will have a high entry rate into the labour market. We have a large number of people on social welfare benefit, depending on a limited and contracting productive sector. The plan endeavours to deal with those structural difficulties in our economy and that is reflected in the large amount of money which has been allocated to human resources. It indicates also that investment in people and human resources is as important, if not more so, than investment in infrastructure. That is a welcome development in this plan.
I am rather surprised at this vote of no confidence in the Government based on the National Plan. The Opposition is inclined to be cynical and tawdry in its approach to the £7.2 billion. We thought the House would fall down around us last week with the attitude of the Opposition and of course the star performer was Deputy De Rossa. I thank my colleague, Deputy Martin, for allowing me to share his time.
The antics of the Opposition leave much to be desired. The public recognise the benefits and advantages of the National Development Plan. At the end of the plan we will have achieved £20 billion, made up of £8 billion plus what will be provided by the State and the private sector. The European Community recognises that this is one of the best documents ever presented to the community from an Irish Government. It is well structured and presents its targets. We are proud of our success in Europe, where we are recognised as a country on which the Community can depend for producing programmes and achieving targets.
Before referring to those on the benches opposite, I want to recall some home truths. The National Development Plan is the most significant capital development programme in the history of this state. It is committed to generating 200,000 jobs during the period of the plan. It is imaginative, practical and broad in both scope and vision. There is more vision in the plan than was generated by those on the benches opposite for many years. Their carping here today and last week carried with it the unmistakable whiff of sour grapes. I have no doubt they are jealous and envious of this plan. They would rather see this job generating plan sabotaged than have the decency or ethical fibre to lend support to it in the national interest — and members of that party talk a great deal about the national interest. The concept of the national interest is alien to them. Self-interest is their collective motto and guiding light.
This motion is about much more than the national plan; it is about having confidence in the Government. I have absolute confidence in the Government. When it was originally formed I was somewhat sceptical but that is no longer the case. This is a forward looking and effective Government with a deep commitment to the wellbeing of the people of this island.
The Deputy should make his speech with more passion.
By virtue of its hard work and dedication it has cast a spotlight of shame on the Opposition. Their ineffectiveness and sheer desperation is clear for all to see. Deputy Cox may smile. I know he has regrets following his failure to secure leadership of his party.
I can take it.
If there is no confidence in this Government one can only make the presupposition that there is an alternative Government on the benches opposite. There is no harm in looking at the components of such a would-be Government.
Fine Gael are but a shadow of their former selves, with no visible policies or direction. Last week we saw the publication of the Fine Gael rescue package and they were fortunate it was published in the same week they raised a storm in this House. That package, which was published in the form of a commission report, confirmed what we already know — that the party is in a shambles and incapable of running itself not to mention being fit to govern. Fine Gael has a long way to go before it is capable of governing. The electorate are well aware of that fact and so too is Fine Gael.
The Democratic Left is a small group of TDs in search of an identity who are only too willing to exploit any political situation or cause in their never-ending search for a headline. I have a salutary message for the Democratic Left, who presume to care a great deal about the underprivileged in our society. This Government will do more for the less well off in one term in office than Democratic Left will accomplish in its political lifetime. That is an unavoidable fact. The Progressive Democrats, who confuse pompous self-righteousness with real ethics, may have changed its leader but its colours remain the same — self-satisfied, technocratic and, above all, uncaring. Those three parties came together last week to create a storm in this House in an alliance which we have never seen or heard in the history of this House. It is remarkable that this motley crew, with all their glaring differences, have managed to come together at all. Opportunism makes for strange bedfellows.
The real confidence motion here today is in respect of our sorry Opposition, who have cause for shame because of their cynicism and opportunism. This Government under the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, will continue to govern in an effective and caring manner. That is the Fianna Fáil way. It is our tradition and one we will continue to hold.
We have had a buoyant agricultural sector under the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh. This has been one of the best years in Irish farming ever. Cattle prices, headage payments and the milk sector, among others, have been doing well. There were some hiccups in the pig industry and because of weather conditions the harvest has not been as flourishing as we would like. Nevertheless, in the agricultural sector the people of rural Ireland are delighted and attribute the success of agricultural development on this island to the Fianna Fáil Administration.
Deputy O'Keeffe must not have been at home recently.
No Government has invested more heavily in agriculture than Fianna Fáil under Minister Walsh. The headage payments are envied by the Opposition, cheques for the growing of grain have been paid out in the past few days and we have introduced the set aside scheme.
The Deputy should ask the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Browne, what he thinks of the set aside scheme.
This Government has successfully negotiated many new premiums resulting in new buoyancy in our economy which we never thought possible. Many new road developments have been completed — for example, the Dublin to Newbridge and Cork to Mitchelstown roads. This country is on the move and those opposite are trying to cloud the issue and frustrate the people to prove a point. They have little to prove and I sympathise with them in their efforts.
What about the Labour Party?
As this is a no confidence debate I would like to refer to the latest IBEC Newsletter published on 19 October. That association has no vested political interest, but it has a deep interest in the future development of this country. In regard to the National Development Plan and its confidence in this country for the next six years, that association states:
The combined leverage of EC, public and private investment should make a significant contribution to economic growth and, in turn, employment.... There are positive and innovative features in the Plan. These include: support for indigenous industry through sectoral initiatives; assistance for public transport, including mainline rail; and a strong commitment to a business development programme covering North/South.
That article concludes:
... the plan has potential over time to unlock considerable investment potential which should benefit the whole community.
That initiative to unlock the potential of people can only take place by having confidence in ourselves and in how this country will develop during the next five or six years. The contributions from the Opposition during the past four or five hours would depress most people listening to the debate. In fact, people have confidence in this Government and in its ability to use wisely the funds we will receive between now and 1999.
As a Deputy from the west I am particularly pleased that the Government has ensured that the question of regionalisation is to the forefront of this plan. The west, as one of eight subregions, has the smallest population. The area of land in Counties Mayo, Roscommon and Galway is vast but peripheral and there is migration from the region. Under the ten programme groups, the west is tops with regard to agriculture in the estimated sub-regional breakdown of expenditure between now and 1999. We are tops in agriculture, first in forestry, second in fisheries, third in tourism, second in environmental services and fourth in industry. Accordingly, we get more than our fair share despite the fact that in the lead up to the publication of the National Plan there was much speculation because local councillors felt that the emphasis would not be on regionalisation but on flagship projects located along the east coast, particularly in Dublin. However, the work done by Ministers, backed up by the permanent Civil Service, has resulted in a worthwhile, carefully thought out plan which will benefit the entire country over the lifetime of the plan.
