Death of Former Member. - National Development Plan: Statements. – Dáil Éireann (27th Dáil) – Thursday, 16 Jun 1994

Death of Former Member. - National Development Plan: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Ms E. Fitzgerald)

The Government welcomes the approval in principle by the EU Commission at its meeting yesterday of the Community Support Framework for Ireland for the period 1994-99. Following submission to the relevant consultative committees we expect formal approval and publication of the CSF in a couple of weeks time. The operational programmes are being finalised now. Within a few short weeks, we expect to begin drawing down on this very substantial transfer of funds to increase the jobs capacity of the Irish economy.

I am delighted that after all the debate and discussion we are now about to see this real and very substantial investment in the Irish economy. Our task is to ensure that this money is used wisely and we get the maximum long term benefit from every ECU spent.

I paid close attention to what Commissioner Bruce Millan had to say on television last night. He said very clearly to the members of the Opposition that they seem to be losing this money over and over again. We recognise that we lost out on the share-out on 21 October last. We were very disappointed about that but there has been no change in the position since then. Deputy Yates has been trying to milk this as if it were a new story whereas it is a very old story. With the surge of the Greens it is good to see the Deputy recycling his speeches. That should result in less of the rain forests being cut down to provide paper for new speeches from him. His is a very old story. There has been no fundamental change in the position. The money on the table is exactly the same as the money we had on October 21 last.

Miss Harney

The same as what was in the bag?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Let me clarify a matter for Deputy John Bruton because from what he said on the Order of Business yesterday he seems to have misunderstood the situation. As I have said already, we agreed the basic figures with the Commission a number of weeks ago, a matter of which I informed the House at the time and those negotiations were extremely successful. The small print, as I have told the House already, has had to be sorted out in recent weeks and both sides have sorted out matters. I understand the Commission was submitting the final version of texts as late as Tuesday and Friday of last week as they had to deal with the figures in the detailed table and in the small print. However, lest Members be under any misapprehension, the Government was anxious to bring the story out into the open because it is very good news that we will be drawing down the £4.54 billion, the Community Support Framework element of the total National Development Plan package. We are delighted to be at the stage where we can spend the money on those projects that will improve and increase this country's economic potential.

The figures Commissioner Millan referred to last night were literally the figures in the detailed table and not the central agreement that was reached a few weeks ago, which went very well for us. Unfortunately the process of finalising the Community Support Framework proved more time consuming than either the Irish authorities or the Commission services had expected. This was not unique to Ireland but applied to all member states. The Commission officials have had to deal with Community Support Framework Applications from a number of different countries. From my point of view it was frustrating that the processing of the small print was so slow.

In fact, contacts between the Irish officials and the Commission on the details of the Community Support Framework continued right until the Commission's approval yesterday of the Community Support Framework. Textual adjustments were being suggested by the Commission to the Irish side up to Tuesday last. These figures did not relate to major issues but to a range of technical matters. Agreement was reached on the substantive issues, including, in April, programme allocations, as I have informed the House already.

I would have been extremely happy to have seen the Community Support Framework reach this stage earlier, given that the final result is extremely satisfactory from the point of view of the Government. However, one has to recognise the desirability of the officials on each side to make sure that all the details are correct.

I would like to restate the Government's strategy as set out in the plan. The central objective of the National Development Plan is to ensure the best long term return for the economy by increasing output, economic potential and long term jobs. It is further designed to reintegrate into the economic mainstream the long term unemployed and those at high risk of becoming so.

The plan sets out the Government's strategy to achieve the national and European Community objective of greater economic and social cohesion. The basic elements of that 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.

The Commission was very pleased with the local development element of the plan, which is a major departure from the practice in previous plans. I am very pleased at how well it has been received in Brussels and that our model of local development will be reflected in a new urban development initiative by the Commission.

The Commission's approval in principle of Ireland's Community Support Framework represents a rousing endorsement of the Government's planned strategy. May I quote from the statement made by Commissioner Bruce Millan yesterday?

Miss Harney

Who wrote that?

Mr. Rabbitte

Not the civil servants.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Commissioner Bruce Millan said:

The Commission's appraisal of the objectives and strategy concluded that the central objectives of the Plan and the proposed strategy were appropriate to the needs and opportunities for development which have been identified in the Plan itself and in various preparatory studies.

His statement then goes on to outline the same objectives for each of the sectors as those set out in our plan: the productive sector, economic infrastructure, human resources and local urban and rural development.

As Members are all aware the plan placed a major emphasis on local Development, building on the experience already gained from the pilot area programme in Integrated Rural Development 1988-1990, the current Leader programme, the area-based initiatives under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the EC Poverty Programme and the EC global grant for local development. All of these indicated that there is considerable potential to be tapped at local level to tackle long term unemployment and to generate local development. Central to the programme is the targeting of areas and communities characterised by long term unemployment and social exclusion.

I am particularly pleased that the Commission has supported the Irish Government's view of the need for an expanded role for local development in this CSF as compared with the 1989-93 CSF. This time we will ensure that the National Plan will reach into the heart of communities that have been blighted by long term unemployment and will make a real difference. Given some of the comments which suggested less than wholehearted support by the Commission for light rail, I am happy to point out that Commissioner Bruce Millan's statement yesterday refers to Community Support Framework funds for the Dublin transportation initiative. Any project costing over £20 million has to undergo special cost benefit analysis and that analysis is being carried out. I hope to travel by light rail from my home in Dundrum to this Chamber before the end of the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Rabbitte

What about a trip to Ballymun, does the Minister expect to travel there by light rail by the next century?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Of course we were disappointed last October when the Commission announced that the Community Support Framework would be £4.54 billion, exactly the same figure which has been announced today. Contrary to media reports, there has been no change whatsoever in the Community Framework figures as announced last October. It is still the highest amount per capita in the EU. The shortfall was recognised by the Government at the outset. It is our belief that in the period up to 1999 it will be possible to get EU aid over and above the allocations already made. However, the CSF had to be agreed now on the basis of the EU aid which had been on the table.

Accordingly, adjustments had to be made to the expenditure allocations to take account of the shortfall in EU aid. This shortfall was taken into account in settling the 1994 Estimates and public capital programme. The assumption underlying the PCP and the Estimates this year is that Exchequer and EU spending in areas covered by the plan will be £130 million less than the plan projections. This was stated publicly at the time and has been pointed out repeatedly in the Dáil. In fact, we were able to put in an additional £40 million to make up some of the shortfall this year.

