Deputy Hogan was in possession. He has some ten minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - National Development Plan: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Yates on Tuesday, 8 March 1994:
"That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's ineptitude and mishandling of the negotiations and preparation of theNational Development Plan, 1994-1999, and calls on it to lay before the Dáil details of the revisions to the Plan that have been discussed with the EU Commission with a clear outline of the annual level of investment from the EU, the Exchequer and the private sector; and affirms that the taxpayer should not be asked to contribute any extra own resources to make up for the shortfall of finance arising from the Government's incompetence and false claims”.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recognising the major contribution to jobs and to Ireland's economic potential arising from the substantial investments to be made with EU Structural Funds and associated public and private expenditure, supports the strategy and priorities set out in theNational Development Plan 1994-1999 and supports the Government in its discussions with the European Commission on the Community Support Framework 1994-1999 to ensure maximum return for Ireland from this expenditure.”
—(Minister for Finance).
I am not surprised that the National Development Plan has unravelled. It has been drawn up over the past two years under the shameful approach of so-called consultation by the sub regional review groups but always under the veil of secrecy and stamp of authority of the officials of the Department of Finance. It has been put forward as the great bastion of local participation to all participants in the sub regional review groups process who acknowledge that this was nothing more than a charade.
There was never any public awareness of the proper planning process being put in place. There was a total failure to release the energy and enterprise of the people in the context of the undemocratic way in which this plan was formulated.
The lack of any meaningful regional input was part of the criticism by the EC Regional Affairs Commissioner, Bruce Millan, in respect of the 1989-93 spending of Structural Funds. He warned the Government that proper regional debate and structures were required to ensure that the views and aspirations of the people of all regions of Ireland were taken into account in any sustainable regional plan.
The lack of consultation in the national plan helped to reinforce the idea of Europe as a distant, remote and imposing bureaucracy. The 1993-99 national plan provided a great opportunity to inform and empower people at local level which would have allowed them to determine the shape and direction of their lives in their local areas. It provided a unique opportunity to link people with real power by ensuring that decision-making on the formulation of plans and the disbursement of funds was concentrated mainly at local level. In other words, successful democratisation of decision-making would have placed the future of our country where it belongs — in the hands of the people.
Accordingly, the national plan provided a catalyst for local government reform but, unfortunately, it appears the Government is committed to maintaining centralised bureaucratic control over the allocation and distribution of the majority of these funds.
School children knew that this was likely to be the last major opportunity for Ireland to attract significant regional development funds from Europe. The focus of European investment in the future will likely turn to eastern and central European countries, thus it was crucial to get it right on this occasion.
On 16th December 1992 the Taoiseach made the following statement in Dáil Éireann on the outcome of the Edinburgh Summit: "The agreement now reached ensures, and I say this with complete confidence, that Ireland will obtain £8 billion over seven years." In various statements in the following weeks he clearly indicated that the money agreed at the Edinburgh Summit was "in the bag". I heard that the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, was ill. I hope she makes a speedy recovery but with the figures in the national plan unravelling, I am not surprised.
I will live to fight another day.
The Taoiseach said this figure would rise to £8.8 billion when account was taken of the 10 per cent devaluation which the Government was forced to recognise after misleading people for several months on this issue. We now know that only global figures were agreed in respect of EC Regional and Cohesion Funds at Edinburgh and that Spain was the only country to underwrite any guarantee of support in the communique.
It transpired that the Taoiseach not only misled the Dáil but he misled the people. This was a useful deception, however, as it saved his political future at the time. He succeeded in convincing the Tánaiste and Leader of the Labour Party that together they had plenty of money for the following five years to spend their way through a term of office and court significant popularity. The chickens came home to roost, however, in July 1993 when the Taoiseach sent off his new found friend, Dick Spring, to Brussels to deliver the goods on the fictitious finance that was supposed to be "in the bag".
The Deputy should refer to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Albert Reynolds knew that he had passed the poisoned chalice to the Tánaiste——
The Taoiseach.
——and Minister for Foreign Affairs and of course the decision on 20 July 1993, which was agreed by the Tánaiste, that Ireland was to receive £7.84 billion over seven years was a major disappointment and represented £756 million less than the Taoiseach said he had agreed at the December 1992 summit.
When Opposition spokespersons and independent commentators queried those figures all knowledge that they were wrong was denied. The Tánaiste was so bullish about helping out his new friend, the Taoiseach, during those negotiations that he threatened to use the veto if Ireland did not receive at least £8 billion. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste huffed and puffed on the shareout of Structural Funds and ultimately had to climb down. The ignominious outcome was that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste dissipated the goodwill shown to this country by our European partners as a result of their stubbornness in trying to save their political reputations.
That is rubbish.
The Deputy would know all about that.
Good luck in the reshuffle.
While these negotiations were going ahead the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fitzgerald, were putting together the now infamous National Development Plan. They were acting in good faith at the behest of their masters on the basis of a total expenditure of £20 billion drawn from various sources but which included £8 billion from the European Community. It is regrettable that these two individuals knew that amount of money was not attainable and failed to face up to their responsibility in alerting their colleagues for fear of political demotion by their masters.
The former Commissioner, Ray MacSharry, said the money would be available.
I wondered what job he is lined up for when I heard him today.
They compounded this problem by presenting a national plan to Dáil Éireann in October 1993 which has now become a plan of total Government deception. Nobody knows what projects will be implemented or how they will be financed. Many proposals appear in the national plan that bear no relation to submissions made by sub-regional groups which means that the consultation process to which the Minister of State referred on various occasions was nothing more than a cynical public relations charade.
Never.
I think the Deputy is in the running for the Booker prize.
It is bad enough having a pit bull terrier in the Cabinet without having one on the backbenches.
