Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Jun 1994

Vol. 443 No. 9

National Development Plan: Statements (Resumed).

In regard to the operational programmes which will be put into effect shortly under this national plan, agriculture will continue to play a central role in the rural economy in Ireland for the forseeable future but the full exploitation of rural potential will be dependent on the degree to which we succeed in integrating agriculture into wider rural development.

The National Development Plan will play a vital role in this because there will be major investment available under the plan. For example, under the current operational programme for rural development we have begun the process of encouraging the development of farm diversification and other off-farm activities for farmers and rural dwellers in general with a view to increasing the income levels of those who live in these areas. The measures to which I refer include livestock enterprises such as sport horses, deer, horticulture enterprises, agri-tourism and farm relief services, as well as a whole plethora of other good ideas and opportunities that come from the farm communities. All of these measures are contained in our programme which, as I have already indicated, is under negotiation with the Commission at present.

While on the subject of rural development, I will refer briefly to the Leader programme. Leader has certainly captured the imagination of people living in rural areas and they feel they now have some say in the development of their local communities and how those development programmes are to be brought about. Those of us at central level recognise that genuine local and community development will only occur at the instigation of local people, backed up where necessary by the support of official agencies. The key point is that the ideas come from the local communities and the support comes from central authorities.

Turning to the question of income support, it must be acknowledged that there are many small farmers who would never be able to survive on the income generated by their farm activities, especially in the handicapped areas. It is for this reason that the European Union has prepared a comprehensive plan to compensate farmers who live in such areas by headage and premia payments. These compensatory payments are vital and enable farmers to remain in these areas which would otherwise become even more depopulated, leading to long term economic, social and environmental problems. I would refer those who suggest that all farmers are extremely well off and make large incomes to the Teagasc reports on family farm incomes. The survey of those reports shows that a number of the farmers in the severely handicapped and coastal areas depend on income supplements. In the new round, therefore, we will continue to substantially fund this area; but in line with the commitment in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, we will be examining it to ensure it is effectively meeting its objectives.

Forestry is another natural resource area which has tremendous potential and in the programme we will continue an accelerated programme of planting. The targets set for these forestry programmes are being achieved and in many cases exceeded. In the coming period the main investment in the forestry area will come from the new CAP reform forestry programme but the Structural Funds will provide backup measures, especially in the training and research and development areas. In addition, funding will be available for the timber processing sector under the operational programme for industrial development. This is the further processing of this natural resource area in which we have a tremendous record over the past number of years. There will be accelerated development in the added value of this large natural resource.

In regard to the research, training and advisory services, support measures in these areas are essential if the objectives of an effective and competitive agriculture, food, and forestry sector are to be achieved, and a special section of our proposed operational programme is devoted to this area. Under the new programme considerable funds will be available for agriculture, rural development, forestry and, of course, food.

We forwarded our operational programme's to the Commission in December 1993 and had lengthy discussions since then through the spring. Our programme is being revised to take on board the various points raised in the discussions and we expect to have a revised version by the end of this month.

In a few weeks, therefore, we can begin implementing the valuable operational programmes to draw down this substantial amount of money and I would prefer to hear spokespersons, either inside or outside this House, making effective and constructive contributions as to how best we could spend this large amount of money under the national plan rather than continually moaning and whingeing in a begrudging manner about the amount of money we have or have not received. This is a worthwhile plan and the programmes under it will change the face of our economy and make us internationally competitive at the production, processing and marketing level and will enable us enter the new century with a dynamic international economy at all levels.

The issue before us today is not whether the European Union has let us down in any way. This issue is how the Government has sought to cod the people at every hand's turn in relation to his investment programme, to overplay its hand, to conceal what was happening and to create a fog around an issue that is quite simple. The simple fact is that the Taoiseach announced he had £8 billion in the bag. It is now clear that that was never the case. Shortly afterwards the Tánaiste tried to doctor the figures to give the impression that the £8 billion was some way intact and he announced that he had £7.8 billion. But how did he achieve that? He achieved it by double counting the 1993 figures; the last year of the previous plan was brought forward to make the figures look dramatically better than they were. The reality, of course, was £1 billion short of what he announced.

In October, with reality beginning to dawn, the Government announced a plan with this new figure of £6.84 billion and built that into the plan for 1994-99. But of course within ten days it was clear — and it was quite clear that the Government knew when it published the plan — that even that £6.84 billion was not intact and it had to prune £840 million off the programme. We moved from the great announcement of £8 billion to a real figure of £6 billion. The Government was not man enough to face up to the fact that it sought to mislead the public by puffing up the figures; it was not willing to face the scale of the money available to it. That is why there is a lack of confidence in a programme which announces £20 billion of expenditure but no structured way in which it can be delivered.

The Government sought to cod and confuse the people in the make up of the plan. It was so eager to prove it got the balance right in the first plan that it insisted reductions would be pro rata— the great mantra that was quoted time and again. The EU has rejected that approach and insisted on selective cuts. Projects have been judged predominantly in accordance with their productive merits, as rightly they should. It decided that items such as light rail and peat fired stations would have to be reassessed, county roads would have to take second place, the Tallaght hospital project would be scaled down, FÁS schemes would be pruned back and industry would be given more money. That is what the EU told us.

Instead of the Government recognising that there were some good and bad elements and that it must cut its cloth according to the measure available, it says everything will go ahead as planned and disregards what the EU told it. That means the good projects and bad ones will be forced ahead by the Government. Who will pay for that? The Irish taxpayer will be expected to stump up the money for bad projects which do not pass the EU test. That is why people are so frustrated.

The Minister for Finance indulged in kindergarten behaviour yesterday when he announced there will be no more borrowing, no cuts in the plan and no additional taxation but still the £1 billion reduction will be accommodated. That does not stand up. We do not need lessons in economics to know about the folly of buoyancy answering our economic problems. For years various Ministers for Finance thought buoyancy was the answer and I thought at this stage the Government had learned this is not the case.