Deputy Yates referred to the National Plan as the "national hoax". The Deputy should reconsider those injudicious words. Is he indicating that he will not look to the National Plan to promote some of the projects which will be pertinent to his constituency and that perhaps he will leave it to the Minister of State from Wexford to promote those projects?
Last week Deputy John Bruton referred to the analogy of the newly qualified solicitor who would at least know that he should get something in writing and he berated negotiators in relation to the National Plan on that point. Some people know better; they know that the EC works on an element of trust. Deputy Bruton and his colleagues should know that a newly qualified solicitor would not in effect bargain down his position but would haggle from a high point and hope to reach it. That is basic negotiation whether one is in a cattle market or the High Court. That is the way the negotiation was carried on by this Government and it should be commended on that, not be berated because some of the money slipped away. As other Deputies have said we have achieved more per head of population than any other EC country.
Fine Gael have a cheek in calling into question confidence in the Fianna Fáil Party, when they do not seem to have confidence in themselves, if we are to believe newspaper reports in recent times and their policy document. I was part of an all-party delegation which went to Brussels and by chance I was in Brussels; on the day the National Plan issued. I challenge any of the Opposition Deputies who were part of that delegation to tell the people the attitude of Mr. Bruce Millan's chef de cabinet when we met on the afternoon following the launching of the plan. I did not detect any unhappiness with the plan, in fact I gathered that they thought that it was a great plan. I challenge Opposition Deputies to say otherwise and I commend the plan to the House.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Keogh.
That is satisfactory
The tone and contents of the Taoiseach's speech this morning reminded me of the tone of one of the first political meetings I ever attended with Deputy O'Malley in the Gaelic League Hall in Thomas Street in Limerick. Deputy O'Malley had arrived from Dublin to talk about the objectives of the campaign for the 1977 election and the was full of policy ideas. Someone at the back of the hall stood up and said "Dessie, don't mind all that policy from Dublin, just give us the balls and we'll fire 'em". The Taoiseach's address today had the same knockabout style about it. In his contribution the Taoiseach did not give any substantial information on the gaps in evidence, the gaps in time and the explanations which the House seeks in this debate today. We have not yet had the answers to what went wrong, why we were misled in the course of debates last week in terms of what we expected to get. The Government knew we would not get that amount.
Deputy Harney today said that the result for Ireland is a very good result and the issue of confidence is not about the result but about the manner in which it was presented and the amount of self delusion which went into certain figures which were worked on incessantly in political terms, to try to deliver some substance to match the delusion. There was plain incompetence when this House was told of guaranteed amounts of money on the basis of understandings at the highest level and we discovered then on the eve of the fateful Commission meeting last week that we are talking about ranges of money, fourchettes. Our international reputation will not affect those in Brussels, who will get on with their lives. We are only making fools of ourselves in this process and that is what we are discussing today. The assurance of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance that Commission President Jacques Delors had made it quite clear he would look after us in the future was a somewhat hollow and amusing assurance. A week after the horse has bolted Mr. Jacques Delors will close the stable door. Mr. Jacques Delors, who is to look after us in the future, could not do it when it mattered. The same Mr. Jacques Delors on whose assurances for the future we are relying will not be in the Commission for the mid-term review. He will leave the Commission at the end of 1994. We are to accept the assurance of a man who will not be there, without having learned from the assurance we got from him last week as President of the Commission.
A number of Deputies, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, said that the £2.86 billion or 3.672 billion ECUs which we were promised in 1989 for the 1989-1993 Community support framework worked so well that we got £3.4 billion. I accept that figure and one can easily establish where the figure came from. In 1989 the European Community set out a Community support framework for a five year structural spending programme between Brussels and Dublin. I am sorry if the figures bore the Minister at this hour of the evening.
They do not bore me; they confuse me.
I do not want to confuse the Minister.
I am full of confusion and consternation.
Over five years the EC set out precisely in terms of ECUs what we could expect year by year. That key agreed in October 1989 is the key that delivered most of the £3.4 billion spoken of in this House today. Every year, to turn the 1989 prices into whatever mattered in the year in question, they used an inflation rate. As a result, we will receive more than expected. In addition, the ECUs had to be converted into Irish pounds. Our allocation of £2.86 billion did not increase because we got a bigger slice of the cake or because someone else got less — we received what we were promised — rather, it increased when the rate of inflation across the European Community and exchange rate adjustments were taken into account. Eventually, it increased to a figure of £3.2 billion. Under a different set of European initiatives, known as the Community Initiatives, we received a further £200 million, giving us an overall total of £3.4 billion. The figure agreed in October 1989 increased automatically, not because of political acumen, native charm or wit on the part of those who stalked the corridors of power in Brussels on behalf of this nation but rather because it was adjusted to take inflation and exchange rate fluctuations into account. The bottom line is that we only received what was in the bag in October 1989. Conversely, we did not receive anything that was not in the bag at that time.
The question we now have to ask ourselves is what numbers are currently being used. The figure we are due to receive in 1993 was agreed in October 1989. We did not receive one penny more at Edinburgh; we only received what was already in the bag since October 1989. One thing did happen at Edinburgh, that is, a Cohesion Fund was introduced and because of this we will receive more. The first slice is to be paid this year.
The question now is what is in the bag for the period 1994 to 1999. Whatever it is will increase because of inflation and exchange rate fluctuations over a period of time. Last week, when we were faced with a dilemma in Brussels — the Tánaiste was depicted in a cartoon stuck in the horns of a fourchette— the question was what the Commission would decide to put in the bag for the period 1994-99. The Commission decided to allocate Ireland, at constant 1994 prices — I am sorry for using technical terms but people, including the Taoiseach, have been playing with numbers — a sum of 5.62 billion ECU under the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the Guidance element of the Agricultural Fund. When converted this amounts to £4.5 billion. That is the sum now in the bag from the Commission's meeting last week and the documentation has been published by the Commission. In addition to this, we expect to receive two further slices under the Community Initiatives and the Cohesion Fund.