The ultimate insult to the European Commission and the intelligence of the Irish people was when the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, publicly admonished an official of the European Commission and other "mere civil servants" on the manner in which European money was being spent in Ireland. This disgraceful and intemperate behaviour is unbecoming of a Government Minister and further damages relations between Ireland and the European Commission in respect of future issues of importance to us. Is it any wonder that this type of full frontal attack on officials of the European Commission became the norm at a subsequent Cabinet meeting when the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications began to strip his teeth?
Ireland is now paying a high price for the expensive blunder on the part of the Taoiseach in his handling of Ireland's Structural Fund's allocation. It demonstrates to all the arrogance of this Government when it failed to acknowledge its huge mistake against the national interest. In fact, it is grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented that Fianna Fáil and Labour, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, could make such shambles in negotiating such a large financial gain for the country. I hate to think of the ultimate manner in which the Government will spend this windfall — it does not inspire confidence — in fact, the manner in which it is going about it leads me to resort to a remark made by Mr. John Bowman on "Questions and Answers" on RTE on Monday evening last when he suggests that we could end up being net contributors to the European Union rather than a country in net receipt.
Before the Minister of State commences I think she should have some of her party colleagues in here to hear what she has to say.
A quorum may not be called in Private Members' time.
I hope to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, and with Deputy Brian Fitzgerald.
I do not intend to get drawn into the matter of the hurling of insults in this House last evening. I had missed a connection returning from Brussels and was unable to be here for Deputy Yates' colourful descriptions of characters from "Coronation Street" of whom I had never heard.
The public interest will be best served by getting on with the job of negotiating the most advantageous spending of the agreed Community Support Framework moneys and in putting this acrimony and personality politics behind us. Indeed, there is something artificial about much of the controversy in that nothing has changed in relation to the allocation of European aid since the Commission decision of 21 October 1993 when the matter was extensively debated in the Dáil. For some time the Government has been taking steps to deal with the situation, as demonstrated by the adjustments made to the 1994 Estimates. However, we must not lose sight of what has been achieved and of our obligations to ensure that the funds are used to the best possible advantage.
It is important to focus on the fact that the minimum aid package which Ireland is guaranteed to get is more than £7 billion for the period 1993 to 1999 or more than £6 billion for the six year period which the new Community Support Framework will cover. This is the largest aid package ever committed to this country. Under it, the level of aid per head of population in this country will be the highest in the European Union. It is an achievement of which the Government can be proud and its impact on the development of this country will be considerable.
The challenge facing the Government in drawing up the National Development Plan and in now preparing, with the European Commission, the Community Support Framework, is to ensure that we get the best possible long-term return for the economy from the use of these funds.
It is important to restate here the strategies and priorites on which the Government based the plan and which will direct its approach to the Community Support Framework. The central objective of the Government's approach is to ensure the best long-term return for the economy by increasing output, economic potential and long-term jobs. It is further designated to reintegrate into the economic mainstream the long-term unemployed and those at high risk of becoming so.
The National Development Plan set out the Government's strategy to achieve the national and European Community objective of greater economic and social cohesion. The basic elements of the strategy are first, investment in the growth potential of the economy in industry, in tourism and services, in agriculture and natural resources; second, investment in the country's productive infrastructure to improve the capacity and competitiveness of the economy; third, investment in the development of the skills of our people through education and training in order to increase productivity and growth capacity; and fourth, a special increased emphasis on harnessing local community leadership and local initiative.
When Deputy Hogan spoke about the issue of local development, I must say I shared his concerns. Indeed, I was sorry to see him move on from his European portfolio to new pastures. That is why we have included in the National Development Plan £1,200 million for new local development which was not there last time round.
The plan was drawn up on the basis that value for money should be central to the choice of programmes and projects. The plan should be ultimately judged by its permanent contribution to job creation and to Ireland's economic performance when the last ECU had been spent. Each allocation has to be judged against the alternative ways of spending the money.
In preparing proposals, Departments were asked to quantify the effect of their proposals on the environment as well as their impact in relation to other criteria — effect on numbers at work, impact on the long-term unemployed and disadvantaged, gender balance, impact on regional rural development, and co-operation with Northern Ireland.
This emphasis on value for money is something that we will be pursuing further in the finalisation of the Community Support Framework and in a systematic way throughout the implementation process. Perhaps we have all learned that this money from Europe is not free money, that we need to ensure that none of our projects is over-designed, that we get the best value for money and treat this as a scarce resource.
The Government's strategy contains new thinking, new ideas, and most importantly, it draws on the lessons learned from experience. New elements in the plan are the focus on tackling disadvantage and poverty, the emphasis on gender balance, practical concern for the environment and a strong regional dimension.
In the short time available to me I would like to highlight in particular the focus that is being placed on unemployment blackspots.
In Ireland there are certain communities where unemployment may range from 50 per cent up to 80 per cent or more, where a cycle of hopelessness and despair can set in, where the risk of unemployment and poverty being transmitted from one generation to the next is high. At the same time in many of these areas there has been an explosion of new energy released when people come together to try to tackle their problems.
To tackle unemployment in those areas where it may run up to 80 per cent and where unemployment and poverty run a high risk of perpetuation from one generation to the next, we must rebuild the economic potential of these areas. Rebuilding skills, capability and enterprise among those who have become detached from the economic system may not give the same immediate returns as investing in areas with a sound economic base, but it is a vital element of any national plan which claims to be inclusive.
One of our basic concerns is that EU funds will reach into the core of every local community, especially those most severely affected economically and socially by unemployment and poverty. It is important that the long-term impact of the Structural Funds makes a real difference to communities struggling with chronic disadvantage and poverty. This applies not only to the specific measures included under the local development programme but to other programmes as well. We want to see the training schemes and education programmes which are to be funded well targeted to provide the most deprived groups in the labour force with the education, skill and self esteem to be able to compete fairly in the labour market. We want a fair share of the short term jobs created from the injections of funds into the Irish economy to be available to the long-term unemployed and to those who have a high risk of falling into that category.