The tragedy is the economy had the capacity to fund a period of tax reform by having £1 billion available for tax reductions. That was the key to achieving fundamental reforms, the glittering prize. We could have stayed within the criteria set at Maastricht and had aggressive tax reform. As a result of the Government's pride in insisting on every line of a plan put together more for political than economic reasons the opportunity for tax reform will be thrown aside. The Government will not be forgiven for that and despite its ability to spend large sums of money it will not gain political benefit because people will judge the cynical move behind it.

The recent ESRI medium-term review showed that the next five years provide a unique opportunity to undertake fundamental policy reform if we have the courage to do so. The issue is whether the high rate of economic growth over the next five years will pass the people by, as it did in the past, without employment growth, leaving many people struggling in the backwash in the more deprived parts of our towns, cities and countries or whether we will have a policy change that will enable an enhanced economic performance. It is clear that the Government is heading down the old road of making political choices to suit short term advantage, trying to avoid short term criticism instead of facing up to long term decisions that are selective and using money effectively.

The ESRI openly criticises the Government's employment scheme as being flawed. In its report it said there were still too many unsuccessful programmes and an important missing element is a focus on targeted action in initial education to prevent early failure and drop out. That was as ringing an indictment of the programme by the Government as we could have from the ESRI and was re-echoed by the EU when it saw the proposals put forward. Yet the Minister of State says we will have pro rata cuts in the programme and everything will remain intact. That is a code for saying the Government will not face up to the reality that it has made mistakes in the way it spent money.

Yesterday, I attended an Estimates meeting of the Department of Enterprise and Employment. I am sorry the Minister of State was not at it. The Estimates showed that the Government is considering knocking 11 per cent off our industrial support measures and, at the same time, increasing the activities of FÁS by 25 per cent. How could increasing employment schemes and cutting the real areas where jobs could be produced be considered a proper priority? We spend twice as much on schemes of one kind or another as we do on the industrial base and that is not the way to secure our economic future.

The Government must reassess the National Development Plan. It was a product of its predecessor and reflects it in large measure. That plan saw unemployment rise by 81,000 when measured on a consistent basis; 98,000 young people emigrated and our highly qualified graduates emigrated to find work. That was the reality of the last plan and the policy which underpinned it. Those policies have not changed in the new plan. What has changed and is boosting confidence in the economy is low interest rates. The Government is squandering this period of low interest rates by not addressing seriously policy flaws.

In the last plan there was a target set that we would double the share of exports from our indigenous sector. It was to go from 1.2 per cent to 2.4 per cent by the mid-1990s. However, the experience has been not just stagnation in our share of exports but decline. We failed dismally to lift our indigenous industry sector. The trade and marketing programmes failed. What do we have in the new plan? The very same programmes and language. Nothing has changed. If there is any change under this plan it will be because of low interest rates.

In the last National Development Plan we were told there would be great emphasis on the development of small business but the number of small business industrial start-ups fell by 50 per cent — from 335 in 1988 to 168 last year, a steady decline. No question was asked about why the policies failed. The same policies were trotted out again — we would do great things for small businesses because that was the area where other European countries achieved growth. No change occurred and the National Development Plan does not contain any recipe for change, which can only be brought about from fundamental policy reform, much of which must be in the area of taxation. We cannot hope to develop our service sector when an employer in that sector has to pay the Government 60p out of every pound he earns while, after all the other deductions, he is left with 3p to keep his business going. Those are not my figures; they were compiled by people in the business. When they have paid their VAT at 21 per cent, PRSI at 21 per cent and corporation tax at 40 per cent they are left with 3p while the Government walks out the door, so to speak, with 60p in its pocket. That is one of the realities we are facing today. The sooner the Government realises that tax reform is fundamental to creating jobs in the economy the better.

The Commission set out for all the Governments in the EU the fundamental issues which had to be tackled if jobs were to be created. The first step was to cut taxes on employment by 1 to 2 per cent of GDP. The Taoiseach refused to endorse that proposal. The second step was to upgrade investment in research and development and science and technology. The Government responded to this proposal by reducing by 33 per cent the level of Exchequer funding in research and technology. It availed of the EU's willingness to support science and technology to cutback on Exchequer funding in that area. That was as cynical a move as one could imagine. The EU demanded that all member states should aim to allocate 3 per cent of GDP to research and development. We do not allocate even one third of that amount to research and development, yet we are cutting back.

The third step was to develop new concepts of work sharing and consider more flexible ways of working. Once again the Government has done nothing in this area. On a number of occasions the Minister of State has said there will be research in this area. I would welcome such research, but it must be recognised that it is long overdue and other countries are way ahead of us in developing policies in this area. We are still talking about commissioning research. The Commission gave us a lead in these three areas and even though the Government is delighted to grab its money and boast that the amount is three times what it really is it will not face up to the real challenges it has set out for us. The public realise that the Government's attitude to Europe is cynical. This debate and the efforts made to avoid facing up to reality has confirmed for the public this cynical approach by the Government.

On the question of work sharing, research has been compiled and the completed report must be submitted to the Department by 30 June. We are committed to introducing in next year's budget the necessary measures for a national voluntary work sharing scheme.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Department of Enterprise and Employment, particularly the labour section, is the national authority for the European Social Fund in Ireland. In that capacity it has played a central role in the negotiations on the human resources elements of the Community Support Framework. The Social Fund co-finances a broad range of training, education and employment programmes delivered by a range of Government Departments and agencies. The main objectives of these programmes are to cater for the skill needs of the economy and to support vocational training and employment measures which address the needs of the unemployed, particularly the long term unemployed, the disabled and the most disadvantaged.