In the National Development Plan the Government estimated that during the period of the plan 1994-99 we would receive £516 million under the Community Initiatives at 1993 prices. At this stage, this appears to be a shade optimistic but we looked for the upper figure. The lower figure amounts to approximately 8 per cent of the figure agreed to last week, £363 million. In regard to the Cohesion Fund there are two layers. We will receive between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the total funds available.
The figures we will receive can now be predicted and are not surrounded by mystique, sophistry, obscurity or confusion. They can be measured and we will ultimately come up with the figures that we will receive. I have prepared a detailed paper which I intend to lodge in the Oireachtas Library to clarify the matter which has been shrouded in fog for so long. I do not mind if someone says that the figures are wrong because to err is human but at least it is transparent. If the figures are wrong, I want to know by how much.
When we compare like with like, at 1993 prices, the bottom line is that the gap in the figures between what we will receive during the period 1994-99 and the figure included in the National Development Plan submitted to Brussels ranges between £897 million and £1,429 million in respect of EC funding alone. Those are the figures which gave rise to this debate on the motion of no confidence. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a hole in the bucket. Every pound made available by the European Community under the plan was to be matched with £1.50 from public and private sector sources in Ireland. On this basis, there will be a shortfall of between £2.35 million and £3.5 million. As I said, I intend to lodge that document in the Oireachtas Library and ask the Minister for Finance who gave us some numbers today to take it away and rubbish it, if he can. I am not saying that there are no mistakes. It is probably riddled with them, given that I had to do the sums in a hurry, but I am lodging it on the basis that there should be transparency.
Several times the Taoiseach and others on the Government side quoted figures that I have used. I also intend to lodge in the Oireachtas Library a lecture which I delivered on 7 February 1992, the day the Maastricht Treaty was signed, at the Henry Kennedy Memorial Lecture organised by the ICOS, the Irish Cooperative Organisation Society. During that lecture I tried to predict what would happen and why. I am proud to stand over every detail and to say that the outturn is closer to the figure I predicted than to the figures predicted by my critics.
In conclusion, the debate during the past few weeks has been characterised on the Government side by obscurity, confusion and by attempts to bluff and confound the people by pulling figures from the air. There is a need for transparency. We should deal with the true figures. The Government failed to do this until it was faced with reality last week in Brussels. That is the reason the Opposition will vote no confidence in the Government in terms of its ability to manage our affairs and its judgment.
Until this week I always thought it was a disadvantage to be a newcomer in this House but now I am not so sure. I will go further and say that it can be an advantage in the sense that one has not lost contact with the real world and the rules that apply in business. Let us suppose for one moment that Ireland was a plc, that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were executive directors of that plc, supported by a structure of programme managers which was not understaffed and that these executive directors entered negotiations of paramount importance to the company in terms of its long term future. Do they ensure that a contract is written and agreed? No, they do not. Do they ensure that a civil servant is briefed to document what they believe has been agreed? No, they do not. Do they respond within hours, confirming the oral contract and placing their understanding on the record? No, they do not. When, as they see it, the other party to this oral agreement reneges and says in effect that they will not pay up, do they straightforwardly inform their shareholders of this fact? No, they do not. If any group of company directors behaved in this way they would be fired. Legal action could possibly be taken against them. The business pages would record not just the irresponsibility and incompetence shown but the startling nature of it, because here we have it —"GUBU, the Sequel", GUBU with French subtitles and GUBU with a new star, the Tánaiste.
If it were not so tragic it would be funny, but it is not funny. It is not funny to realise that all of the evidence needed to establish the truth was available for weeks. All of the nay sayers were saying nay in no uncertain terms. Bruce Millan was not hiding his dissenting certainties under any bushel. Almost every civil servant at every level in Brussels was indicating that the figure being claimed in Ireland was rubbish. The Press corps from Ireland out there were saying it. The international Press were saying it. What was the Tánaiste hearing? Precious little, it now appears. It is not because the information was not available to him. He was hearing precious little because he was choosing to hear precious little. Remember the three wise monkeys, seeing no evil, hearing no evil, speaking no evil. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs chose to adopt the "hands over ears" stance. The evidence suggests that he not only heard the contradiction of his claims but communicated that contradiction to his Taoiseach.
We should stand back and examine the person and role of the man at the centre of this. The Tánaiste is the second person in Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Minister Andrews knows all too well, is responsible for the maintenance of good overseas relationships. If that were not the most publicly prestigious role in Government I do not believe Deputy Spring would have chosen it, but choose it he did and in so choosing he took on the responsibilities and the ethics appending to his choice. According to his own words, the leader of the Labour Party, the Tánaiste, knows days in advance of the announcement of the national plan that the sums on which the national plan is based no longer add up——
That is not true.
——yet he does not state this publicly. Nor does he halt the launch of the now grievously flawed national plan. Instead he sits on the platform at the launch knowing that what is being presented to the Irish people is simply not true. There is a word for that —"shameful".
At the weekend I was on a radio programme with Minister Eithne Fitzgerald and she did her considerable best to defend the indefensible sequence of events. At one point she spoke of Deputy Spring as a man of integrity. At the time I was inclined to nod, because I have always thought of the Tánaiste in those terms. But since then I have been shaking my head a good deal about that particular point, because integrity is not something one gets at the beginning of one's career that stays put throughout; it is not inborn, not a genetic inheritance but something to be defended and reaffirmed in a million decisions, small and large, made every day. It is always in the present tense. It is no use claiming one had it yesterday or the day before. All that matters is whether we can see it today. Above all, integrity is found in actions, not claims made by someone else on one's behalf, and not in personal assertions. If we are looking for integrity in the actions of the Tánaiste we will not find it in this instance. I do not like saying this because I would infinitely prefer to deal with policy issues rather than personal performance.
Of course you would.
In this instance personal performance has made nonsense of policy. It has made us all embarrassed and ashamed and has lagged behind the confidence, competence and standards we now regard as basic. There has been a folk culture established through the generations of Fianna Fáil as the "fancy footwork" people, the "three card trick" party of Irish politics. It did not take long for the Labour Party to become imbued with that culture.
I love that.
Nine months is all it took to produce an offspring that looks more like Fianna Fáil than the Labour Party. On "Saturday View" Minister Fitzgerald said "We felt we had a commitment". What has happened here? We are hearing the language of Mills and Boon, where feelings are facts being applied to international agreements, talk of feelings when we should have been establishing facts, talk of our Minister for Foreign Affairs coming to a temporary little agreement and shaking on it like a schoolboy.