The Government stands firmly by its commitment to tackling social exclusion as a key element of its strategy. We are making that case very strongly in the course of our negotiations in Brussels.
The preparation of the National Development Plan involved probably the most extensive consultative process ever carried in connection with a plan of this nature in this country. It involved the social partners, sub-regional interests, community and voluntary groups, non-governmental environmental organisations, the Council for the Status of Women and many others. The National Economic and Social Forum was consulted and the plan was debated in the Dáil and Seanad.
I met all the sub-regional review groups and read their reports carefully. It was not possible to implement all of their recommendations in the plan because, on my table, there were demands for £28 million worth of expenditure. But certainly the flavour of those discussions did influence and shape the thinking on the plan. The plan was welcomed by a wide range of groups I would like to reassure them in particular that the strategy set out in the plan remains intact and on course. The task we now face is to ensure that, as the implementation phase begins, we continue to work to get the best return at all stages from the investment being made.
Discussions with the European Union Commission are continuing in relation to the Community Support Framework which is the agreed basis for the use of the Structural Funds up to 1999. The overall level of these funds is already settled, subject, of course, to the mid-term review which will take place in 1996. Therefore, there is no discussion of the total amount. What is under discussion is the manner in which these funds will be allocated to different sectors and different types of expenditure.
These discussions with the Commission are taking place at official level. To a large extent they are of a technical nature. They are being overseen by Ministers and Commissioners responsible for the Structural Funds. Since the National Plan was submitted there have been extensive consultations between the various Government Departments involved and the Commission Services. This process moved into a more formal phase in mid-February. To the extent that the discussions between the Government Departments and Commission services can refine and improve the measures in the plan it is a constructive process. We have a shared interest in getting the best value for money.
There may be some adjustments to be made to the plan, but these would largely be within particular expenditure areas, with the Community Support Framework reflecting the overall strategies and priorities identified in the plan.
I would like to refer briefly to the important issue of evaluation of Structural Fund assisted investments. The whole question has received considerable attention at Community level and justifiably so.
The Irish Government fully endorses this emphasis on evaluation. It is vitally important that we get the best return from the EC resources becoming available to us in terms of securing permanent sustainable improvements in growth and employment and of value for money, under all our programmes. A large number of evaluations have been carried out on behalf of Departments in relation to the CSF 1989-93 and the operational programmes. The results of these evaluations have been generally positive. The Government envisages building on the considerable evaluation that has already been undertaken and the plan provides for enhanced investment on evaluation.
In drawing up the range of investments to be funded under the plan we drew on the experience of the evaluations. For example, the evaluation recommended that we should continue to invest a large sum of money in education and training in order to have a trained and skilled work force. That is something that arose from the evaluations. I believe in drawing on the lessons of experience.
There has been no delay in discussions on the Community Support Framework. At this stage only one Community Support Framework, that for Portugal, has been approved. In that case the development plan was submitted in July 1993. Discussions on the Irish Community Support Framework are ongoing and I expect them to be concluded over the next month or so. Work on the Operational Programmes is proceeding in parallel with that on the Community Support Framework with a view to having the programmes approved at the same time as or shortly after adoption of the Community Support Framework.
Deputy Yates claimed that I gave an inaccurate reply to a question in the Dáil on 23 November 1993 and at the very least implied that I misled the House. I categorically reject this.
We have not run into any obstacles.
I looked at the debate and I could not see the basis for his statement.
Let the record speak for itself.
The question to which I was replying arose from a report in the Irish Independent on 10 November 1993 which stated that the Commission has serious reservations about a series of elements in the plan. Following publication of that report, officials from the Department of Finance established from the Commission services that they had only commenced their examination of the plan and that they had not yet reached a formal position in relation to it. Furthermore, I met the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Mr. Bruce Millan, at an informal meeting of Ministers for Regional Policy in Liège on 11 and 12 November 1993. As I have already told the House, he went out of his way to check out the newspaper report.
He told me that he had checked with his services, that they were still examining the plan and had not formed a view and that the story had not come from the Commission services. In the light of this I do not see how anybody could claim that the information I gave to the Dáil was in any way misleading or inaccurate.
It is barefaced.
I take very seriously what I say to this House. I was responding to a report in the Irish Independent of 10 November and I said I had double checked that there was no truth in that story.
More recent suggestions, in this House and elsewhere, that the Commission has major problems with the plan are inaccurate. They have accepted the strategy set out in the plan. The discussions that are going on are about the details of the plan. It is my hope that those discussions, which I expect will be vigorous on all sides will result in a sharper and better focus for the plan as a whole. The independent evaluation of the plan which the Commission had prepared endorses the emphasis which we have placed in the plan on the importance of education and training in investing in our human resources; it also endorses the emphasis we have placed on rebuilding the economic potential of the long-term unemployed. To some extent we have internal debate within the Commission with one directorate wanting one thing and another directorate wanting something else. This is routine in any large organisation.
Deputy Owen has quoted statements from the Labour Party calling for Dáil discussion of the National Development Plan in 1989 and she has claimed that this shows some inconsistency with our position now. In the case of the present plan, unlike 1989, the Dáil was given the opportunity to discuss it in July 1993 and to make an input before the Government took final decisions on the plan. We are conveying in very strong terms to Brussels the wishes of this House and of the Seanad and of all the sub-regional review committees that a significant investment be made under the plan in the county road network, and I am sure we will have the full support of this House in negotiating on that issue. In a country with a dispersed population it is important that we support investment in county roads. I am sure I will have the support of the House in making those points to Brussels.