I am pleased to inform the House that the percentage of Structural Funds sourced from the ESF during the period to 1999 will be the same as that envisaged in the National Development Plan, 35 per cent. This reflects the outcome of negotiations in which the Commission fully appreciated the importance the Government accords to training, education and employment initiatives.

Through the negotiations, the Commission has recognised our commitment to constantly improving the quality of education and training programmes and, very importantly, it has agreed to continue to fund a full-time evaluation unit dedicated to examining the effectiveness of the human resource development intervention across all agencies and Departments. The evaluation unit was established in January 1992 and is located in the Department of Enterprise and Employment. When the Minister and I met the Commissioner last Monday I put it to him that we wanted the evaluation unit to remain operational, if necessary to full strength in resource terms. Both the Government and Commission anticipate that this process will continue and intensify over the period of the new Community Support Framework. In this way we will reinforce the view in the National Development Plan that "evaluation is becoming part of the ongoing process of the delivery of education and training programmes". The Commission's agreement to fund all our education and training programmes is a reflection not only of the existing quality of provision but also of our commitment to strive after continuous improvements. The objective of all those improvements is, of course, to ensure that the overall aims of the Community Support Framework are achieved and that the potential of all the participants will be fully explored and developed. The Community Support Framework is not just about money; it is also about the proper utilisation of funding to ensure that the potential of all participants is fully developed.

The main beneficiary of the ESF is FÁS, the National Training and Employment Authority. I share the interest of the European Commission in ensuring that Exchequer and EU funding is properly targeted and makes the maximum impact in facilitating job creation and job retention. Accordingly, particular attention will be paid over the course of the CSF to assessing the effectiveness of the programmes. The main focus of activity delivered by FÁS will be on skills training, including the training of apprentices, training for those in employment and training for the long term unemployed and disadvantaged. A central plank of Government policy is to address the issue of unemployment, particularly long term unemployment. It is well known that more than 40 per cent of those out of work have been unemployed for more than one year. The community employment programme is specifically geared to cater for this group of people. That programme will provide employment outlets for approximately 40,000 people each year. Critically, it will seek to impart vocational skill to participants and afford them the opportunity to progress to enhanced forms of training so as to materially improve their chances of getting sustainable work.

When the Minister and I met the Commissioner last Monday we referred to the range of Community initiatives as distinct from the CSF. Deputy Bruton said he was sorry I was not present at the Estimates meeting yesterday. I was unable to attend that meeting as I was abroad on Government business.

The Minister was not at the match.

I have not yet developed the ability to be in two places at one time.

I wish to refer to the Human Resources Community Initiatives scenario for 1991-94. Three such initiatives, NOW, Horizon and Euroform, were funded through the ESF under the last Community Support Framework. The NOW initiative is focused on equality of opportunity and access for women, Horizon addresses the training and employment needs of the disabled and disadvantaged and Euroform pilots innovatory approaches to training and training methodologies, qualification systems and the identification of new employment opportunities. More than 200 projects were funded during the period 1991-94 and total expenditure was £50 million, £30 million of which came from the Social Fund.

One might well ask what is the scenario for the initiatives from 1994 to 1999. The guidelines which will be published officially before the end of June set out the broad framework for those initiatives up to the end of 1999 and can be summarised as follows: employment and development of human resources which has three distinct but interconnected strands, including promoting equal opportunities for women, called "Employment-Now". The lessons learned in the introductory stage will now be translated into the mainstream to promote equal opportunities for women under the "Employment-Now" scheme, to improve the employment prospects of the disabled and other disadvantaged groups under the scheme known as "Employment-Horizon" and the promotion of labour market integration of young people, in particular those without basic qualifications or training under the scheme known as "Employment-Youthstart".

"Employment-Youthstart" is a new development but the other two, "Employment-Now" and "Employment-Horizon" seek to build on the exploratory stage of the 1991 to 1994 process. For example, "Employment-Now" will help to reduce unemployment among women, improve the position of women already in the workforce, through the promotion of equal employment opportunities, develop innovative strategies to respond to changes in the organisation of work and changing job requirements, whereas the aims of "Employment-Horizon" are to improve the quality of training through the development of new employment skills and qualifications, new forms of work organisation, employment aids, support for work in the open labour market, in particular support for sheltered employment.

"Employment-Youthstart", with which I am very involved in formulating policy, aims to ensure the development of the innovative and transitional dimension of the national Youthstart programmes, to assert the development of structured networks of projects and programmes to ensure the exchange of good practice and experience.

The measures proposed under the three strands can be presented within four general headings — the development of appropriate training, guidance, guidance and employment systems, delivery of training, job creation and support for the start-up of small businesses and co-operatives and information dissemination and awareness actions.

I should like now to deal with "Adapt Initiative" about which Deputy Richard Bruton spoke, in particular the need for training those in employment, with which I agree. This initiative aims to accelerate the adaptation of the workforce to industrial change, increase the competitiveness of industry, services and commerce, prevent unemployment by developing the workforce through improving qualifications and their internal and external flexibility, ensuring greater occupational mobility, anticipating and accelerating the development of new jobs and activities, particularly labour-intensive ones. The measures proposed for this initiative have been organised under four headings, supply of training, counselling and guidance; anticipation, promotion of networking and new employment opportunities; adaptation of support structures and systems and information, dissemination and awareness actions.

The Department of Enterprise and Employment will arrange for the dissemination of information under the new human resources community initiatives when we receive our official guidelines. It is proposed to hold information seminars nationwide and to provide additional information to all interested parties, elaborating further, if necessary.

The European Social Fund funding to be provided to Ireland through the Community initiatives listed has not yet been finally determined in Brussels but will be additional — I emphasise additional — to the funding contained in the Community Support Framework. No doubt the allocation will be influenced by the impact resulting from the initiative funding and investment to date. I am very confident that we shall score highly on those criteria. Indeed the number of community and voluntary organisations already seeking ESF support in the next round is testimony to the very positive contribution such funding makes. These initiatives have heightened awareness of the role of the European Social Fund nationwide.