I wish to share my valuable time with my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Brendan Howlin.
I am sure that is agreed.
I thought Deputy Cox's contribution was, apart from a few clichés, commendable up to the point where he dwelt on the figures. I would be the last person to argue with him in the context of his knowledge in this regard. I have no doubt but that the Minister for Finance will be at the head of a queue of people at the Library door waiting to look at his document or documents, but I would not suggest for one moment that the Minister for Finance would rubbish his document. Without in any way patronising the Deputy, I think his contribution was excellent, but it was ruined by the interjection of the political charges made, more particularly against the Taoiseach. No doubt Deputy Howlin, the Minister for Health, will deal with the charges made by Deputy Keogh against his colleague and my colleague in Government, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(Interruptions.)
The suggestion that we are full of confusion, bluff and obscurantism flies in the face of the facts. Deputy Carey is one of the longer serving Members in the House. He will remember that in December last, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was at the Edinburgh European Council. It is unfortunate indeed that this debate has been interspersed with hysteria and not a little amnesia. The roots of the current allocation of European Community Structural and Cohesion Funds to this country are to be found in that Edinburgh European Council of last December. I know, because, as I said, I was there. Indeed, I was privileged to be there as Minister for Foreign Affairs on a team ably led by the Taoiseach and including my colleague, the Minister for Finance.
In the recent evolution of the European Community the Edinburgh Summit was crucial and Deputy Cox recognised that. Edinburgh was the meeting of the European Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers that finally put real flesh and blood, as it were, on the bones provided in the so-called Maastricht Treaty.
The purpose of the Edinburgh Council was twofold: to adopt the Community budget for the years 1993-99 and to agree the overall outline of Structural and Cohesion Funds for the same period. The basic objective of the Edinburgh Summit was to breathe life into the formal decisions and legal aspirations of the Maastricht Treaty, which was then on the way to its ultimate adoption by the Community's member states. Let us not forget the immense economic and political benefits Maastricht involved for the Community as a whole, but more particularly for Ireland, as one of the poorer, peripheral member states.
The Maastricht Treaty involved: a timetable for movement to the benefits of Economic and Monetary Union; linked to that, a much stronger and more explicit Treaty commitment to the cohesion of poorer, peripheral member states with the more prosperous regions; new Treaty-backed Community initiatives in, for example, health and education; and an enhanced and better coordinated role for the Community in the area of foreign policy, while at the same time leaving us with full rights of determination of our traditional policy of military neutrality. These were the noble aspirations of the Maastricht Treaty and as Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time I was proud to recommend them to the people. I was even more proud when, after Denmark's hesitation, Ireland led the way for Europe with a resounding two-to-one majority in favour of the new Treaty. That was on 18 June last year, an historic day.
However, it was necessary in the national interest to ensure that, in particular, the financial measures necessary to implement Maastricht were put in place quickly by the Community. After all, we had committed ourselves in the referendum campaign to a doubling of Structural and Cohesion Funds, to a figure then of £6 billion, and we had to deliver on that commitment to the people. That is crucial to this debate. I know the debate ranges over wider issues than that, but it was brought on by the need for the Opposition to bring themselves to light in some way and to criticise the Government in the context of a confidence motion. I see nothing wrong with that. If it gives the Opposition heart, so much the better for democracy and so much for the need for continuing tensions in this House, tensions which have been missing since the last general election.
They will not be missing in the next election.
The Deputy knows exactly what I am talking about.
The tensions are over there now.
There are no tensions here. This is one of the most united Governments in the history of the State. It is working very well and will continue to work well up to the next general election. If the country still needs us then we will be at their service and their disposal.
That is said with the same sincerity as the reference to the £7.84 billion.
Let us hear the Minister without interruptions.
We will continue to serve as well as we are serving at present. That is why the primary task facing the Taoiseach, myself and the Minister for Finance at the Edinburgh European Council last December was to ensure that the Community leaders agreed the decisions needed to give real, financial muscle to the Maastricht Treaty. That task was accomplished through teamwork and to good effect.
I recall that Prime Minister Gonzalez of Spain worked effectively at the summit to ensure that the overall allocation earmarked for the four so-called cohesion countries, including Ireland, was maximised. But the Taoiseach was effective too in achieving assurances that we would get an allocation in line with what we had been able to obtain in Structural Funds over the previous five years. We achieved that outcome on the basis of a recognition of the quality and effectiveness of our previous National Plan and our track record in maximising our take-up of Community funds generally.
That was the fundamental understanding agreed at Edinburgh and subsequent events have not altered those basic principles. The Government's task from that point onwards was to ensure that the overall resources and the shares of resources agreed at Edinburgh were put into effect for the next seven years, and that, quite simply, is what we have done.
It was on the basis of that understanding and those principles that the Taoiseach on returning from Edinburgh was able to assure the people that a massive increase in EC Structural and Cohesion Funds had been achieved for Ireland. Up to that point the largest figure predicted by even the most pessimistic opponents in this House had been £6 billion. Today we know we are guaranteed a minimum of £7.3 billion in EC funding, a far cry indeed from the gloomy predictions being bandied about as we headed for Edinburgh.
Where will we get the extra £100 million?
Or £7.84 billion?
Deputies will be amazed at the end of seven or eight years that the amount will be in excess of £8 billion. I am making no political promises in that regard but I am making a prediction that, I think, will be realised. More importantly, on the basis of our past experience we know that we can expect the ultimate figure to be considerably higher. We know that the EC allocations under the National Plan for the period 1989 to 1993 exceeded target by more than one-fifth. On this occasion if our additional improvement is only half that of the 1989-93 period — and surely that is a conservative assumption — we will have no difficulty in reaching the target figure of £8 billion by 1999, as we agreed in outline at Edinburgh. That is the foundation the Taoiseach and his team laid at Edinburgh. It is for that reason that the Government is confident about the National Development Plan, confident that it can and will deliver on its detailed programmes. The National Plan is a comprehensive, integrated attempt to focus more than £20 billion in investment over the next six years, with the aim of delivering 200,000 new jobs.
The marine sector is ready to play its part in delivering its share of the investment and jobs envisaged in the plan. Most of these jobs will be based on the development of indigenous resources. They will be secure and well-paid, many of them will be in locally-based and cooperative ventures and they will bring new hope and vigour to the most peripheral regions of our country. As a Fianna Fáil Minister in this Government, I am pleased to be giving tangible effect to the kind of economic philosophy traditionally espoused by the Fianna Fáil Party.