Deputy Cox asked for clarification of the percentage pro rata cutback and what it related to. The overall cutback is by the amount of the shortfall in EU aid. The net Exchequer contribution is being maintained. This cutback is then applied to the combined EU and Exchequer components of the plan, excluding the Exchequer elements relating to the Cohesion Fund and Community initiatives which are not affected by the shortfall in aid in the Community Support Framework. In a £20 billion plan, the amount of the shortfall is less than 5 per cent of the total. We are delivering on 95 per cent of the plan and will expect to deliver in time on 100 per cent.
The EC Structural and Cohesion Funds for 1994-1999 provide a renewed opportunity to consolidate the benefits gained by the Irish economy from the completion of the Single Market, the Community Support Framework 1989-93 and the beginnings of the process of creating an economic and monetary union. I look forward to the benefits which the implementation of the Community Support Framework 1994-1999 and the Operational Programmes will yield.
A wise choice of investments was made, based on a wide process of consultation. We will see a lasting benefit to the Irish economy that will increase our output and economic potential and result in greater employment. Instead of talking down an investment of over £7 billion the Opposition should welcome the opportunities it offers for the economic benefit of this country.
As Deputy Creed is in the House I offer him my congratulations on his new posting. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I intend to concentrate on the human resources chapter in the National Plan, being the chapter which has been most unfairly commented on in all kinds of quarters. It is a chapter of huge importance.
There has been a lot of tumult and clamour relating to the reported attitude of the EU Commission to the human resources chapter. I am glad of the opportunity to set the record straight on this issue. That Chapter of the National Plan is to be channelled through the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Detailed discussions on the human resource measures took place in Brussels last week between officials of the Departments of Enterprise and Employment and Finance and Commission officials.
In those discussions the Commission officials made it clear that both the human resources chapter in the National Plan and the draft operational programme which is being negotiated with the Commission correspond to the regulations and the priorities of the European Social Fund.
What the Commission is seeking is more detailed information on what we are proposing in order to be satisfied of the impact of the programmes on what is regarded as priority areas. It also wants to ensure that there are clear indicators of success identified for each programme and that each programme has achievable social and economic targets.
I am sure Deputies, even such a robust performer as Deputy Yates, will agree that this is the proper approach for the Commission to take. I assure Deputies that we are more than able to supply the Commission with any further information or material it requires.
This normal process, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, of interaction and negotiation is a far cry from the picture that the Opposition Deputies are trying to portray of conflict between our administration and the Commission.
As I said on radio on Saturday, we will not get results if we are too demure. I would question any party or commentator who would expect us to go clothed in decorum——
But the Government has no clothes.
——and with a demure aura to an arena which is used to tough fights, negotiation and comments. If we went with our heads down thinking we would get——
Why did the Government mislead the public?
——£4 billion or £5 billion then we would——
Go home defeated.
The Opposition like to latch on to any perceived differences between the Government and the Commission and exaggerate them for short term political gain. I know the Opposition have to do something and must have a cause——
They say Deputy Cowen had a broken bottle at last week's Cabinet meeting.
However, they should be careful not to undermine our negotiators in trying to ensure the best possible package for Ireland.
The most important feature of any planning process is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Evaluation will be a major element of the new programmes and those programmes which do not meet their objectives or achieve their targets during the course of the plan period will be adjusted.
They will be dropped.
The evaluation unit is within the labour affairs section of the Department. It is a highly specialised unit and the evaluation techniques used there are being adapted to become the norm in other European countries. That is a remarkable vote of confidence in our evaluation unit.
What was particularly gratifying for me about last week's discussions with the Commission was their very strong support for the new apprenticeship scheme I am introducing which had all party support. I also welcome the Commission's support in the area of training for the employed and the importance of continuous upgrading of our national skills levels. The Commission also strongly supports my emphasis on training for early school leavers and accepts the need for the social exclusion measures contained in the plan.
I am concentrating on the human resource aspect of the plan, as this is largely my area of responsibility and it is the area that seems to have attracted the most unfair criticism. I hope what I said to-night will assure people that this criticism does not reflect the view of the Commission and is, in fact, a distortion of its views. I said this on radio on Saturday and again want to reiterate that Commission officials last week agreed that our proposals in the plan correspond to the regulations and priorities of the European Social Fund.
It is very easy to say unemployment black spots should not be attended to but the whole notion of the unification of Europe was based on economic and social cohesion. To pursue an economic policy without simultaneously having regard for social aspects would be fool-hardy and wrong. We have placed increased emphasis on local development, economic and social cohesion and social exclusion. When we considered the number who are unemployed it ill-behoves any party to deride courses of action which we have undertaken through community employment.
Such as cutting nettles.
I received several calls since the Deputy passed that remark on radio from outraged people who are gainfully employed on community employment programmes. They felt the remark was an affront——
The Minister is recycling the unemployed. They want real jobs.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to reply.
We are talking about people who want to work and the Deputy should never forget that.
They want real jobs.
The Deputy represents many of those people. How dare he speak of them in those terms. We have inbuilt into the programme vocational guidance and through it people will get relevant training——
What about real jobs?
It ill-behoves the Deputy to deride people who have dignity in their work and I am very disappointed with his attitude.
I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the famous national development plan — famous because it will be important to the people over the next five years. It has been known since October that the level of EC support for the plan would be £7.2 billion and not £8 billion. It remains the priority of the Government to retain the integrity of the plan and Labour is totally committed to its implementation.
Discussions are taking place between Ireland and Brussels about the plan with a view to agreeing the Community support framework which will set out the broad national and sectoral strategies for use of the EU Structural Funds. The plan is about jobs and building up a productive potential. It is about building up the infrastructure of the country, providing sufficient water and sewerage schemes and improving the road network. Calls by other parties for the plan to be withdrawn are at best disingenuous and at worst irresponsible. Fine Gael and the Democratic Left engaged in what Deputy Spring once called cheap and tawdry politics.