The situation in so far as 1994 was concerned was fully dealt with. At the beginning of March the Government took the necessary decisions to deal with the remaining years. It remained satisfied that the strategy adopted in the plan was the correct one and that the balance of priorities reflected in it remained valid. Accordingly, it decided that the appropriate way to deal with the shortfall in EU aid was to apply a corresponding reduction on a pro-rata basis to Departmental allocations. The reduction was applied to the combined Exchequer and EU elements.

The Government's contribution to the plan of approximately £4 billion has been fully maintained. We put to the Commission a pro-rata package which would keep the basic shape of what we put in the plan. All the flagship projects are in place. I spelled this out a fortnight ago in the debate in Private Members' Time and again last night, and lest there be any misunderstanding, the Tallaght hospital project is signed and sealed. The contract is there, the foundation stone has been laid——

Mr. Rabbitte

Twice during the election.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

——and doubtless there will be more ceremonies when it is opened in due course.

Miss Harney

Where the EU is giving us less money for Tallaght hospital, they are giving us more money for national primary roads. The areas where we are spending more of our money are exactly counter-balanced by the areas where we are spending less——

Miss Harney

Even the Minister of State is laughing. This is a farce.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

——because the EU is picking up more of the tab. The totals of EU aid remain unchanged from what we knew last October. The totals of overall Exchequer expenditure remain in line with those adjusted on a pro-rata basis as announced by the Government already.

The text of the CSF approved by the Commission states:

The proposals of the Commission in these areas were acceptable to the Irish authorities on the basis that they were consistent with their development strategy and that they were able to make offsetting shifts in the allocations of domestic Exchequer resources so as to essentially maintain the relative shares in overall expenditure in the areas concerned.

There will be only marginal variations from this. In fact, one of the most notable variations, while relatively small in the context of the total package, relates to the local development programme. This was an important new priority introduced in the plan by the Government to harness the potential of local initiatives to contribute to economic development through a range of new structural interventions, including an area based approach targeted at disadvantaged areas. I am pleased to say that following discussion with the Commission this is an area which it has been decided to reinforce further by the provision of some additional resources for village renewal. There is also reinforcing of some measures in the human resources area. These will deal with specific areas such as equality, research and development and management training.

The Government will look each year at the budget possibilities. If circumstances are favourable it may well prove possible for the Exchequer to inject additional resources in later years while maintaining budgetary discipline. This was the case in 1994, where the Government put an additional £40 million over what it had originally committed into the plan. The economic outlook now is much more favourable than it was last October when we drew up the plan. The medium-term economic outlook is excellent. The short term forecasts from the ESRI show again today that we are anticipating higher growth this year——

Mr. Yates

The Minister should get them into her party political broadcasts.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

——than we had expected at budget time. That in turn will contribute to buoyancy of revenue——

Mr. Rabbitte

Thank God.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

——and will enable us to advance some of our projects faster than the CSF sets out. If we can move ahead on investments that give a worthwhile return to the economy, we should do so. If an investment is not worthwhile, there is no scope for it being in the plan.

To the extent that it is not possible to add in additional Exchequer money arising from buoyancy, and not from additional borrowing or additional taxation, some of the investments originally proposed may take somewhat longer to complete. As pointed out in the independent evaluation commissioned by the EU, investments which make economic sense for the Commission make equal economic sense as investments by the Irish Government. The Government recognises, however, that fiscal discipline is essential to creating growth in employment and investment, and in no circumstances will there be any increase in borrowing or taxation.

There has been much talk about projects and, in particular, whether individual projects will or will not go ahead. Neither the development plan, the CSF nor the operational programmes which will follow it deal with individual projects. They are concerned with the broader levels of programme and measures. Only a small number of individual projects is mentioned in the National Plan and the same will be the case in the Community Support Framework. Comprehensive lists of projects do not exist at this stage and we have not discussed individual projects with the Commission, apart from some major projects which have to be treated separately from broad programmes. The selection of individual projects is a further phase following the approval of the operational programmes, which is well advanced. Project selection is a process that will continue right through the implementation period. We cannot say now, therefore, what projects will be implemented in 1997, 1998 or 1999. That is how the system worked under the previous Community Support Framework and it is how the system works in other member states.

What we have is a programme for investment in industry. We do not know which industries will come in, for example, in terms of the inward investment or the Forbairt money for indigenous industry. We do not know exactly which tourism projects will come on stream to draw down Exchequer and European money based on the input of private sector interests. We have a fair idea in terms of the roads programme because the Department of the Environment has laid out a national roads programme to the year 2005 but there are other areas where there is just broad programming. We have a programme in the education and training area but it is not itemised and year on year, as the implementing agencies see fit, individual projects are identified. A number of flagship projects have been identified in the main programme and they will all go ahead.

I welcome the Commission's emphasis on proper investment appraisal and cost benefit analysis. None of us wants to see funds spent on white elephants or on over designed projects or to see money frittered away with poor expenditure controls. Last year in the Dáil I was very pleased to steer through the Comptroller and Auditor General Bill which provides for better scrutiny of public expenditure and for value for money audits. I am strongly committed to ensuring value for money. As Deputies know, any project which costs over £20 million requires a full economic appraisal before it can go ahead. There is nothing new in such a requirement for any of our large road, rail or electricity projects. Indeed, the Department of Finance at my request are updating their guidelines on project evaluation and project management to ensure we learn from mistakes in the past and put in place sound systems which avoid mistakes in the future.

Negotiations of the CSF with the Commission have gone very well. I would like to pay tribute both to the Commission officials and to the officials in my Department for the hard work and constructive spirit in which these negotiations were conducted. I would have liked them to have concluded sooner because the sooner we get this injection of money into the economy, the better. I am pleased that the Commission has signed off on the deal. It remains to go to a number of committees. We hope that that will be approved as a matter of course and that we can begin to draw down the money.

I will conclude by reading from Commissioner Millan's statement yesterday:

The present CSF will significantly strengthen growth and employment in Ireland over the medium-term and will also lead to an improvement in the budgetary situation. I believe that the very wide range of actions to be supported will greatly strengthen the productive capacity of the Irish economy and in particular the creation of employment. I welcome especially the provision of support to Local Urban and Rural Development, which will reinforce and expand the efforts of communities throughout the country to promote their own socio-economic development and which will also complement those efforts by assisting urban renewal schemes to be carried out by local authorities.