Deputy Richard Bruton went into considerable detail on the extra money FÁS has obtained for its various programmes, particularly, community employment, although he did not mention that term specifically but spoke about schemes for the unemployed. I reiterate — I have said this is so often here I imagine I am beginning to sound somewhat rusty, nonetheless, I hope, still interesting — that the Community Employment Programme is an amalgamation of the social employment scheme, Teamwork and CEDP. Its precise purpose was to iron out difficulties, referred to in various journals, with the social employment scheme. The Community Employment Programme aims to give people a longer participation on a programme of work, if that is what is required; it provides much more training in a very focused manner on specific skills needed to enhance a participant's potential and to marry that potential to the aims of the programme involved. Fifty per cent of participants will continue to participate for two years and, in some local development areas, will continue for three years. It also aims at a greater, in-depth training component within the Community Employment Programme. Much more importantly, and a point borne out by the OECD report — when the Minister for Finance chaired the meeting last week which released that report — one which immediately struck a chord with me because I have been saying so constantly, I was sometimes accused of intervening too much — is that we simply cannot have all these local development areas, programmes, community employment and others, for unemployed people if we do not match them with intensive vocational guidance, training, hand-holding and placement. There must be strong emphasis on job placement. Indeed, the extra resources the Minister for Finance was generous enough to allocate to FÁS were for the purpose of releasing job placement officers from some of their onerous, deskbinding duties, allowing them to fulfil that very necessary job placement task. We cannot remain passive about job placement or allow the market to find its level. Clearly, it must be a directed, proactive labour-market policy allied to market forces. I strongly recommend the "mentor" approach to guidance, counselling, training and eventual job placement, to be achieved through the local area partnerships prevailing within local communities.

My remarks will not reflect on anything the Minister of State said or did. Many of the schemes to which she referred are very helpful for training purposes and so on. When I last spoke on this subject when this famous National Development Plan 1994-1999 was unfolded in the House, I said it appeared we were about to embark on one massive FÁS scheme nationwide. There is a grave danger in placing too much emphasis on the short term alleviation of unemployment which, serious though it is will be twice as serious if there are not long term proposals to resolve it. I worry about what will happen when these now reduced billions run out, as they will. Amazingly and coincidentally they will expire towards the projected end of the term of office of the Government. This could well mean that some other unfortunate politicians would have to pick up the pieces. I merely cite those as my reservations about over-reliance on schemes to resolve unemployment but there my compliments end.

When contributing to the debate on the introduction of this National Plan in the House last year I referred to chipping away at the wall. While the Taoiseach referred to the plan as a window on the future——

(Wexford):——a window of opportunity.

I felt it was papering over old cracks, that one could clearly see underneath its deficiencies and flaws. Scarcely had the ink dried on that document before it began to fall to pieces. Quite clearly, the people in Brussels were not impressed with the Government's proposals. What intrigued me was that the Government was very reluctant before holding the European and local elections, to disclose the full extent of the remodelling of this document. I do not know why that should have been the case. I should have thought that a Government with a very large majority would have been anxious to display its prowess to a wider audience and indicate what this document contained before the elections. However, the Government remained coy, reticent, reluctant, shy and definitely reclusive, when it came to disclosing what the revised document contained. Amazingly also, before the local and European elections, there was the usual series of announcements, the foundation stones of some hospitals having been laid three or four times.

Group water schemes were approved with abandon; motorways and so on were approved at a rate of knots. I was aghast, as I am sure most politicians were, especially those on this side of the House because we had expected that this open, honest, transparent Government would be ready and anxious to display all the good before the widest possible audience at the appropriate time i.e. before the election. That was not the case. I and many hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country were disappointed. A week after the European elections and before the election posters were taken down the Government has had the courage to come forward and say there has been a problem, they did not achieve the same degree of success they anticipated in Brussels. The officials in Brussels, unlike everybody else in the country, did not think we were on the right track and we have had to revise our plans and proposals. What has happened to all the projects in the original plan? We have been informed that the shortfall will be spread over all Departments and that it will be made up. Will the shortfall be made up by a cut in current expenditure or by switching from capital to current expenditure over a period? That is fine except that a price has to be paid.

The peat-fired generating station was boldly announced by the Minister in good time for the European elections. Following the announcement I was contacted by a member of the press who asked for my comments.

(Wexford): I hope you welcomed it.

I am pleased to say I was not wrong in my predictions. I predicted that the announcement would be made by several Ministers and that the station would be sited on several locations before the election campaign was over. When the election was over the station disappeared altogether.

(Wexford): No way.

The Minister of State opposite knows that a question has already been raised as to whether it is intended to proceed with it. Not alone is this station highly mobile but it is elusive and invisible. I am deeply disappointed with the Government of high standards in terms of transparency and willingness to be forthcoming with information.

What will happen in the area of health? In the original plan a large sum was allocated to Tallaght Hospital. The Government has indicated it will proceed. I have no reason to disbelieve the Government. As the Government has previously indicated there would be no change in the plan, whom are we to believe? Are we to believe what the Government told us prior to the European elections or what it is telling us now? Are we to assume that the foundation stone which was laid several times will not be relaid in a reformed structure? If that happens we will have serious and trenchant things to say on this side of the House.

What other area of health is likely to be affected? If a portion of the Government's plan is truncated surely there will be a knock-on effect. In regard to all the good news the Minister for Health has given to the House during the past six months, most of which was based on a four year plan which is conterminous with the projected end of the term of office of the Government, is it intended that some future unfortunate Minister will pick up the pieces and explain to the public why we did not progress further? For example, an extra £4 million, a small sum, was recently allocated to dental services, an area where it is urgently required. If the Government has to make up a shortfall in this area where will it find the money to do so? Will it erode those allocations and awards to areas such as the orthodontic services? Will it reduce further staffing levels in hospitals, thus creating more problems for the administration of hospitals? Will it cut back on its proposals for the mentally handicapped or for the disabled? Will it cut back on its long term proposals for the provision of institutional care for the handicapped who do not have parents or relatives to care for them?