He was a fair hand at it in Opposition.
The Government has been undermined by the Opposition in its efforts on behalf of the people. Any half-trained shop steward can see that. The Opposition is saying to Brussels that this plan is flawed.
They do not need any help from us; they are doing it.
The plan is not flawed. It went to the local authorities and then to sub-regional committees who streamlined it before it went to Government. Sufficient time was not given to the preparation of the 1989 plan but we had the benefit of professional advice and sufficient time in preparing this one. It will be delivered upon irrespective of what the Opposition think.
The people are not depending on Fine Gael to lead the negotiations in Brussels on this. If they were we would end up with £5 billion and not the £8 billion which is part of a £20 billion plan. The people want this plan implemented as quickly as possible. The Government will deliver and the Opposition will never have the opportunity to negotiate the National Development Plan in Brussels.
It is optimistic of the new Deputy to think he will be in Government for the rest of his life. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Rourke, referred to the Opposition's myth making about the Structural Fund. The Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, started and continued the myth until June last year. A headline stated: "Reynolds hits out at Euro doubts over £8 billion package". It was not the Opposition parties who raised those doubts nor the doubts to which he referred. He was responding to comments by officials and Commissioners of the European Parliament who claimed that the £8 billion package did not exist. From beginning to end, the £8 billion package was a myth perpetuated by the Taoiseach.
It is down to £7.2 billion.
It is interesting that the Labour Deputy now claims it is £7.2 billion. Last July the Tánaiste and Minister to Foreign Affairs told the House he had £7.84 billion. Originally it had been £8 billion but the European Commission said it could not pay out £8 billion and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs travelled to Brussels and after a late night meeting with Mr. Jacques Delors claimed he had as good as £8 billion, he had £7.84 billion. Now the Deputy is saying it is only 7.2 billion.
They are counting 1993 twice.
The Labour Deputy has spoken about cheap and tawdry politics. What the Labour Deputy is not telling us is that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs was in Opposition when he said this and he was referring to Fianna Fáil politics.
They are the Democratic Left politics now.
The Deputy would be wise to quote only what his Leader said since he took office with Fianna Fáil in January 1993. We had confirmation eventually that there will be across the board cuts of at least 8.5 per cent in the National Development Plan.
Under 5 per cent of the total.
It is a bit late to be arguing that there will be no cuts in the National Development Plan. I understand the Government's proposal to Brussels is that there should be an 8.5 per cent cut across the board but we will wait to see how it is applied.
The total is fixed.
I am being generous by taking only 8.5 per cent. This is a humiliating climb down for Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party. The attempts of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to bamboozle the public has fallen apart. Until the middle of last week Ministers insisted there would be no significant change in the National Development Plan. Last Thursday's statement finally confirmed what everybody else had known since last October — the Government also knew, incidentally — that the money promised by the European Union was substantially less than claimed by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. In spite of knowing this since last October they went ahead and based the National Development Plan — this heavy glossy plan — on £8 billion. To be more precise the figure in the plan is £7.988 billion.
They are not as green as you think.
A great many of the projects will have to be delayed, scaled down or scrapped. These attempts to deceive the public represent one of the most shameful episodes in our political history. In virtually any other democracy those involved in such subterfuge would have done the decent thing and resigned from office.
It is hard to overstate the economic blow from the loss of at least £800 million. It may be more depending on how one judges the figures. We will now have less money to promote economic development, to fight poverty and reduce unemployment. The sum of £800 million is more than the budget for one of the high spending Departments, such as the Department of the Environment. Many economists believe this money would create 10,000 jobs. The net loss to the economy is likely to be even greater as without this money from Europe, it is highly unlikely that an equivalent matching fund will come from the State, unless there is another pot of gold which we have not been told about and the private sector will not invest unless European Union funds matches its investment. The withholding of information from the Dáil on the negotiating position of the Government is about par for the political course of this House. We are used to being kept in the dark, but what is not acceptable is that a succession of Government Ministers, including the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, reported to the Dáil that firm commitments had been reached on £7.84 billion when they knew this was not the case. They knew at the very most they would get £7.2 billion. Repeated statements in recent days by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs among others, confirm they are working on the basis of £7.2 billion.
I spoke on the Adjournment debate last July and I pointed out that the Delors II package was a saga of ineptitude and downright dishonesty. For my troubles I was subsequently thrown out of the House for telling the truth. It is not as if the Government was not warned about the dangers associated with its strategy. When the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste claimed after the famous all night meeting last July that we had secured £7.84 billion Mr. Des Geraghty, MEP, warned us of the dangers associated with relying on verbal assurances from Jacques Delors. He pointed out that our claim was built on shifting sands and that turned out to be the case. I am indebted to Mr. Des Geraghty for producing figures which will be published in The Irish Times tomorrow to give us an indication of how much this State can expect to receive.
The figure included in the National Development Plan for European Union receipts of £1,081 million for 1993 is correct. It is incorporated in the sum of £7.2 billion which the Government claims the State will receive and has been verified by the European Commission.
In the period 1994-99 moneys will be provided under the same three headings: the Community Support Framework, the Community Initiatives and the Cohesion Fund and distributed in line with the share out as agreed. In the Community Support Framework, under which funds are distributed to Objective 1 countries, Ireland has been allocated £4.284 billion which could be reduced if we continue to insult the Commissioners dealing with this matter.
It cannot be reduced.
I take the word of the Minister of State that it will not be reduced. I am sure she acknowledges it will not be possible to have it increased in the mid-term review as claimed. That myth has been exploded. The sum cannot be increased unless we beggar one or more of the other three Objective 1 countries.