I have no doubt that Ireland will have considerably diminished the development gap separating it from the EU average by the end of the CSF. Finally, I welcome the decision by the Irish and Northern Ireland authorities to include a chapter on co-operation in their Plans with the aim to working closely together to ensure that the operations assisted by Structural Funds provide the greatest possible benefits to the whole island.

That is a strong and ringing endorsement of our plan by Commissioner Millan and I am happy to see it implemented.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is an endorsement of his own plan.

Mr. Yates

The most telling point I could make in a debate such as this is, if the Minister of State is right and this is such good news and a major success for the Government, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, would have his backside in that seat cooing, clucking and claiming credit for it. He knows it is a major débâcle and has hightailed it to New York to get away from this shambles. He knows the game is up, it is over, and there is no way the fig leaves the Government used can cover this anymore. He left the Minister of State holding the baby.

I could not put it any better than stated in the Minister's script —"I would like to recapitulate the Government's strategy as set out in the National Development Plan". That Freudian slip tells it all. The Government has wheeled in the Minister of State who seems to be visibly ageing in this whole sorry mess and is not able to cope with the enormity of the public relations mess the Government has brought on itself, not to speak of the worsening relations between Dublin and Brussels, that may have done permanent damage to this country.

The Government attempted to cloud the issue and create such confusion about it that the people cannot see the wood for the trees. It is not possible to have a shortfall of £1 billion and say there will not be cuts in the plan, extra taxation on borrowing. The public know enough about basic arithmetic to know it cannot happen but the Minister failed to grasp that concept. The inevitable, logical and rational conclusion is that some of the projects will be shelved or extra taxes raised — or both — but the Government cannot have it every way.

I heard the Minister for Finance say in gravitas tones on the 9 o'clock news that some of these projects may have to be drawn out and it might be 2002 before some of them would finish. Who does he think he is codding? This is 1994 and the year 2002 is eight years away. We could have several Ministers for Finance between now and then.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Does the Deputy think he will have a crack at it himself?

Mr. Yates

In simple language, if something is being extended to the year 2002 then it has been dropped. Let us not pretend that such projects have any prospect of seeing the light of day.

The most important economic implication of the Government's insistence that the plan must remain intact, despite the shortfall, is that it will pre-empt the resources that would have been available for tax cuts between now and 1999 and prop up the Government's vanity. That is significant. We are about to enter a unique period in our economic history. For the first time in 20 years tax cuts need not be financed from tax increases or cuts in public spending. We have the unique opportunity to cut taxation from buoyancy and revenue growth from GNP. What will happen? As a result of messing with the plan those resources, which will be published at the end of the month when the half year Exchequer returns are published, cannot be used to cut taxation. With an investment plan they could have reformed the taxation system and converted our good economic statistics into real jobs for school leavers. The net effect of the bundling, false pride and false claims will be to pre-empt the sources of growth and to fail to radically address the tax system. That is a tragedy.

The Minister for Finance is taking credit for the fact that he cut it back by £130 million in the PCP. Now that the Labour party must reassert its identity in Cabinet we will probably have a few more training schemes and high profile projects for Labour backbenchers. I do not know if the Minister was at the meeting yesterday which lasted for five hours but you do not need five hours to tell you what is wrong with the Labour Party. What is wrong is that the Labour Party told the public at the last election it would change the Government but instead it propped up Fianna Fáil. As long as it is in that position, no amount of national plans or banging the table at Cabinet will get the party out of its cul de sac. That is free political advice and I do not understand how the Labour Party does not see that.

I am advised that the amount of money needed to make up the shortfall is £1 billion — the same amount by which economic experts advise we could reduce income taxation per annum. That is based on the forecast growth and real public expenditure growth of 2 per cent per annum. Our tax bill is excessive and instead of paying money to Saachi and Saachi and others the Government should go to the ESRI and include it in its party political broadcasts. They seem to be togging out on a weekly basis for the Government on every issue from property tax to economic forecasts and policy.

Does the Government think we are fools or that we will buy all this nonsense?

As regards delaying the publication date of the plan, I read carefully the speeches of the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance on the five debates on the matter. If one reads those and the Private Notice Questions one will realise that broad agreement was reached on this last April. No amount of proof reading, textual adjustments, evaluation of statistics or tabular statements can explain how April, May and half of June have been taken up to produce this. Only for people like Tommie O'Gorman we would be completely in the dark. Every one of the reports in yesterday's newspapers included a paragraph stating that EC officials had informally and privately acknowledged that the Government delayed publication of the agreement until after polling day.

Please do not try to pull the wool over our eyes with the nonsense the Taoiseach tried to persist with on the Order of Business this morning. We know what the Government was up to and that it was on the ropes in Dublin. We had the tomcat fight in Dublin and a loss of seats by the Labour Party. I do not know who lost deposits in the by-election. The last thing the Government needed was the roof to fall in on the Tallaght hospital project and to hear that there would be a shortfall of £40 million. It told the officials in the Department to engage in filibustering to whatever extent was necessary so that it would not be further humiliated before polling day. When the passport crisis was reaching a crux, the last thing it needed was for Mr. Millan or Mr. Delors to regurgitate all the past problems in this area.

The Minister of State made a further false claim when she said that the pro rata 8.5 per cent adjustment was accepted by Brussels and in the next breath, that even though there is less money for the Tallaght hospital there is more money for industry and even though there is less money for county roads there is more money for major roads.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

How else does the Deputy expect an unchanged figure to be made up? The figure of £4.5 billion is unchanged.

Mr. Yates

On the question of employment, this work of economic fiction states: "This National Development Plan is a plan for employment". If one take the most optimistic forecast in the plan, butchered as it is, one will see that the Government will be 60,000 jobs short on the number required to stop unemployment increasing. In simple language, it means that the policy of the Government for the remainder of this decade will be to rely, as Fianna Fáil always has, on emigration to solve the jobs crisis. We have read about how pleased, delighted, impressed and satisfied the Government is, yet it is content to let 60,000 school leavers face the prospect of going on unemployment assistance and enduring means testing rather than having the opportunity to get their first job.