That is where the Government's transparency has fallen short of expectations during the past few months. Why did the Government not come forward before the European elections and say it was sorry? Their first test on coming into Government was to go to Edinburgh and subsequently to Brussels following which the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance said everything was in order and that they were getting what they expected.

They got nought out of ten in that test.

There are children throughout the country completing their junior certificate this week. If those children, mine included, fail the test in the same way as the Government failed its first test it does not auger well for them during the coming years. I am amazed that the Government expects to get away with this and that nobody should expect any retribution from it. The blame must go to both parties in Government who are culpable in that they contributed to misleading the public. It is against the rules to mislead the House but there is nothing wrong with misleading the public. The Government gave a distinct impression in the House in July and December 1993 and in January 1994 that its information was accurate when it knew full well it was not. It had information which clearly indicated there was a problem. It would not have been a good idea to tell the public before an election. Naturally the Fianna Fáil and Labour parties, in traditional fashion, put their wise old heads together and came to the conclusion that this information should be withheld from the public, at least until after the European elections. Perhaps they got a few extra seats. I am sure the Fianna Fáil Party is rejoicing following its success in the European elections. I ask whether they would have been so successful had the public known what the Government intended to do on their behalf well in advance of the European elections. Did the candidates standing for the Government fully accept responsibility for what has happened? When the various cuts take place will members of the Government accept full responsibility for having deluded themselves in the first instance and misled the rest of the country afterwards? Do they not expect to pay a price? If someone decides to deliberately withhold information which is crucial to the outcome until after an election is held they must expect to pay the price.

I give the Government ten out of ten for having a hard neck, for withholding vital information in the run-up to a series of elections and getting away with it. I also give the Government ten out of ten for blandly informing the people after the election that the position has changed slightly, that we will receive 12 to 13 per cent less than we expected two to three weeks ago and that there is a problem. I give the Government no marks for failing to deliver on its promise on entering office that there would be transparency and that it would be forthright, honest and upfront.

Wexford): The level of aid achieved through the new round of Structural Funds, through the Cohesion Fund and through the Community Initiatives which are yet to come, is easily the largest block of aid ever secured by an Irish Government. Over the seven year period from 1993 to 1999, aid per head of population will amount to £2,100 in this country, compared with £1,700 in Greece, £1,650 in Portugal and £1,400 in Spain. It is symptomatic of the Opposition that it is better at the politics of begrudgery than anything else, but this will not conceal the internal strife which characterises it and the lack of any sustainable policies of its own.

The Government, with the assistance of our colleagues in Europe, has already made real and lasting progress towards greater economic and social cohesion. In reviewing the present Community Support Framework which has been in place since 1989 we can see that substantial achievements have been recorded, with the assistance of the Community Structural Funds, in creating jobs in industry, tourism and other services, in visible improvements to our roads and other infrastructure, in diversification of the rural economy, in raising the skill levels of our population and in other areas.

The additional Community resources available to us over the next six years, through the new Cohesion Fund and the expanded Structural Funds, provide us with a unique opportunity to make a dramatic move forward towards the goal of greater cohesion and full participation in the benefits of the single market. This has been achieved through the unswerving commitment of the Government to maximising the share of Community resources available to us and in adopting challenging negotiating positions; and we make no apologies whatsoever for having done this.

Community funding has enabled an investment of £590 million in the national primary road network in the period 1989 to 1993. About £1.1 billion — almost twice the previous amount — will be available for this purpose in the period to 1999. This is compelling evidence, if evidence is needed, of the successful outcome of the Structural Funds process.

The next roads investment programme will build on the achievements of the current programme, the priority sections of the national primary network will continue to attract special attention. However, as so much work has been carried out on these sections, there will be a more even distribution of investment between the regions than has been the case since 1989. In addition, special attention will be given to those national secondary routes which are of the greatest importance in providing key linkages across the country between the primary routes.

The non-national roads also have major significance for economic development. Almost £450 million will be invested in these roads under the Community Support Framework. Other State investment in non-national roads, allied to expenditure by local authorities from their own resources, will bring total investment in these roads to over £1 billion in the period to the end of the century.

The total investment in roads proposed in the National Development Plan was about £1.7 billion. The Community Support Framework provides for expenditure of £1.65 billion over the same time span. This will fund an entirely credible programme to modernise our road network, something a less than credible Opposition would do well to consider before it comes into this House and subjects us to a further dose of moaning in default of any achievements of its own.

The operational programme for water, sanitary and other local services which was prepared in 1989 was designed to meet the needs of economic sectors and activities, particularly agriculture and food, rural development, industry, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture. It was also influenced by service weaknesses and environmental and quality considerations which affect economic development. Expenditure under the programme was slightly over £220 million.

We sought £605 million for the new programme in the National Development Plan. The Community Support Framework provides for investment of £604 million. These figures speak for themselves and will permit the Government to speed up implementation of the environment action programme, which sets out our ten year investment objectives with assistance from Community funds.

The principles upon which our environment action programme is founded — sustainable development, precautionary action and integration of environmental considerations in all policy areas — anticipated the shift in Community environment policy from a largely regulatory approach to a much broader strategic focus on the interaction between human activity and the environment. In line with the objectives of the Treaty on European Union, the Structural Funds place a special emphasis on requirements for the protection and conservation of the environment and I welcome this development.

Water and sanitary services, being less visible than other infrastructural projects, are too often and too easily taken for granted; but it only takes a pollution supplies, a lack of serviced land for new and badly needed industry, or a flooding incident to underline the crucial importance of these services.