The amount to be distributed under the Cohesion Fund has also been agreed and Ireland is to receive 9 per cent. For the next six years this amounts to £993 million in 1993 prices.
Under the Community Initiatives the four Cohesion countries, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece are to receive £3.964 billion during the next six years. This amount has been fixed. In the National Development Plan the Government indicated that it expected to receive £516 million of this. All the money Ireland will receive during the next six years will be allocated from those three pools which have to be shared with Spain, Portugal and Greece. We compete with them for this money.
Following pressure from President Delors last October we were granted 9.4 per cent of the amount to be distributed under the Community Support Framework. When the Cohesion Fund was divided we were granted 9 per cent. We can have no reasonable expectation that we will be granted more than 9.5 per cent under the Community Initiatives. It would be unrealistic to claim or argue that we will receive any more.
The Government should stop building on myths. Having had the figures of £8 billion and £7.84 billion discredited the figure of £7.2 billion is also about to be challenged. If we add the likely maximum receipts from the three pools for the rest of this century at constant 1993 prices we get a total of £5.654 billion. If we add the allocation we received for 1993 of £1.081 billion we get a grant total of £6.735 billion, not £7.2 billion.
What is the likely shortfall? The short answer is that it could be as high as £1,253 million, not £800 million. There is no point in the Government screaming at the Opposition parties and arguing that they are talking down our prospects of receiving European Union funding and at the same time saying that this funding has been wrapped up. We have legitimate questions to ask about the way in which the negotiations were handled and about what the Government is doing in touting a National Development Plan which was launched at the beginning of this year based on the figure of £8 billion when it knew last October — and as far back as last July as far as I am concerned — that we would not get anything like that figure. Despite this it still insists that the programme will be completed and that it will be able to convince Spain, Portugal and Greece that Ireland needs the money it has been allocated and that it will be handed over. It is unacceptable that the Government is perpetrating this myth, nonsense and make believe. It should tell us the truth about the National Development Plan.
It has been suggested that the National Development Plan can be sliced by between 8 per cent to 10 per cent or by whatever figure is agreed after the figures have been juggled yet again. It is unacceptable that the allocations under the headings employment creation, the environment and other key areas such as measures to combat poverty, which are grossly underfunded will be cut by the same amount as allocations under the headings where there is major expenditure. Only 8 per cent of the total amount to be made available, be it £7 billion or £6.7 billion, will be allocated under the heading social exclusion. Eighty per cent of this will be directed at training programmes.
The Dáil has been treated with contempt by the Government. Information was withheld and misleading and inaccurate information was given to the House. When the Government was elected we expressed a fear that its unprecedented majority would lead it to believe it could ride roughshod over the rights of the Dáil and particularly the Opposition parties. Our views have been confirmed by the manner in which it has handled the controversy surrounding the funds. Even when the alarm bells were ringing in Brussels the Government continued to make claims in the Dáil that it knew it could not deliver on.
What value can now be placed on promises made by the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald in the light of the promise made by her last November that not one line, sentence or paragraph of the National Development Plan would be changed? The Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, the Minister of State and a Labour Party Deputy earlier tonight accused the Opposition parties of talking down our prospects of receiving funds and at the same time claimed that the amount of money was fixed and not in question. They cannot have it both ways. If this is so, how can raising valid questions in the Dáil be seen as talking down our prospects. To paraphrase the fictional prime minister in a recent BBC serial "To Play the King", the dogs in the street think that Government Ministers have been and are lying through their teeth. Members could not possibly say anything like that lest we be expelled.
I do not propose to talk down the money we are getting, but the strategy in the national plan means that whatever money we get will not be enough. We are facing into a free market and greater energy tax and, as a peripheral country, we will be up against it. The tragedy of not getting the money we were supposed to get is all the more stark when one bears in mind what we must face when this money runs out.
The genesis of the national plan is in the Maastricht Treaty. At that time the most favoured view was that the money would be the reward for voting for the Maastricht Treaty, for being "good Europeans". Others, more pragmatically, regarded it as compensation for the damage that would ensue following the enactment of the Maastricht Treaty.
The money that was available at that time has apparently dwindled and one can only speculate on the circumstances of that but it has certainly left the Government with egg on its face. In Denmark the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty had to be put a second time because the first result was not what was required by those who wanted it passed. In Ireland the vote in favour of the Maastricht Treaty was rock solid and could not be shifted, but the circumstances of arriving at that result have changed, which is an amazing thing to reflect on historically.
The reduction that is talked about is largely centred on administrative difficulties subsequent to the amount being negotiated, and does not take into account the effects of devaluation. The figures are meaningless unless we take into account the exact value of what we are getting. The Minister for Finance has tried desperately to find refuge in the mid-term review. I compliment him on his optimism, but his statements about that will ring hollow in many other countries, some of which are poorer than Ireland and will be clamouring for that money. I would not depend on the mid-term review and I doubt if many people outside this House take it seriously.
The Cohesion and Structural Funding are presented in this glossy package which is a weighty enough document. However, some fundamental aspects of what lies ahead of us are omitted. The European rules we are supposed to be following, having been good Europeans and having voted for the Maastricht Treaty, are being flouted by the Government, not to mention people outside this House. It is important to draw attention to the fact that our own Government has a certain gall in saying that the Opposition is talking down Structural Funding, the Cohesion Funding and the other European funds when it is coming across as a mediocre European with double standards.
We agreed to provide information and make decisions about our environment. For example, 1993 was the deadline for indicating which of our waterways were sensitive and which were not so that plans could be made as to the location of sewage treatment plants and other facilities — 1993 has come and gone and we have not provided that information. On the Cohesion Fund we were to provide a 50 per cent breakdown between environmental projects and infrastructural projects. The environment element was reduced to a tiny percentage with one sewage treatment plant, hardly 50 per cent. We are asked to produce a plan with the year 2000 in mind, looking at the next few years rather than the future for generations.