I do not know the level of scaling down the Government is prepared to undertake on its very optimistic jobs forecast. In 1999, when the transfers have stopped, I wonder how many of the 900,000 people in training and jobs schemes will join the queue of the long term unemployed? There will be the short term palliative and political expedient of massaging the live register and a monthly statement by Ministers welcoming the reduction in the unemployment figures. Unless we split the country into different regions or the criteria are changed, how many of those people will be in lasting, productive, sustainable and viable jobs when the money dries up? The Government has been exposed on this issue from start to finish.

The problems began in December 1992 when the Taoiseach was on the ropes after an incredibly bad campaign and the ravaging by the Labour Party. The Saachi and Saachi advertisements against the Labour Party were retaliated against by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs who insisted that trust should be put back into politics and justice put back into economics. At Edinburgh the Spanish Government and Felipe González were the smart guys. We were hearing reports about how well Ireland did at the negotiations, but Spain wiped our eye by ensuring at Maastricht that the specific amount of money it would receive was written into the agreement. All we got was a nod and a wink on the 14th floor of the Berlaymont building and Jacques Delors was reduced to using the "L" word about what was and was not agreed. We then had the devaluation of 8 per cent; we were entitled to more money than the £8 billion. There was also the subterfuge, deceit and dishonesty.

Finally, on 21 October an announcement was made about the revised allocation. At that time the Government engaged in rhetoric and propaganda and said that the plan would not be altered, no revised plan would be published and everything was all right. Yesterday, we finally learned the facts, and the Government can no longer hide on this issue — it has been found out. The Government deliberately tried to conceal the specific adjustments as it did not want the people of Ballymun up in arms about their LRT project, it did not want the people of County Laois up in arms about the future of their peat fired station and it did not want the people on the Limerick-Tralee railway line to have a protest march. It decided, therefore, to say that all was well and that the plan would be reviewed from year to year. It has put up a stone wall of generalities to evade telling taxpayers that they will have to make up for the shortfall in funding for the projects which it still insists upon.

The Government can learn some very simple lessons from this débácle. People would not have objected if the Government had said "The money is short, we have to revise the plan and not all of our ambitious plans can go ahead." Instead of doing this, it continued to try to mislead people into thinking that we would get more money than ever before. If one looks through the tables of the public capital programme and the supply service Estimates one will see that the money peaked in 1993 and we are now getting less money on an annual basis. If one adds up the FEOGA money, the Structural Funds and the funding under the Leader programme, INTERREG, etc. one will see that we are now getting less money than we got previously. If that is considered to be a wonderful achievement, the Minister is easily satisfied. There is every indication from the recent elections that the public know the score, that this is a Government without substance, a Government that can trot out any old line and hope it will be swallowed. The public now know that the Commission taught this Government a lesson, which is that one has to call a spade a spade, one has to tell it as it is. They cannot continue, as the Taoiseach would like to do, to pretend, with dismissive gestures, that £8 billion is the same as £7 billion.

We will be monitoring the 12 operational programmes, when published, and the annual Public Capital Programme. We will expose the Government for each and every tax increase brought back to the genesis of this plan, each and every modification of the plan, because this issue will not go away and will be the underlying factor in the destruction of this Government, simply because they could not face the truth or tell it as it was to the electorate.

Miss Harney

I was one of the Opposition Leaders, together with Deputies John Bruton and De Rossa, who sought a debate on the National Development Plan. I am extremely disappointed that neither the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister for Finance nor a single member of the Cabinet is here to participate in this debate. We have never had an opportunity in this House of voting on this plan; we have had constant statements but never an opportunity to vote. It is not good enough for this Government, and particularly the Labour Party, to continue to treat this House in the way in which they have treated us in relation to the National Development Plan. From the very beginning, before the Government had even been formed, the manner in which the public had been deceived, first about the mythical £8 billion and subsequently on all of the detail in relation to the National Development Plan, has been a disgrace. The plan was published in Dublin Castle even before it had been debated here. It was launched with a great fanfare, with hundreds of people invited to hear the good news, all the members of the Government, all the junior Ministers sat on the platform smiling about the great £8 billion plan. There is nothing the Labour Party likes more than spending money, particularly other people's, whether it be taxpayers', Euro money or borrowed money. They all sat there, smiled, gave interview after interview, telling us about this great plan. Ever since the day that plan has fallen apart. The £8 billion succeeded in deceiving the Tánaiste, Labour Party and wooing them into Government.

From that very political decision the Labour Party and entire Government have made mistake after mistake in relation to the plan. The mistake is the following: it was a mirage ever to think we had £8 billion. From that very fact has flowed all that has followed — failure to tell the people the truth; failure to acknowledge the real figure. Were it not for the Brussels-based correspondents from our national media — and I want to compliment them again today — we would not know the truth. It was those hard-working journalists, indeed the President of the Commission himself, Mr. Jacques Delors, who informed the Irish people of the reality.

In the aftermath of the recent elections, when the Labour Party tell us they did very well—they did not do very well; we did not do well ourselves; I am making no great issue of that — if there is any lesson to be learned, it is that we must tell the truth, we must level with the public; we must not continued the politics of constant deceit in relation to this issue.

The manner in which the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald — for whom I have great admiration; indeed much of the criticism levelled at her might be somewhat chauvinistic — has handled this whole issue, to put it mildly, has been very disappointing. I would have expected more of her. Speaking in the Seanad on 21 October 1993, volume 137, No. 12 of the Official Report, at column 1487, the Minister of State had this to say. This was when we knew that the figure was not £8 billion. Mr. Jacques Delors had told us, the Government were beginning to acknowledge it themselves, telling us about the fourchette and so on. This is what the Minister of State had to say on that occasion:

The plan will not be changed in one degree, not one paragraph or a comma will be deleted and we are determined to implement it in full.

Yesterday morning on radio the Minister of State said there would be the juggling on the money, that they would put in extra Exchequer resources here and there to make up the shortfall in the Euro funding. "Juggling of the money" was what the Minister of State spoke about yesterday morning. Yet today she talks about value for money, about introducing legislation to ensure greater scrutiny of the expenditure of public money. What we need most of all is greater scrutiny of the behaviour of this Government, particularly that of the Labour Party, in relation to this overall saga.