While compliance with Community requirements does involve extensive investment over the decade, it is important to look beyond the letter of the law to appreciate the significance of this investment for our economic and social wellbeing. Environmental services build up the infrastructural capacity of the economy for the long term and help to ensure that economic activity is environmentally sound and sustainable. More fundamentally, a clean, attractive environment is itself a basis — indeed, a precondition — for growth in several sectors, notably tourism and natural resource based industry. Our clean image can create a competitive advantage in the promotion of food or other branded Irish products, as the Culliton report emphasised. However, we cannot take that image for granted. If it is to have substance and reality, the right balance must be struck between environmental protection and economic development. I am pleased to inform the House that the substantial investment secured for water and sanitary services — amounting to over £100 million a year over the period to 1999 — will allow this balance to be achieved and maintained.

The built environment will also benefit from the Community Support Framework. Despite the success of the present urban renewal scheme, much work remains in revitalising the physical and economic condition of core areas of our cities and towns. Within the local development programme, £117 million is being provided for urban renewal and this compares with £116 million sought in the National Development Plan. Expenditure will focus on three sub-measures.

First, the cultural and heritage programme for the Temple Bar area of Dublin will continue to be assisted. This programme has already restored vibrancy to an area which has the potential for development but which needed a shot in the arm to provide the necessary development impetus. The overall cost of the programme is £37 million of which the remaining £30 million or so will be provided in the plan period.

There will also be a local authority urban renewal programme involving environmental upgrading and streetscape works in selected areas. As we are all aware, the streetscape in many of our smaller towns and larger urban areas needs to be renovated and upgraded. I welcome the fact that this will form part of the new urban renewal programme. Local authorities will contribute to this programme from their own resources and, in total, I expect that over £65 million will be provided during the remainder of the decade. In addition, over £20 million will be dedicated to a scheme for meeting certain infrastructural requirements of small towns and villages. All this demonstrates the constructive nature of the negotiations between our representatives and those of the European Commission.

The Community Support Framework is a historic achievement of which this Government can feel justly proud. The programmes and projects for which my Department is responsible will be only very minimally affected by the aid available in the Community Support Framework as opposed to that on which the National Development Plan was based. This is in part due to the fact that a large proportion of my Department's programmes are financed under the Cohesion Fund.

We on this side of the House are sick and tired of the puerile criticisms from the Opposition parties that the Structural Fund negotiations were not handled properly. The truth is that we achieved more than they ever have, or ever will, and the truth hurts. I commend the Community Support Framework as another example of the Government's success in securing real economic and social progress for all our people.

The Minister of State's final comment is one way of hiding the Government's inadequacies and failure to accept criticism. It throws useless stones that do not hit a target. Perhaps the Minister of State was not a Member of the House during Fine Gael's terms in office when there was no such thing as Structural Funds.

In that case his memory must be a little rusty. The Minister of State's party was in Government for the first tranche of Structural Funds from 1989 to 1993 and it was in the driving seat for the launch of this tranche.

(Wexford): We have always done a good job.

I am bored with the saga of the missing and dwindling billions, billions that do not exist. It reminds me of the story of the emperor with no clothes. It was only when a little boy said he did not have clothes on that everybody felt they could speak about it. Essentially, the EU is that little boy and it has said that the Government has not had clothes for a long time, even as far back as the Edinburgh Summit when the Taoiseach returned and said it was all in the bag. It even goes back to the time of the Maastricht Treaty when the Taoiseach promised £6 billion over five years. We in Opposition begged the Government not to allow the debate on Maastricht to revolve around the goodies we were about to get. We wanted a debate on how we as a country could participate in the greater union of Europe and add to its culture and development instead of merely taking money from it. However, the Taoiseach made great play of the £6 billion and many people cast their vote on the basis that we were about to receive a great deal of money.

The Government should have had the wit — but neither party has shown much of that in Government — from the start to keep its mouth shut about the amount of money until it was sure it was nailed down. What we will get in Structural Funding will amount to a great deal of money and I hope it will be put to good use.

The Deputy has admitted that at last.

We have said that many times. The Government made a laughing stock of us and took the intelligence of the people of this country for granted by adopting the view that because they are only ordinary common folk, it did not have to tell them the truth. This is the approach of a Government that formed an intimate, warm and cosy partnership on the basis of openness and transparency. The saga of the National Plan and the European billions smacks of subterfuge and fudge. It is similar to hiding a parcel where nobody can find it, a parcel which continues to change and dwindle. Its contents changed from £6 billion to £8 billion over five years and then to £7.48 billion. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs said he was 100 per cent satisfied the figures would not unravel. Thank God he was not knitting because it would have unravelled and he would have been left with a ball of wool.

The Deputy will have plenty of time to knit.

I will not have plenty of time to knit. The Minister should forget about knitting and start running this country properly.

She will have plenty of time to crochet as well.

I am not very good at that. Every time we tried to get the truth from the Government we were accused of making political capital and damaging Ireland's reputation. The Government did not need help in that regard; it could do that all on its own without anybody's help. It was coping well in that regard.

In May 1992 the Taoiseach promised £6 billion over five years; in December 1992, following the Edinburgh Summit, he said he had £8 billion in the bag over seven years. In May and June, following devaluation, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs promised to use Ireland's veto — they were getting very confident — if they did not receive £8 billion. On 20 July 1993 the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs made an announcement that we would receive £7.84 billion over seven years. One would have thought the Government would have prepared its National Plan on the basis of that £7.84 billion, but instead it merrily went on its way and prepared it on the basis of the £8 billion the Taoiseach said was in the bag, a bag with many leaks. On 11 October 1993 the National Plan was published in a bright green cover — about which I am sure Deputy Sargent is very pleased — and it assumed we would receive £8 billion. We were told on 20 July by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs about his great achievement in being promised £7.84 billion, but that was not translated into the plan. The Government adopted an attitude of "It will be all right on the night" and published the plan on the basis of £8 billion. It hoped people would not notice. In October, November and December 1993, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Government continued to claim that the draw-down from the Structural Funds would be not only £8 billion, but that we would get more at the mid-term review. It claimed that because we received more in the last mid-term review the same would happen this time. However, we know that will not be the case.