It was intended that money would be provided for sewage treatment of the highest standard. However, we are settling for secondary, rather than tertiary treatment and we are neglecting the 2005 deadline which provides that no discharges shall be allowed from towns with populations of 2,000 or more people. Is the Government expecting this country to last into the next century, or is it choosing not to think about it because of its dire prospects?
There is a considerable amount of short-term, day-to-day planning which is frightening when one realises that this money is meant to provide for a sustainable existence for this country. When it runs out we will be faced with increased energy tax while at the same time relying completely on road-based transport for most of our economic activity and, in agriculture, because the plan makes no provision for organic farming, we are relying on chemical farming. We are storing up huge problems. The building of the peat-fired station does nothing except indicate how serious things will become unless we review the plan on the basis of sustainability not just until the year 2000 but beyond.
When I looked at the Fine Gael back benches in recent days I have been struck by the sad and forlorn faces of Deputy Noonan a lost leader, a veritable Parnell, sitting there, having been sent into eternal exile by a savage leader——
What about the lost billions?
——beside him, Deputy Dukes and Deputy Francis Fitzgerald. To the extent that Fine Gael has heavy weights at all, they are now in internal exile, while on its front bench we have a veritable line of political and economic lightweights, none more so thean the shadow spokesperson for Finance. It is he who called for the tax amnesty and then reneged on it.
I am trying to help in regard to the property tax.
It was he who proposed widening the tax bases and then reneged on it. It is he who was wrong again and again on the currency position and, as we saw that last night, he does not understand the methodology by which a member of the European Union puts together its Structural and Cohesion programme with the Commission in Brussels.
I know when the Government is in disarray.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Broughan, without interruption, please.
Deputy Yates used a very childish epithet yesterday when referring to my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. I could use similar and much worse epithets if I were to look back on his career of incompetence.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy is a nice man.
This Government's achievement in Brussels was a veritable triumph and it remains so.
If that was a triumph I would not like to see a defeat.
A humiliting fiasco.
It cannot be denied that we got 50 per cent more in Structural and Cohesion funding than Spain, a powerful member of the EU, and 25 per cent to 30 per cent more than Portugal and Greece. Our National Development Plan is a different kind of plan——
The Deputy is correct about that.
——and in that regard I applaud in particular my colleagues, the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, who ensured that the plan would attack the major problem of this economy, namely, unemployment, and not interest or currency rates.
Is it Deputy Seán Kenny or Deputy Broughan who will lose the seat?
In that plan there are four major principles. We will be attempting to create 60,000 jobs——
In a country with the unemployment figure heading for 400,000.
——which will be obtained with an almost 5 per cent growth rate over the life of the plan. The major infrastructural developments——
The Deputy cannot hold both seats in his constituency.
——in relation to human resources and local developments cannot be denied. I would refer my colleague, Deputy Yates, to the excellent study carried out by Philip J. O'Connell of the Economic and Social Research Institute on maximising the social impact of the National Plan by removing social barriers to unemployment. His study shows conclusively that there is a relationship between poor education and unemployment. Three-quarters of the 300,000 people unemployed do not have any qualifications beyond their intermediate or group certificates and that is unacceptable. Two-thirds of those over 35 who are unemployed do not have any qualifications.
We all agreed with that.
Through the VTOS, community initiatives and other developments we have set out to reverse that position and yet the slash and burn economists of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats attempt to shred the most valuable, comprehensive and innovative aspect of this plan.
It is the unemployment rate that needs to be shredded.
This plan has been put foward and it will remain. I understand the anger of the Minister, Deputy Quinn, with certain bureaucrats in Brussels. If I was in his shoes I would be even more angry.
That cost us another couple of hundred million.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Before I was elected to this House I was involved in local community development and unemployment movements and am proud of that. For the first time in this plan a structural base is being put in place by the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, to ensure that the type of movements in which I have been involved on the north side — which have led to the north side partnership — not alone proceed but continue to raise the morale everywhere there is a partnership. In his excellent publication on achieving social integration, Hugh Frazer stated that the National Development Plan creates real possibilites for providing the key resources over an extended period of time for such development. Both the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, deserve commendation for the work they put into the plan. A sum of £7.2 billion will be available in the period between now and 1999 and every time I am present at the opening of a development, such as the Tallaght hospital project in a few years' time, will remember that the A team of Fine Gael is on the back benches and, sadly, the B team is on the front benches.
The Deputy has a brass neck. I hope he beats off Deputy Sean Kenny.
That was a nice try.
It would be a sad day if the two Deputies have to go.
We have been listening to the Z team. There are three aspects to the Government's problems in regard to EU funding for the National Plan. The Government got the overall figures wrong, it apparently included ineligible projects for the plan and the overall spending priorities are unacceptable to the European Commission. I will deal with each of those aspects in turn.
In regard to the mistake in the overall figures, the Government has known for many months that it would have to scale back the National Development Plan because EU aid would be less than expected. It was aware that the five year plan which the Dáil approved following a lengthy debate last October would have to be radically changed. It was also aware that the plan would have to be stretched out to become not a five year plan, but a six, seven or eight year one or, alternatively, some elements would have to be dropped. Even though it was aware of those matters the Taoiseach and his Ministers consistently denied that this would have to happen. That was dishonest and dishonest politics are always bad politics. This Government has been dishonest about the plan.