I recognise and fully support the right of every Member of this House to scrutinise and criticise. That has been well done in this debate. But there comes a time, too, to move on, to recognise what has been achieved and to build on it. Now is that time. Now is the time for the House to re-affirm its confidence in a Taoiseach and the Government that has delivered and will deliver on its commitments.
My colleague, the Minister for Defence and for the Marine, suggested that I might deal with the personalised abuse of the Tánaiste by Deputy Keogh, but unfortunately neither the Deputy nor any Member of her party is in the House and therefore I will not waste my valuable time in saying anything other than that the record of service and personal integrity of the Tánaiste will be remembered long after the personages opposite are long forgotten.
I find it ironic that a Government which has been hailed as the most effective in recent years should face a motion of confdence so early in its term of office. My area of responsibility to this Government is health and I welcome this opportunity to put on the record of this House the progress made in the past nine months on the delivery of a major programme of developments in the health services. When both parties in Government sat down to write the Programme for a Partnership Government and to frame the 1993 budget this priority on health was first and foremost in our minds. The emphasis on health in the programme and the performance of this Government in the past nine months in the health areas has reflected this high priority.
This afternoon I will present to the House the evidence that both the public and this House can have confidence in this Government's stewardship of the health services. Confidence means that this Government is meeting its commitments to the health service as laid out in the programme; confidence means that this Government can be relied upon to act decisively in times of crisis; and confidence means that this Government is actively developing and improving our health sevices and planning for the future.
Perhaps the greatest indicator of the single minded approach of this Government to the implementation of the programme is in the all-out attack we have mounted on hospital waiting lists. Long waiting times for surgical procedures is perhaps the area of greatest inequity within our health system. It is a source of great satisfaction to me that, as Minister for Health, I have been able to make major inroads into this problem.
The partnership programme committed this Government to a major action programme on hospital waiting lists. To this end £20 million was provided in the 1993 Budget. In May I was able to announce a programme of 17,254 extra surgical procedures to be carried out this year. In the vast majority of specialities the targets I have set are greater than the number of people on waiting lists for more than a year. In the area of children's ENT and ophthalmology all children waiting in excess of six months will be dealt with. In addition, as a result of a major investment in cardiac surgery in Dublin and Cork, there will be a 46 per cent increase in annual throughput of cardiac cases nationally. My Department is in the process of completing a midterm review of the waiting list initiative and I am happy to say that most agencies, with one or two exceptions, are meeting their targets and I am now confident that well in excess of 17,000 extra procedures will have been completed by the end of the year.
In other areas the Government has shown that we are not afraid to tackle issues which are sensitive or potentially controversial. In following through on the commitment to develop services for people wih HIV-AIDS and to be more frank and open in the message about prevention, I was aware that what was proposed would meet with resistance from some quarters. The Government's responsibility in this difficult area is to those who suffer from this dreaded disease and to those who are at risk of exposure to it. It was for this reason that I did not hesitate to bring forward the frank and upfront HIV-AIDS prevention programme which was launched in May of this year. It was also for this reason that I finally brought to an end the debate on the availability of condoms through the Health (Family Planning) (Amendment) Act, 1993.
I have made no secret as Minister for Health of my desire to strengthen and develop the caring aspects of our health services. An area of particular interest to me in this respect is the services provided for those with a mental handicap. The programme commits the Government to an ongoing programme of improvement in services for those with a mental handicap. An additional £8.5 million was made available this year for this purpose, bringing total expenditure to £217 million. This is by far the largest single allocation ever made to services in this area and is a hallmark of the Government's determination to give a very high priority to the development of these important services. I am satisfied that this injection of £8.5 million will provide a real improvement in the services and I intend to build on this in the coming year.
My commitment to a health service with a strong tradition of caring is also underlined by the provision this year of sufficient funds to implement the Nursing Homes Act. The Act came into effect on 1 September this year. In addition to new standards of care and accommodation in private nursing homes, a new system of subvention payments has been introduced from that date.
In the past week yet another programme commitment was fulfilled. I was very happy last Wednesday to approve and witness the signing of the main contract for the construction of the Tallaght Hospital. In my first week in office I gave the green light for the commencement of the tendering process. Since then the Tallaght Hospital Board and my Department have worked extremely hard to ensure that construction would commence before the end of this month. It will commence tomorrow. Perhaps the most gratifying aspect of the process to get the Tallaght Hospital up and running has been the agreement reached between the three component hospitals, the Adelaide, Meath and National Children Hospitals on future management structures for the hospital and the maintenance of the important ethos of the Adelaide. Tallaght will be the largest hospital project ever undertaken by the State and it is my ambition that the new hospital will be operational within four years.
Perhaps the most shocking incident in the health services since I became Minister has been the tragic Kilkenny incest case which focused the nation's attention on services for children in the area of prevention and detection of abuse. In response to the public outcry following the case I set up an inquiry headed by Catherine McGuinness SC. Within six weeks the McGuinness report has been accepted by the Government and a commitment given to provide £35 million over the next three years to implement fully the Child Care Act. This year the Government made available £5 million to begin immediate implementation of the Act. I would remind the House that this is the largest ever investment of resources in the child care area in a single year. It demonstrates in the most tangible way possible the commitment of this Government to the development of a range of services and supports to children at risk and their families.
All sides of this House have demanded action on the issue of the expanding public service pay bill. Action requires us to be fair, and also to be firm and resolute. The Government is committed to pay restraint and it has made it clear that any solution to, for example, the ambulance drivers' dispute must be in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress agreement. There is a responsibility on behalf of the Opposition parties in this House, if they are going to argue for pay restraint, to support the Government in this respect. They cannot have it both ways.
Improving our health service is not just about increasing available manpower; it is about demanding and achieving quality at every level and ensuring that every pound is spent to maximum effect. To this end I have expanded my Department's capacity to support value for money initiatives at agency level. I have encouraged the development of comprehensive case-mix criteria to be used in the yearly allocations to health boards and hospital authorities. I have sought and achieved savings in the contentious area of drug prices. In August my Department concluded a new three year agreement with the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries which achieved an effective 6 per cent reduction in drug prices and a price freeze for the duration of the agreement. It has been estimated that the cumulative effect of these concessions will yield annualised savings of £15 million to the Exchequer. In addition to these savings on the purchase price of drugs, I am optimistic that the agreement worked out last December with the Irish Medical Organisation on general practitioner prescribing will yield additional savings.