Whether the figure was £8 billion or, now, the £6 billion we will receive between 1994 and 1999 by way of Structural Funds aid, it is an enormous amount of money, the highest per capita within the European Union. I have never made an issue about that because that is not the issue. The issue is about the truth, about the reality of a plan published by the Government to which they committed themselves. That has remained the issue ever since last summer. I repeat, it is an enormous amount of money. If it were expended to deal with the structural problems in our economy — the purpose for which that money is being given — to bring us up to the average income level of the European Union as a whole; for the purpose of dealing with the many problems in this economy by virtue of our population structure, our poor economic resource base, peripherality and all of the other things that go to render us one of the poorer regions of the Eurpean Union, then it could make an enormous contribution to the development of this economy in ensuing years.

But I have to say that the Government do not treat the money in that fashion. They perceive it in a type of Santa Claus fashion: how can we spread the goodies around as much as possible? How can every Cabinet Minister and junior Minister get their slice of the lolly and dish it out in their constituencies? That is very much the attitude of the Government to this plan. It is not a coherent plan, its proposals are not integrated and it has been criticised by many economic commentators. In fact the Economic and Social Research Institute, in its medium-term strategy report, made the point that in many respects the plan did not deal with the structural problems obtaining in our economy, that it was simply beefing up lame duck projects, which at the end of the day will not survive or really benefit from the plan.

Take telecommunications. There are major problems being encountered in Telecom Éireann, but pumping in £700 million of Euro money into telecommunications will not solve Telecom Éireann's fundamental problems, which are that it is grossly over-staffed, with the highest cost per line of a telecommunications service. Telecom Éireann has been forced to reduce its international charges because it faced competition. But rather than dealing with its fundamental problems, which it should have been forced to do by the then Government, it simply delayed action, increased the price of the service to the domestic consumer, merely delaying the evil day. No matter how much money is pumped into Telecom Éireann, until we deal with the fundamental problem, which is that it is grossly over-staffed and unable to supply a telecommunications service to either the ordinary domestic consumer or to business at a reasonable price, we will not be dealing in any realistic way with many of the other problems facing our economy. Telecom Éireann has £1 billion worth of debt. Is the taxpayer going to be asked to pump in money to pay for that debt, or is it now to have what the Labour Party call a "strategic partner"?

I should love to hear the Minister talk about some of those things, or will Euro money be used merely to delay the evil day? I have said in this House before that what happened to Aer Lingus will be nothing in comparison with what will happen to Telecom Éireann if the Government does not deal with those problems. The position of Telecom Éireann and the aspects of the plan in relation to telecommunications are multiplied several times over in this plan. There is a failure to deal with reality, to bite the bullet in relation to many fundamental problems.

I have heard the Minister of State talk about light rail, that there will be this line, that line and another line after the year 2000. What we need in Dublin is an integrated public transport system. One or two lines are useless unless the system is integrated. For example, there is no point in travelling from, say, Dundrum, to a point in the city leading nowhere. If the system is not integrated it is almost a waste of money having any line. The system must be fully integrated in one full package. A little bit here and there is not the manner in which to provide an integrated public transport system for this city. We would be better to do one job right than pursue several different projects and half do them. That is what I call the half-baked solution of this Government. We will have half a motorway, half a light rail system, no doubt half a sewage treatment plant, half of the money injected into education and human resources. Everything is half-baked; it is a half-baked plan. The Government should have gone back to the drawing board when it knew the reality and produced a fully-baked, coherent, integrated plan.

I asked the Taoiseach on the Order of Business on 19 and 20 April and on other dates when the Community Support Framework would be agreed and published. I was told it was with the Commission and would be published shortly. Last evening, Commissioner Millan told us the truth. He said the Government only sent them back some final figures on Tuesday of this week. How could they finalise the Community Support Framework? The Portuguese Community Support Framework was finalised months ago. In her contribution today the Minister of State said:

The facts of the matter are that the process of finalising the Community Support Framework proved more time-consuming than either the Irish authorities or the Commission services had expected. As Commissioner Millan has also pointed out, this was a situation unique to Ireland...

I presume the Minister meant to say "not unique to Ireland".

Ms E. Fitzgerald

That is correct.

Miss Harney

She is right, it was virtually unique to Ireland because on 1 March 1994 in reply to Private Notice Questions in relation to the plan the Minister for Finance said:

There is no delay in the discussions on the Community Support Framework. At this stage only one Community Support Framwork, that for Portugal, has been approved. In that case the development plan was submitted in July 1993. The discussions on the Irish Community Support Framework are well advanced by reference to progress on the Community Support Frameworks generally, and I expect them to be concluded over the next month or so.

A month or so ago would have been March or April. They were not concluded because there was an election.

Mr. Yates

They were told that they were concluded.

Miss Harney

Because there was an election the people were not entitled to be told the truth. The Government did not send back figures because they did not want the plan to be concluded. The 45-page Fianna Fáil manifesto devoted half a page to the plan, a plan which was supposed to be a miracle to solve every problem. The plan was hardly referred to in the course of the election. Government representative after Government representative kept telling us there was no delay. We were not told the truth until Commissioner Millan appeared on our television screens last evening. It is not good enough for a party who tells us it wants to put trust into politics and justice into economics. It wants to reform the Dáil, involve the Oireachtas and have more openness and transparency, all of which are quotations from the Programme for Partnership Government, and yet the manner in which this House and the public at large have been deceived by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State in relation to the National Development Plan makes it clear to me that they are not interested in telling the truth and in levelling with the public.

Until the Government faces reality in relation to the plan, accepts the reality of the figures and accepts that it must tell the truth this plan will be a nightmare for this Government. It will not go away, much as the Minister of State may wish it. The Government should have had the decency, the honour and the integrity to withdraw the plan and redraft it to meet the targets indicated by the Commission. A plan to spend £20 billion cannot be built on £1 billion less. That is £1 billion less from EU funding and if there are to be matching funds from the Exchequer, the plan is effectively reduced by £2 billion. Funds for some of the projects were to be matched almost pound for pound. The only way to make up that money is from the taxpayer. Deputy Yates referred to this and I agree with him.

A sum of £1 billion is a huge sum of money. In terms of taxation it could reduce income tax by 25 per cent or reduce employees' and employers' PRSI by 40 per cent. Either of those decisions would make an enormous impact on the unemployment level. It would give people an incentive to work and to offer employment. PRSI is a major disincentive to employment. We have the most anti-work income tax system of all the OECD countries. Instead of being used to slash income tax, that £1 billion in increased revenue will be used to cover up the cracks in the National Development Plan to bail the Government out because it will not tell the truth and will not admit to its mistakes.