At the end of last month the Government finally admitted the truth and agreed that the plan would have to be radically revised. It showed itself to be very indecisive. At a meeting on 1 March the Cabinet was asked to make serious policy choices between programmes in the light of the reduced resources it eventually admitted was at its disposal. At that meeting the Cabinet was given an opportunity to act in accordance with the maxim that to govern is to choose but, characteristically for a Fianna FáilLabour Coalition, the Ministers decided to dodge making a decision. They opted instead for an indiscriminate 8.5 per cent cut across all programmes and refused to set any priorities. Instead of Ministers having the courage to set out priorities for the spending of the money the entire matter was left for decision in negotiations with European Union officials on the Community Support Framework. In effect, European officials will now make the decisions for the Irish Government. From long experience, I recognise that inability to make difficult decisions or choices as an ingrained characteristic of the Labour Party in Government.
In regard to the inclusion of apparently ineligible projects, our main difficulty relates to the Tallaght Hospital project. The only basis on which a hospital could be included in an economic development plan for EU aid is on the basis of Article 1 of Council Regulation 4254 of 1988 which refers to "investment contributing to increasing economic potential, development, structural adjustment of regions, where the need is demonstrated for ... health facilities". I read the relevant passages in the National Development Plan about the Tallaght Hospital and I do not believe the Government has met the exact economic criteria set down in that regulation. If the Government's case for the Tallaght Hospital is accepted — obviously one hopes it will be — it would appear that all hospital projects in Objective One countries would also be eligible for European aid. That would create a difficult precedent. The Government did not read the European Union regulations properly before submitting its plan and that shows its incompetence.
The third problem with the plan concerns its overall priorities. The Commission is questioning the use of EU aid to finance "make work" schemes with little real training content and the general lack of quality control on training, in particular the job placement record of some training courses is low. The Government did not read the European Union regulations closely before submitting its plan. Article 1 of Regulation 2084 — 1993 of the Social Fund Regulations states that the objective of the fund is occupational integration of unemployed persons. That means finding viable jobs and not providing long-term "make work" schemes. The Government is mistaken in its training strategy because it confines aid to State run or State controlled institutions. The private sector is excluded from receipt of EU aid for training and that is unacceptable. Instead of giving vouchers or training credits to potential trainees to shop around for the best possible training course the aid is given exclusively to State run institutions, either FÁS or the Department of Education and they decide what courses to provide. That centralised, socialist approach to training policy promotes an inefficient allocation of resources. The Department and the Government are making a strategic error in confining funds in that way.
I am glad that the European Commission in its recent White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment recommended training vouchers for trainees rather than State training institutions having a monopoly on the funds to be allocated. That is something I have advocated since 1987 and I am glad the Commission, if not the Government, have accepted the wisdom of that proposal.
I regret some aspects of the tone of the debate. I listened to a number of contributors including Deputy Brian Fitzgerald from my constituency and Deputy Broughan from Dublin North-East. It was interesting that Deputy Broughan sought to justify the criticisms voiced by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment of Mr. Landeburu, a reputable European Commission official. Deputy Broughan referred to him in disparaging terms. Mr. Landeburu is a socialist Basque doing a good job in the European Commission and Deputy Broughan referred to him as a bureaucrat.
That is sad.
That surprised me. I understood the Tánaiste apologised on behalf of the Government for the intemperate and foolish remarks, admittedly made under stress, by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn. We all act under stress occasionally.
The buck stops with the Kentz administration.
Rather than persist with this anti-European Commission attitude the Government should recognise that, like other small countries, our best protection is the European Commission. Since Ireland joined the EEC the record of the European Commission shows that it acts to protect the interests of small countries against larger ones.
Our best protection is the Council of Ministers.
It is not. That is a surprising remark from a socialist. As the Deputy knows it is the policy of the socialist party in Europe to enhance the powers of the Commission and Parliament and reduce those of the Council of Ministers — which works to defend the interests of big countries — whereas the Commission is the defender of small countries. It is particularly injudicious and contrary to the national interest for our officials to abuse officials of the European Commission which is our sheet anchor and protector. I am surprised Deputies in the Labour Party are so ill informed that they repeat with approval the intemperate, although admittedly regretted, remarks by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. Deputy Quinn.
We said it was a political decision by politicians.
It is a sign of a party and a Government in deep trouble——
The Deputy's party is in trouble.
——when they say the Opposition is acting contrary to the national interest and undermining the Government's case. Deputy Fitzgerald suggested the Opposition should say nothing and should not criticise any Government action, that we should meekly applaud what the Government does.
We should have consensus.
It is implied that to do anything else would be contrary to the national interest. What sort of weak-kneed Government is in office? It is unable to do its job abroad in the face of criticism at home. A vigilant Opposition which maintains sustained criticism of the Government helps it to do its job effectively. The Government negotiating abroad on behalf of this country and saying it will have a difficulty in getting a proposal accepted in the Dáil because the Opposition is causing it problems does not recognise that its negotiating position is enhanced and strengthened by that criticism. It is a sign that the Government has lost its way when all it can do when contributing to a debate like this is to attack the Opposition for criticising the Government. That is one of the weakest arguments ever advanced. I have been a Member of the House since 1969 and I have rarely heard it advanced by any Government. This Government, with a majority of 38, is so lost in the achievement of its objective that it must criticise the Opposition. That is a sign of serious weakness.
The Government underestimated the intelligence of the people and thought they could not add, read and know the Government's statements about the plan were manifestly untrue, it simultaneously underestimated the intelligence of European Commission officials. I am glad the Government has come down to earth and recognised that that type of political activity, which may suffice at the level of a vocational education committee where the spoils are being divided and deciding what teachers will be appointed, does not work when dealing with EU matters. It is regrettable our Government is operating at such a low political level that it is unable to conduct an argument on behalf of our people in a serious fashion. For those reasons the Government has let the country down in this matter.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Johnny.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
CLASS="CP">Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Keogh, Helen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keefe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
CLASS="CP">Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.