The major task for my Department for the remainder of this year is the completion of the national health strategy. The strategy, which I hope to bring to Government at the end of the year, will review the state of health of the nation and set out clear policies, plans for their implementation and specific targets. It will set the agenda for my Department for the next four years and tackle such issues as reform of health board structures, the further development of primary care and health promotion. A key element of the strategy will be the introduction of an annual health status report setting out the key health indicators and a review of progress made in reaching targets. I am prepared to state honestly where we are in terms of our nation's health and what we have to do to change things for the better.
In conclusion, what I have set out for the House this evening has been the beginnings, the early steps, of a virtual sea change in our health services and the way they are run. This is a Government committed to change. One of the yardsticks with which to measure that commitment is the progress made so far in implementing the programme for a partnership Government. I feel privileged to have been associated in the past nine months with one of the most productive periods ever in the history of the Department of Health. By the yardstick of the programme, or indeed any yardstick, change is taking place and will continue.
Members of the Opposition have argued, and I presume will continue to argue, that this Government does not deserve the confidence of this House. In ignoring the achievements of this Government, not just in the health area but in every area of public life, I wonder what this debate is all about. With poor opinion poll ratings and damning reports on everything from leadership to party finances, is this debate really anything more than a last ditch bid by the Opposition to gain the credibility and the confidence of the electorate?
I wish to share my time with Deputies Andrew Boylan and Theresa Ahearn.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I will try to be as brief as possible. The real question under discussion in this debate is not whether we sought and got a promise for a certain amount of money from the European Commission but rather why information which was available to the Taoiseach and at least two Ministers was not brought to the attention of this House during the debate on the National Development Plan a little over a week ago. The reason the Opposition parties tabled a motion of no confidence is that it is normal in similar circumstances in other democracies to call for the resignation of the people concerned. It is well known — this has been confirmed since — that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and at least one, if not two, Ministers had information which they withheld from the House during the debate on the National Development Plan, a plan which they knew in their hearts could not be delivered upon in full. They further complicated that charade today when they said they hoped and expected to get the full amount and had every confidence that we would get it. That is the most extraordinary double speak I have ever heard — I suppose one could call it "partnership speak".
In his speech the Taoiseach said:
Commissioner Millan has been a tough negotiator, with whom we have had some differences over the years, but for whom we also have respect. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs did negotiate with him on 19 July, albeit unsuccessfully, until President Delors took over from him on that night. Unfortunately, Commissioner Millan's position was coloured by his original strongly held view that Ireland should only get about £5.5 billion.
That is a little bit like blaming everyone else around the table except oneself. The only people charged with this responsibility were the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. It was their job to negotiate. I hope they can carry out any future discussions in a more dignified fashion. The impression created abroad of Irish politicians chasing around Europe with a shawl and a begging bowl looking for alms is beginning to wear thin in the European circuit. If we are to improve our image abroad, we will have to change our attitude in this respect.
The Taoiseach stated on television that he fully endorsed the Tánaiste's handling of the affair. I have no doubt he did because he was equally culpable. It was extraordinary that everyone seemed to be looking for a victim to blame. The only people to blame are those who went forward, allegedly secured a deal, returned home, announced a deal and withheld information in the final analysis which was crucial to a debate which took place in this House two weeks ago.
In any other democracy people who acted in this manner would be asked to resign and that is why the Opposition parties have tabled a motion of no confidence. We do not have confidence in the Government's ability to negotiate or to continue in Government.
I wish to make a brief contribution on this confidence motion and to state categorically that I have no confidence in this Government. I do not trust it, nor can I be expected to trust it.
What else is new?
The Deputy never had any confidence in it.
I do not have any regard for the ability of this Government to get us out of the troubles that are daily getting deeper. The problem is not the amount of money that we have received from Brussels. We have made great gains since our entry into the EC. However, we cannot obtain the truth from the Government in regard to the full amount we will receive. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Andrews, referred to £7.3 billion but in fact the amount is £7.2 billion, which is a substantial amount of money. The National Plan was based on a figure of £7.84 billion, despite the fact that the Government knew that the money would not be forthcoming. That was a false premise. The people were misled.
The Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, who had responsibility for this plan, stated in the Seanad in reply to the debate on the National Plan that "half a billion was neither here nor there".
I did not.
I will spell out for the ordinary people the significance of £0.5 billion.
Deputy Boylan should not quote from the Official Report of the Seanad without indicating the column number.
To say that £500 million is neither here nor there——
I never said that.
Of course, I accept that that is the thinking within Government and that it did not come from the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, alone. It was the thinking around the Cabinet table that £500 million is neither here nor there. If £1 billion — and that is what the final amount would be — is not significant to the Government, to the ordinary people of this country it amounts to a shortfall of £1,000 million. That is outrageous. That is the type of book-keeping that has this country in its present mess and which has ordinary people believing there are millions of pounds available if one has the right contacts. That came to light with the various scandals that broke in recent years and months. If half a billion pounds is neither here nor there, why——
Nobody said that. The Deputy is making it up.
It is in the Official Report of the Seanad.
Matters appertaining to the other House should not be mentioned here.
The Deputies can take it as a fact because I would not make such a statement if it was not correct. If half a billion pounds is insignificant in the Government finances why is it that £40 million is not available to the people of Cavan to repair the roads over a period of five years?
The Deputy neglected them for years.
It is well documented in The Anglo Celt and The Cavan Leader. I ask the Minister for Education, if half a billion pounds is neither here nor there, why children are in substandard classrooms, why there are not sufficient teachers or sufficient facilities for our young people. I ask the Minister for Health why patients requiring hip replacements have to go on waiting lists for those important operations?
Not any more.
Why are young children waiting for orthodontic treatment which, if not provided in time, will destroy their looks and their ability to speak properly?
The Deputy's submission is going in all directions at once.
It is because of the reckless attitude adopted by this Government. There is no accountability. The Government has lost all touch with the ordinary people. The Government is living on the strength of the money that it hopes to receive. Nobody has mentioned that £2.7 billion of this money has already been spent this year. In what areas has that money been spent? There is now only £4.5 billion remaining in the kitty, which will not last. This plan will never materialise.