Everyone in politics makes mistakes. It takes good politicians to admit to their mistakes. If politicians do not admit to their mistakes and continue with this mirage, at the next election, whenever it may be, the handling of the National Development Plan and the failure to level with the public will be as big an issue as in the election last week. The Government's failure to deal with it will not be forgotten.

I am disappointed that I have to address these matters to the Minister of State because she is an honourable and decent person. I have been a Minister of State and I am aware that Minister of State are rolled out when the news is bad. If the news was good this morning the Taoiseach would tell us about it. He led the debate last October. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs was sent in when there was trouble over the figures following the night of the long fourchette. Now when we are in further trouble the Minister of State has been sent in tell us the news. When we get the money and are spending it no doubt the Minister for Finance and the other Ministers will make the announcements and attend “turning the sod” ceremonies in Tallaght to which Deputy Rabbitte and I are continually invited. I did not attend the last ceremony. It is pathetic to be invited to another sod turning ceremony when the money is not available. We still do not know who will pay for the Tallaght hospital. From where will the money come? When the hospital is built we will not be able to open it because there will not be sufficient money.

I wish to ask the Minister of State some specific questions. What is the position on human resources allocation in the plan? The sum of £3 billion was to be spent on training, education and giving opportunities to unemployed people. What is the precise position in relation to sewage treatment plants, not only in Dublin, and the environmental programmes, on which I have read various announcements in the past week? I note in today's issue of The Irish Times that the allocation for education is to be cut by 6.5 per cent. What areas of education will be affected? In relation to Tallaght hospital, where will the balance of funding come from? Will it come from the Exchequer and, if so, when? I ask the Minister to respond to my query on light rail. A light rail system must be integrated. If you come from Dundrum and disembark at a particular point you should be able to continue on by light rail to Finglas. If you cannot do that people will not use the system and it will be a waste of public money. We have got to make a choice which must be light rail and we must endeavour to fully develop light rail rather than have half a light rail system, half a sewage treatment plant, half a hospital, half an educational programme and so on.

It is a pity we will not have an opportunity today to vote on this issue. The statements being made here could be made anywhere. Statements are useless. The purpose of parliamentary debate is to amend, vote and pass judgment on issues because we represent the public. We cannot pass judgment and we cannot vote. We may as well speak out on the street or hand out scripts to the newspapers. It is a farce, a disgrace.

If the Labour Party does not begin to change the manner in which things are done in this House there will be fewer people voting at subsequent elections. It is a pity that a Government with such a large majority treats parliamentary democracy in the way the Government treats this House and the public at large.

Mr. Rabbitte

I would like to go back a little further, in terms of the genesis of this sorry mess, and quote from the charter of this partnership Government. The relevant paragraph states that "the main priorities of the new Government will be to restore confidence in the democratic process by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels; by improving public accountability, transparency and trust and by ensuring the highest standards in public life".

Like Deputy Harney, I cannot look the Minister of State in the eye and say the things that I would like to say because I have some regard for her personally; but it is sad after less than 18 months that the high flown rhetoric and aspirations of openness, transparency, trust, accountability and all of the other items that Ruairí and Mervyn put into the programme in the run up to that happy Christmas for the Labour Party have already faded before our very eyes.

It is unacceptable that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance ought to be left holding the baby. This is a national development plan to transform Ireland, as the Taoiseach told us when launching it; yet, neither the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, nor one single member of the Cabinet or either of the Government parties——

Mr. Yates

Will they provide any speakers?

Mr. Rabbitte

——has attended this appallingly inadequate debate because of the manner in which it is structured — formal statements. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, has been sent to continue the stonewalling and the half truths about a plan which was conceived in secrecy, which has been misrepresented time after time in the House and the subject of downright deception by, I am sorry to say, the Minister of State herself, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern and the Minister for Enterprise and employment, Deputy Quinn.

I am at a loss to understand this because £4.54 billion is still a lot of money, although it does not match the figure of 13 per cent which we received in the previous round of Structural Funds. I am at a loss to understand how the Government could have contrived to get itself into such a hole in terms of its ability to construct a plan with what it sees as money from America. I have never been able to understand how it has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I do not understand the position of the Labour Party. I am aware that the Taoiseach did not believe at Edinburgh that he would be around to pick up the pieces. He resorted to his native instinct for snatching whatever figure came to his mind and said that he had £8 billion in the bag. Why does the Labour Party feel it is necessary to continue to defend him? Why is it that it is always a Labour Party Minister who is sent to defend something that the Taoiseach himself botched in the closing days of the previous Government and the opening days of this one?

Deputy Yates raised the issue of the effect of devaluation. It was conveniently forgotten that we were talking about £8.6 billion——

Mr. Yates

It is all in ECUs.

Mr. Rabbitte

Correct. We are now talking about marginally less than £7 billion. The Government is continuing in the belief that we lost the public a long time ago, that this argument is esoteric and the public cannot understand it. I believe the public well understand the difference between £8.6 billion and £7 billion. With all due respect to the Minister of State, in offering lectures in mathematics to Members of the Opposition one cannot get away from the fact that in a kindergarten they understand the difference between seven and eight.

The Taoiseach did not expect to be around; he was limping towards the exit door of Irish politics at the time but this was the dowry that won the Labour maiden. It always escapes me why the Labour Party has to defend the Taoiseach's downright misrepresentation.

The Tánaiste got himself into such a mess. We remember the famous interview he gave on "Morning Ireland" during which he made certain pledges, but he subsequently had to admit belatedly in the House that he was wrong and had misled us. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, denounced "mere civil servants" who had caused this entire mess.

If this is such a major matter why is it that all the Government has offered is the Minister of State — I say this with no disrespect as I have the highest regard for her honour and personal commitment to politics — to continue the stonewalling and the attitude that something will turn up. Somehow, due to the buoyancy which the ESRI continues to tell us about, we will be able to introduce budgets each year in which we will be able to make up the £130 million to £150 million per annum which has been lost.

The Minister of State has not told us that it is the historically low interest rates in a climate of international upturn which have produced this buoyancy; it is not due to any act of domestic economic management by this Government. The reason it is attractive for industry to invest, that people want to buy houses and domestic spending is up is, as the Minister of State is aware, that we have historically low interest rates. It is patent nonsense to continue to suggest that the missing £1 billion can be made up through buoyancy and the Minister of State knows this. I regret that she is continuing the misrepresentation.