On 23 November 1993 the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, denied the need to adjust the National Plan to take account of what was then the real figure of £7.2 billion announced by the Commission. She said there would not be any changes to the plan and that everything in the green book was nailed down. However, we know differently today and we received all sorts of "post-hockery" explanations in that regard. I heard a man on a radio programme today explain the meaning of "weasel" words which a journalist in America used. He said they are a form of words one uses when one is trying to fudge an issue and does not want people to understand something. We have heard many "weasel" words in this House and outside it recently. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, stated on Question Time that we may be getting only £7.2 billion but that, like the miracle of the loaves and fishes, we will make it stretch. She said we need £8.5 billion from the Exchequer and £3.7 billion from private industry, but that it will be all there on the night. We know that is not true.

In February 1994 the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, who must have had a bad night or had a tooth, out, blamed the officials in Brussels. The Government could have conned the people in Ireland for longer if it had not told the truth and made it known that it was examining the plan again to make it match the amount of money available. He did not want to blame himself so he blamed Commissioner Landeburu, who said the Commission would not give us £8 billion. In February 1994 the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, denied there was any problem with the National Plan. The Fine Gael Party was receiving information from its contacts in Brussels that the EU Commission was unhappy with some of the programmes in the plan and particularly unhappy because it involved much more money than the Commission has promised.

School children would know that if they only received £50 having thought they would receive £100, and if the benefactor did not provide the shortfall of £50, the balance would have to come from somewhere else. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, who minds our money and has his hands on the Government's calculator, told us not to worry, there were no problems with the plan, he had talks with his colleagues in Brussels and everything was okay. We know that did not happen.

On 22, 23 and 24 February the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that a new plan was not required. Essentially we have a new plan in many areas. On 1 March 1994 the Tánaiste admitted on "Morning Ireland" that the plan would have to be adjusted and programmes dropped. He was quickly silenced and told that the public should not be told the truth at that stage, to let matters continue for a while longer. He said that programmes might have to be dropped and we know that the word "dropped" has been excised from the Government's lexicon. Members of the Government are not allowed use that word, so they use words like rephased, rebalanced, stretched out, lengthened and all sorts of wonderful words to avoid saying they made a mistake and are sorry. They should come clean and say what projects will be implemented. I have heard the Minister say that projects like the Dublin light rail will not be completed in the length of time proposed. The completion of the project has been put off sine die. Deputies opposite will not be in Government long enough to deliver on that project. It will be left to the next Government to pick up the pieces. We will be over there on those benches reminding the Deputies opposite of it. I know the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, is enjoying his ministry. He should enjoy it because eventually the piper will have to be paid for the projects in the wonderful green book.

Who will be joining the Deputy on these benches? Who will make up the numbers?

An Leas-Chean Comhairle

Deputy Owen, please, without interruption.

Today we heard the EU will give only £40 million towards Tallaght hospital, but in reply to questions we have heard that the EU will give £80 million. Therefore, £40 million will have to be found. Where? The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, has used weasel words to say a little money will be collected here and there from another programme and the taxpayer will not have to suffer. An increased sum from the Exchequer must be put towards the plan. The plan was based on £8 billion but the Government will not receive that amount. That begs the question how the extra money will be raised. Will it be raised by the imposition of new taxes? The Government should indicate what proposed work will not be completed next year as funds will be needed to bolster the gaps in the programmes of the various flagship projects and the day to day education projects. Nobody has given a satisfactory explanation as to where that money will come from. The taxpayers will have to put up the money.

This saga is one of incompetence, ineptitude, subterfuge, fudging, economy with the truth and the small word beginning with L which I cannot use. I hope an investigative journalist is writing the story of this saga. I have written mine. The list of dates I referred to is a chronological breakdown of the saga, but much more could be said about it.

If the way in which this plan was prepared and the manner in which information was not given to the public or the House is an indication of how the plan will be implemented, God help us. The Government should wake up and cop on to the fact that it made a mess of the plan to date. Now that the Government has the money it should use it properly and not waste it the way it has wasted our time during the past year and a half with its subterfuge and incompetence.

I had not planned to speak in the debate, but I felt compelled to say a few words following some of the comments made by the Deputies opposite about a part of the National Plan that falls within my area of responsibility. I know the Deputies opposite would like to sow seeds of confusion about elements of the plan.

The Minister was a dab hand at that.

I would like to clarify the position so that those seeds of confusion and begrudgery will not take root. I wish to put some facts on record. The Community Support Framework for Ireland 1994-99 was approved in principle by the Commission of the European Union yesterday. It represents the best achievement of any Government on the drawdown of structural support moneys for this country. That is a basic and undeniable fact which Deputies opposite may try to hide, but the fundamentals of it can be seen by anyone with half an eye.

We did not create the smokescreen, you did.

Deputy Owen in her contribution finally acknowledged the Government's magnificent achievement in securing such a level of European support. We are no longer the poorest of the European Union countries and yet per capita we have secured the best deal. We are the envy of every country in the European Union and any of the other three cohesion countries would be delighted to have the same per capita support we achieved on this occasion. It bears repeating that over the seven year period 1993-99 the aid per head of our population will amount to £2,100 compared with £1,700 per head in Greece, £1,650 per head in Portugal and £1,400 per head in Spain. They are the facts.

Why did the Government not announce that at the beginning? Why did it hide it?