I now call the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Brian Cowen.
A Cheann Comhairle, in view of the fact that our time was left short could Deputy Thereasa Ahearn be afforded two minutes to make a brief contribution?
I can assure you, a Cheann Comhairle, my contribution will take only two minutes.
I wish to share five minutes of my Government time with the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald.
That is satisfactory.
In view of what has happened I would appreciate the indulgence of the Government.
The Chair is merely adhering to an Order of the Dáil of this day. I now call the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald.
This debate is about confidence——
It is shameful to see a woman supporting such dishonesty.
A Cheann Comhairle, I would like the remark about dishonesty withdrawn from the floor of the House.
The Chair regards that as a political charge. Proceed, Deputy, please.
This debate is about confidence in the Government. I have every confidence that this Government is working well, is achieving real change in Irish society and will continue over the next four years to implement in full the Programme for Government which it has set out as its objective.
Already this Government has brought about great change, in nine short months in office. Issues of social reform have convulsed this House and this country for the past twenty years. This Government did not just talk — it delivered.
It implemented reform of the contraception laws to bring this country into the twentieth century and face honestly the challenge posed by AIDS; it reformed the laws on homosexuality to give basic rights to this minority of our citizens and it took prompt action to tackle child abuse.
Any Government must be judged on how it delivers for those who are most disadvantaged. Our contribution in Government has been one of action. As outlined by the Minister for Health £8.5 million has been provided for extra services for those with a mental handicap; a successful £20 million initiative has been implemented to tackle hospital waiting lists; there has been a fourfold increase in the local authority housing programme to tackle the underlying problems of homelessness; a charter of tenants' rights has been introduced, with a legal right to a rent book and basic minimum housing standards; there has been a restoration of social welfare rights to the elderly and disabled; children's allowances have been increased to £20 a month and additional resources in education, targeted at disadvantaged communities, have been provided.
This commitment to tackling disadvantage and addressing the underlying causes of poverty and unemployment is a central theme of the National Plan and the Government intend to implement that plan in full. I am confident that with the quality of our plan and our programmes, a quality that has already been publicly acknowledged in Brussels by both Bruce Millan and Jacques Delors, Ireland will ultimately draw down in full on that plan. As late as Tuesday President Delors has again reiterated that based on the quality of our plan it will be possible to draw down in full on the undertakings given on 19 and 20 July last.
I want to put on the record of this House my confidence in the integrity of the Tánaiste and the senior public servants who witnessed the deal made with the Commission President on the night of 19 and 20 July. I have every hope and confidence that it will be delivered on at the end of the day.
The indicative allocation notified by Brussels is, as acknowledged in public statements from Brussels, a baseline figure, not a final quota. The EC document quotes a range of figures, from 8.1 billion ECU to 9.3 billion ECU — with the top figure equivalent to £7.84 billion in 1994 prices. I am still confident that based on the quality of our plan and our programmes, Ireland will at the end of the day achieve the top of that range.
In all the debate both in this House and in the Senate, there has been no serious or fundamental challenge to the actual strategy or detailed contents of the plan. That strategy is based on a commitment to jobs. It is aimed at securing the best long term return to this country from the investment programme, to best enhance Ireland's economic potential for output and jobs when the last ECU has been spent.
This plan marks a radical departure in its approach to economic development. It contains new thinking, new ideas, and it draws on the lessons learned from experience. New elements in this plan are its focus on tackling disadvantage and poverty, its emphasis on gender balance, its practical concern for the environment and its strong regional dimension.
One of my central concerns was that this plan would be one that would reach into the heart of every community, in particular to those areas most blighted by chronic unemployment and poverty. The local development programme is an imaginative new initiative which aims to rebuild the economic potential of Ireland's worst unemployment black spots. Over £900 million is being committed to specific targeted action on unemployment and to resourcing local communities to realise their job potential.
This Government has also embarked on a programme of radical reform aimed at broadening our democracy. In the matter of Oireachtas reform the committee system has delivered on a record number of Bills being processed through this House since the Government took office. The Ethics in Public Office Bill to be introduced this session will ensure transparency and accountability in public life, give assurances to the public that in this House, in Government, in the public service and the public sector, it is the business of the public which is being transacted, not the private business of those concerned.
The new committee system is increasing the accountability of the public service to the House. I have prepared a preliminary draft of a freedom of information Bill which will ensure greater accountability and openness in our system of Government. I am engaged in a detailed study of how similar provisions operate elsewhere so that our legislation can have the benefit of best practice. I hope to engage in maximum consultation before putting final proposals to Government.
Finally, the new structures set up by Government are working well and are delivering on change. They are ensuring that partnership in Government works for this country, respecting the identities and aspirations on both sides, while delivering on a common agreed programme.
I ask this House to vote confidence in the continuance of this Government and in that Government programme.
My job is to bring this damp squib to an end.
(Interruptions.)
The urgency of a deferred motion of no confidence, which is probably a first in Irish politics, has been seen here today for what it is — an attempt perhaps to deflect some attention from a moribund Opposition who have suddenly awoken to the fact that they are in Opposition, a moribund Opposition who have no alternative, no policies, but an increasing panache for the "smart-ass, one liners" which will certainly get plenty of attention in our evening papers but will not find any similar expression of sentiment in any serious policy document worthy of the name.
What this is all about is an attempt by the Fine Gael leadership, in particular, to show its teeth after the publication of its commission's report.
Where are they?
The Minister can open up his teeth on it.
We understand from the commission that rumours of it going into a second edition are widely exaggerated. It is a party which is putting itself forward as an alternative Government. Its own commission chairperson contends it is a party that lacks direction and focus, is weak and demotivated, even dull and cumbersome — no doubt flashing inspirational recommendations will no doubt overcome that basic difficulty.
Minister for closures.
I understand also from the commission that it encounters major difficulties even relating to its most committed supporters let alone the rest of us. Therefore, before they come into Government they have quite enough to be getting along with. I wish them well. In fact, if one wanted to put a smart one-liner on the commission report one could say that the commission have recommended that Fine Gael be de-commissioned.
Like the Annalong power station. Minister for closures.
(Interruptions.)
We heard today from Deputy Rabbitte who took full use of his opportunity — since his Leader is exiled outside the House — to put forward an alternative view.