Deputy Harney mentioned that she did not take up the invitation to attend the opening of the Tallaght Hospital for the second time. It is just as well that she did not because, although I represent the constituency, I was not invited to where the action was taking place; I found myself in a room in the regional technical college where the words of the Minister for Health were relayed by video. I was amazed to find that my colleague, who happens to be chairperson of the county council, was similarly given a secondary role while battling Bernie and Orla were in the front row on the site wearing rosettes. The charade continued.

I wonder what the impact would have been if the people of Tallaght and Dublin South-West knew that they were going to be £40 million short for Tallaght Regional Hospital and what the effect would have been on battling Bernie if the people of Ballymun knew that they were not going to get their rapid rail link. I can well understand the reasons the Minister of State, like any good Minister, tried to protect her home base of Dundrum, but what about the unfortunate people of Ballymun? What is going to happen to that project? What would the impact have been if this was known before election day?

Deputy Yates is correct that it is dishonest to continue to pretend that publication was not delayed until after 9 June. Last evening on television Bruce Millan made it perfectly clear that he was dissatisfied with the duration of the negotiations and that he only received the figures on Tuesday which allowed him to press the button for publication, although everything apart from the most minor details was agreed last April. Not for the first time he made a frank and honest intervention in this sorry saga; he told it as it was, but in the past he was denounced out of hand by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, said that his officials did not know what they were talking about, they were mere civil servants, but Bruce Millan has been proven to be correct and the reason the figures were not submitted before polling day is evident for any fool to see. It is regrettable that the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, and her party should participate in the cover-up. I fail to see how that can be reconciled with the charter of the partnership Government that was committed to openness, transparency, accountability, honesty, trust and so on. The Minister of State has been an apparently enthusiastic participant in the cover-up to conceal the truth from the people, in misrepresenting the amount of money that was available and continuing to tell us that, after all, we really have not lost anything. We had a plan constructed on the basis of £8 billion, we now must make do with £7 billion and we are told nothing will suffer. That is a fantastic misrepresentation and is unacceptable.

I want to refer to the few variations which the Minister mentioned in her speech, for example, in regard to the local development plan. I recently raised this question with the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, who denied there was a hold-up in Brussels in respect of the local development plan. It is now patently evident that there has been a hold-up. Will the Minister tell us more in that regard than she chose to tell us in her speech?

Far from the £8 billion the Taoiseach told us was in the bag, he has the Labour Party in the bag and he has them running around like a group of frightened squirrels trying to convince themselves that because Ms Bernie Malone was elected in Dublin everything is fine. Everything is not fine. Within ten weeks of the Taoiseach making that statement on 20 July last, on the date of the publication of the National Plan the Government had already started to slide down the slippery slope of half truths, untruths, rumours and leaks. We were confronted with the unedifying spectacle of Government Ministers engaging in denial cloaked in bluster and then casting the blame for their miscalculations on commissioners, their officials and other Cohesion countries, but not necessarily in that order. At no point did a Minister stand up in this House and say they got it wrong.

The Euro funds which were supposed to herald the fundamental transformation of this country and salvage the Government's reputation in the process have dwindled to the point where we will receive only £4.5 billion between now and 1999. When Cohesion Fund receipts and the allocation for 1993 is added, it is apparent the Government has managed to mislay £1 billion along the way.

The loss of £1 billion is small beer compared with the damage done to the reputation of the Government and the country in Europe. The mendicants of Europe went to the well once too often. In the process we managed to alienate the European Commission and prejudice our chances in future negotiations.

The 98-page verdict on the National Plan being produced by the Commission is a masterpiece of diplomacy, but it cannot conceal the fact that relations between the Government and the European Commission are at an all-time low. The National Plan presented last year with so much fanfare has been judged by Commission officials and found wanting. Those mere civil servants, whom the Minister, Deputy Quinn, dismissed with a wave of the hand last year have come back to haunt the Government. They took a look at the massive spending on roads and decided that some of those roads were leading nowhere. They took a look at the chapter on human resources schemes and asked why Structural Funds should be used to pay our domestic dole bill. In effect, these schemes are dole by another name.

When the plan was published the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald — once known as the Minister for £8 billion — said on "Market Place" that she did not want to see Ireland transformed into a low wage economy. The authors of the National Plan obviously had other ideas which have been firmly vetoed by the European Commission. Those mere civil servants looked at the plan's chapter on human resources for measures which would contribute towards sustainable job creation and development. They, like Democratic Left, looked in vain, with the result that spending on many of the deadend schemes favoured by the Government will have to be drastically curtailed.

When the first edition of the plan was published last year many observers had a strange sense of déja vu. A series of unfulfilled promises, familiar from Fianna Fáil and Labour election literature from years gone by, unfolded. Projects ranging from the Tallaght hospital to the Dublin light rail network, vital to the future of this country and which my party welcomes, were suddenly made possible by the Euro-bonanza. It is unfortunate, given the Structural Funds criteria, that the Commission balked at this point. The mere civil servants asked whether such projects would not normally be funded from the national Exchequer. According to my sources in Brussels, this was one of the first questions asked by the Commission on receipt of the National Plan, despite repeated denials by Ministers questioned on this issue. The Government's answer — as so often on these occasions — was the silence of injured innocence.

On an interview with RTE yesterday, Regional Affairs Commissioner Bruce Millan, whom the Government cast as villain of the piece in a previous act, gave an explanation of the delay in publishing the revised version of the plan. To anyone familiar with this Government's habits, it is an entirely plausible explanation. Commissioner Millan said the Commissioner had requested certain figures from the Government. Those figures were not forthcoming until last Tuesday, and I am reliably informed that some figures may still be outstanding.

The Structural Funds drama is merely in intermission. We are unlikely to see the final act for some time. The caveats entered by the European Commission come as no surprise to my party. Last year we pointed out that the plan did not conform to the strict Structural Fund criteria laid down by the European Commission. We pointed out that the plan did relatively little to combat the social exclusion highlighted by the Commission, and we queried the additionality element of some of the projects.

Mr. Yates

On a point of order, Deputy Rabbitte's speech is of such quality that it is only appropriate that there should be a quorum to listen to it.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Rabbitte

During the last round of funding Ireland received the highest allocation on a per-capita basis, yet we produced fewer jobs and benefited fewer people than other Objective 1 regions. The Taoiseach's national plan — even in its post-operative version — looks like being a repeat performance. The surgery is by no means complete. The Commission is looking for comprehensive cost-benefit analyses of many of the projects — analyses which will have to be included in the operation programmes due to be submitted by the Government. Regrettably, there is every indication that, once again, the operational programmes will be drawn up in masonic conclaves, with an eye more to the potential political spin-offs than to the real needs of local communities, the marginalised and small business.

The national plan can still be salvaged. It is still possible for it to make a real impact not just on our economy, but on the lives of communities and individuals. However, the Government must now face up to the questions which it has evaded since the Taoiseach returned from Edinburgh making dubious claims about a promise. We now know that there will be a £1 billion shortfall in European Union funding. That shortfall cannot be conjured up from nowhere and Ministers must now inform this House how the gap will be plugged. The private investment element on which the plan relied for a section of spending is as yet largely unquantified and unsourced, so it is possible that the shortfall will greatly exceed £1 billion. Either the taxpayer will have to pay for the shortfall or projects will have to be dropped. Last night the Minister for Finance ruled out any increase in taxation to pay for his miscalculations and proceeded to hint that the shortfall would be made up by increased tax proceeds resulting from economic buoyancy in the years ahead. In effect, the Minister is trusting to fate to get himself and his colleagues out of a hole of their own digging.

Regrettably, I do not share the Minister's touching faith. It is obvious that some projects will have to be dropped. I would welcome a commitment that the Government will break with precedent and engage in full public consultation on which projects should be chopped, altered and retained. Denial is no longer an option. A process of consultation and full information would go some way towards ensuring that the objectives of European funding are met.

I regret that the format agreed for the debate of statements has meant this is largely a hollow exercise. If the pattern set by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance is to be followed by her Cabinet colleagues — if they even contribute to the debate — and if they continue the stonewalling that characterised the junior Minister's contribution, we will be no wiser at the end of the debate than at the beginning, except that the Minister's continued pretence in insisting that £8 billion is the same as £7 billion is a misrepresentation that children in kindergarten would not believe.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. J. Walsh)

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on the National Development Plan. I am pleased that after due deliberation, discussion and debate we are in a position to draw down operational programmes under it. In my area of concern, that of natural resources, we identified seven priority areas which should benefit from Structural Funds in the coming years if we are to achieve the following objectives. Competitiveness is the number one priority which is critically important in the long term for our economy. We must promote the production of output of quality and diversity more in tune with the market-place and consumer needs. We have some way to go in that area. We must address the requirement of a greater marketing effort, including the exploitation of Ireland's clean and green image. We must secure employment and population maintenance in rural areas. We must also secure the necessary training, education and research and development to underpin both a competitive agriculture, food and forestry sector and wider rural community needs.

The priority areas identified by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry are, namely, the food industry, agricultural structures, the rural environment, farm diversification and alternative farm activities, income support to supplement the chronically low income in rural and coastal areas, the natural resource area of forestry and research, development, training and advisory services. Under the Community Support Framework Deputies will be pleased to know that all those areas have been incorporated under the agreed plan.

Regarding the sub-programme for the food industry the Expert Group on the Food Industry which submitted its report last year made a number of important recommendations for the development of the industry. The overall thrust of these recommendations was to promote within the industry a sustained switch to a consumer oriented policy. In particular the group emphasised the need to focus on building up the prepared consumer foods and food ingredients sectors for a better balance between capital and non-capital investment and for a more integrated approach towards the overall development of the industry.

In recognition of these recommendations the proposals which I put to the Commission provide for a fully integrated approach for the food industry involving all three Structural Funds. This will take the form of a special sub-programme within the Industry Operational Programme through which a full range of capital, resource and development, marketing and human resource supports will be provided over the next six years. The total cost of the sub-programme is estimated to be in the region of £670 million towards which approximately £300 million will be provided from European Union and national resources.

Regarding the priority area of the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is at present in negotiation with the Commission on an Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry which encompasses all those areas.

Considerable progress has been achieved in the agricultural structures area in the present round of Structural Funds. The Operational Programme for the Control of Farmyard Pollution has been particularly successful. Under this measure, investment of over £200 million has been carried out by farmers on the provision of waste storage, winter housing for cattle and sheep and fodder storage.

An independent evaluation of the programme found it has been successful in achieving its main objective of significantly reducing farmyard pollution on the participating farms. The evaluation also acknowledged the significant contribution the programme had made to the improvement of the environment and to the preservation of Ireland's image as a quality food producer. However, it was emphasised at the time, that substantial numbers of farmers still had not carried out necessary pollution control work and it was suggested that the reasons for non-participation were mainly financial. With that in mind I intend to continue with this programme in the 1994-99 period and to target those farmers who need to carry out investment in this area but who can least afford to bear the high costs involved. We must focus the greater amount of investment on smaller and less well off farmers.

Other aspects which have been highlighted in our programme are support measures to enable farmers to comply with the new dairy hygiene and animal welfare regulations introduced at European Union level. They are necessary to allow farmers with small milk quotas to measure up to the stringent requirements of our co-ops and milk factories. I aim to target the greatest assistance at the smaller producers. Officials in my Department are also in negotiation with the Commission on the possibility of helping smaller farmers to obtain extra milk quotas. Farmers with a small milk quota find it extremely difficult to acquire an additional milk quota and some degree of assistance would be helpful.

In line with the commitment given in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, I aim to secure extra funding for the scheme of installation aid for young farmers. New entrants to farming deserve every possible assistance. The objective will be to encourage the early transfer of farms to young members of the family or other young people who will be able to adapt to the challenges facing them, particularly as a result of CAP reform and the early GATT round. That, with the early retirement scheme under CAP reform accompanying measures, should greatly improve our agricultural age structure.

Our programme also contains proposals to continue aiding producer groups to enable farmers to adapt their product to market conditions and requirements of the modern consumer. On cattle breeding, we are aiming to improve cattle registration recording testing with a view to achieving improved quality of output.

On our third priority area, I indicated my intention to help farmers with investment aid for pollution control. In addition our new rural environment protection scheme under the CAP reform accompanying measures aim to establish farm practices and controlled production methods which reflect the increasing public concern about conservation, landscape protection and wider environmental problems. Under this scheme generous grants are available to farmers to emphasise their role in protecting the environment.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 16 Jun 1994

Death of Former Member. - National Development Plan: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Jun 1994