The Minister is an aspiring leader and doing some job. Closing Shan-non was a start; closing Aer Lingus will be another start.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Carey must cease interrupting. The Deputy may not ignore the Chair.
The articulate wing of Fine Gael talking. Deputy Rabbitte's ability for levity should never be underestimated. Deputy Rabbitte spoke about our party's ability to duck and weave. In embarking on criticism of other party leaders going to foreign cities to seek moneys for our country and our parties, I should point out that the only known destination or visit I can recall on the part of Deputy De Rossa was a trip to Moscow in 1986 for a much smaller, more manageable sum of £100,000.
What happened to the Minister when he went to Moscow? How did he perform over there?
Deputy Carey will have to restrain himself.
It was to make up for a shortfall, and "shortfall" is an expression which has been used liberally around the House all day. On that occasion the shortfall was in respect of some "special activities" which have never been articulated or described in any great detail. There may have been other trips to North Korea, but I do not think £100,000 was sought there. In any event it is very difficult for us on this side of the House to listen to charges of deceit and fraud emanating from such personages when we see that sort of convoluted logic put forward in respect of certain trips taken in a previous political manifestation.
What about the telephone charges?
With all the media hype of recent days attention has been deflected from how well Ireland has done in the EC share-out, even if one were to accept — and this Government certainly does not — that the minimum level of £7.2 billion will be the final drawdown of funds by this country. Our critics have not had the graciousness to acknowledge that Ireland is guaranteed, even at that minimum, an allocation of EC aid of the order of £2,000 for every man, woman and child in this country to the end of the century. I might point out that that is well ahead of the allocations being made to other cohesion countries — for example, £1,600per capita in the case of Greece; £1,550 per capita in the case of Portugal; £1,300 per capita for the Objective One regions in Spain. Therefore, we are being given an unrivalled opportunity to improve the capacity of our economy in the longer term and to provide jobs that are so badly needed.
When one listened to the Taoiseach's excellent contribution today, when he outlined in detail——
(Interruptions.)
There must be a reshuffle coming up.
I knew it annoyed the people opposite.
For Deputy Yates in particular, whose active mind is of such a hyper nature that he churns out policies by the hour, all of which contradict one another.
(Interruptions.)
This National Development Plan is very much about jobs. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the needs of this economy as we enter into the next century knows that we need these funds to increase living standards and increase the numbers at work. When one looks at the policy-driven party called the Progressive Democrats who say "Put the money in the bank", it gives one an idea of the level of policy input one can expect from that new crusading leadership. For a while they were so self-confident within that party they even forgot about God, but then all of a sudden, he resigned a few weeks ago.
(Interruptions.)
Over the past few years our economic performance has exceeded that of our EC partners, but our needs are greater than theirs. In particular, unemployment remains higher as a proportion of our labour force than in any other EC country with the exception of Spain. Our national rate of labour force increase is well above the EC average. Although there has been some catching up in recent years, income per head in Ireland remains well below the EC average. Reducing unemployment and narrowing this gap in living standards are two of our foremost economic challenges.
May I make this point, because I know Deputy Carey is in here for one reason and one reason only? His leader made an outrageous suggestion that the performance of this Government had in some way diminished the prospects for the State aid being proposed for Aer Lingus or that our position had been damaged in some way in that regard. I want to make it very clear to the House, given the seriousness of the situation facing us, that that suggestion is in no way accurate. Indeed, it is an outrageous slur on the professionalism and independence of the transport and competition divisions within the Commission. Even in recent days my Department's contact with the Commission has shown increasing positive progress which belies the inferences being made today. Agreement by the EC to our proposed equity injection into Aer Lingus is a completely separate matter and is in no way related to the issue of national development funds. I want to make that point quite clearly.
Why are they looking for pre-clearance in Dublin?
Deputy Carey, you may not ignore me when I intervene and ask you to——
Today, a Cheann Comhairle——
We have an inadequate Minister.
If the Deputy does not want to listen he has a remedy. There are many ways out of this Chamber. The Minister to continue, without interruption.
When you are staring at the exit door of Irish politics things get very difficult.
The Minister could be standing on the trap door.
Today we should focus on what has been achieved and on the obligation on all of us to ensure that the funds are used to the best possible advantage. I would remind the House that the central focus of the National Development Plan is employment.
A Deputy
This is the good news.
(Interruptions.)
Now the interruptions are coming from the Minister's side. It is not good enough.
Our objective is to ensure the best long term return for the economy by increasing output, economic potential and long term jobs.
The Minister is better without the script.
It is further designed to reintegrate the long term unemployed and those at high risk of becoming unemployed. In his intervention Deputy Rabbittee referred to my party as a lumbering civil war relic. That is good coming from a cold war veteran. I would remind Deputy Rabbitte that it is better to be in a 1927 Rolls Royce than in a 1992 Trabant. This no confidence motion must end at 5.45 p.m. and the people are not holding their breath. This Government, under a political charge of being complacement and smug, has a unity of purpose and having undertaken detailed negotiations, produced a Programme for a Partnership Government that covers every aspect of Irish life. The Government is intent on pursuing that programme.
They cannot count.
This Government——
Let no Member of this House be shouted down.
I love to rile Members opposite, a Cheann Comhairle
Mission impossible.
I see Deputy Cox in the House and I have to say something to him.
The £4.5 billion man.
I thought the Minister was addressing the Chair.
In the recent leadership campaign, following much thought, Deputy Cox considered it best not to proceed with a nationwide presidential-type campaign. I am sure the Garda were delighted to be spared the crowd control problem that would have ensued from a major bus tour seeking out his nine colleagues who could have been contacted for their support within five minutes on the telephone. I am grateful to the Deputy that even under their new leadership they offer no threat to this Government.
Will the Minister say the same about the Labour Party in a couple of years' time?
Deputy Durkan, please desist.
As the clock ticks away on this momentous occasion, after Deputy Bruton's opening words about a modus vivendi and so on, we want to see the new Fine Gael emerge because the old Fine Gael is becoming tired and boring. We like a fight and an argument but the way things are going we may have to continue to despite the efforts of Deputy Bruton to deflect from his own problems.
Fight with yourselves.
He has much go get on with. According to his supporters Deputy Bruton has a very original mind. His commission has given him in the region of 100 recommendations. I ask him to get on with the reorganisation of his party while we run the country.
The Government has no energy, transport or communications.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 94; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- De Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Keogh.
Question declared carried.