It reminds me of the short-sightedness of the person who has £100 on the table but spends his time looking under the table for the 10p that has rolled off. Such are the antics of the parties opposite and that has been their hallmark for the past 12 months. They should have the good grace today to rejoice on behalf of the country in the achievement of large inputs of new moneys into our economy which will create jobs, give hope and provide an infrastructure for development. We all must share that and abandon the begrudgery that has been a hallmark of contributions by members of Fine Gael and Opposition Deputies on this issue for the past 12 months. That simple point must be made. Like many of the public, I am tired of Deputies opposite talking down the country, the achievements of our Government, the magnificent results of negotiations that have produced the best results — they are beyond dispute. Deputies opposite have not disputed the fact that of the 12 countries in the European Union the results attained by our Government negotiators are the best, but that is not good enough for them. They want to use some obfuscation or smokescreen to detract from such a magnificent achievement that will bring hope and progress.

Why did the Government make such a mess of it?

The National Plan is the most ambitious, constructive and positive development plan ever put before the House or proposed to be implemented by any Government. It is an ambitious plan. It touches on every area of activity in our economy. It is a plan that is fundamentally built on the need of our economy to grow and create jobs. Jobs are the principle which has driven the National Plan, which are the objective of the National Plan, and I am delighted that the National Plan stands intact.

In tandem with the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the Programme for Government itself, which is the working operational document of the Government, it will transform this country. The results of the Government's first 18 months in office and its operation of the Programme for Government are already evident. The ESRI has today updated its own estimate of the growth of our economy. We will have the fastest growing economy within the European Union. We have already achieved one of the lowest inflation rates. In the 18 months since we took office the interest rates have fallen to a level where the economy can now sustain small businesses particularly and allow them to grow. Confidence in the economy is evidenced by surveys of small businesses and large businesses which, for the first time in a decade, are projecting real growth in job creation and job potential. These are basic facts which cannot be talked down despite the best efforts of Deputies opposite.

The attitude of the Fine Gael Party on this whole issue can be characterised as begrudgery. It seems to positively will the Government's ambitious plan to run aground. As to the targets for development in job creation, transformation of transport, the new light rail systems, new developments in roads, rail, sanitation, water supply and hospitals, the new training for our young people, the new education projects undertaken in the plan, it positively hopes these will not be achieved rather than joining in a great national endeavour and rejoicing in the fact that this plan represents a building block unprecedented in our history. This, I can only say, is an extraordinary attitude for any party that still retains some ambition to hold office in this country. I say again, the plan will be implemented and I know that is to the great dismay and annoyance of some Deputies opposite. That is something I find totally inexplicable. I genuinely do not know why Deputies opposite would work up such a fever to talk down the country or to positively hope a plan they universally applaud will not succeed. Is there any element of the national plan that Deputies would not wish to see implemented?

We have not seen the CSF.

I thought Fine Gael's great contacts in Europe, that it talked about, that have been leaking to it for the last few months, would have given it a copy of that before it is officially published.

I will use the time I have left to deal with my own area of operation. Let me make it clear and unequivocal that the Tallaght Hospital contract is signed, sealed and in the process of being delivered. We have a contractual obligation to build and open that hospital. I am telling the House yet again that it will be built on schedule and opened on schedule in 1997, and I look forward with relish to that day. Deputy Harney, Leader of the Progressive Democrats, suggested earlier today that it would be half a hospital. That is shameful and unworthy.

Where is the extra money coming from?

A fine new hospital will be built. In terms of the programmes in my range of expenditure, all the European funding is marginal. I was responsible, on the Vote of this House, for a budget of £2.3 billion and it is shameful and unworthy for anyone to suggest that the Tallaght Hospital will not be built.

Where is the £40 million? It may seem like small money to the Minister but it is a lot to me.

Let me spell it out in even greater detail for the benefit of the Deputies opposite. The contract for the Tallaght Hospital is signed.

Four times.

It was only signed once.

The foundation stone was laid four times.

Success has eluded them for so long that the Deputies opposite hate it. The reality is that on coming into office we negotiated in the Programme for Government that Tallaght Hospital would be built.

Fianna Fáil claims it did that.

We put that into operation. We brought together the three component hospitals to work out an agreed management structure. We have signed the contract. The builder is building it.

We know all that.

That is history.

It is current fact. Despite the best efforts to talk down the project, there is no question that it will not be completed on schedule.

What about the £40 million?

For Deputies to suggest that there is some doubt about it, that it will be scaled down or that it will not be what was promised is the worst form of begrudgery.

It has been said that the programme will be scaled down.

I am saying categorically, and every other Minister who has spoken has reiterated it, that Tallaght Hospital will be built as outlined, as specified, as scheduled. In 1994 prices the minimum cost will be £116.4 million. That will be provided and I am grateful for the contributions from European Union funds to assist, for the first time, a hospital development in this country. We have developed hospitals across this country from Exchequer resources in the past and I heartily welcome this additional funding to augment our own revenues on this occasion. Let there be no obfuscation, let there be no down talking, let there be no further begrudgery——

And there will be no cutbacks in other services to compensate?

The Minister is obfuscating. He said he was getting £80 million but he is only getting £40 million. Where is the other £40 million to come from?

We told you this morning.

I will simply say that the National Plan is the most ambitious——

The Minister is right there.

——most well-thoughtout, most developmental plan ever put before this House or proposed to be implemented. The structural funding that will flow into this country in the next few years is the best of any Union country. Our performance is the best of any Union country.

We are £1 billion short. If £1 billion short is the best——

All the begrudgery and all the down-talking of Ireland on the Opposition benches will not obscure that fundamental fact.

The Minister talked it down himself.

This Government has achieved a result better than anybody else in the European Union. We have already created an economic climate that has brought hope to people and over the next three or four years for the remainder of this Government's term of office we will continue on the developmental path that we have shown ourselves capable of following in the last 18 months. I look forward to achieving all that is laid out in the national plan as do all people of goodwill in this country.

The Minister would have been levitating on these benches if he were in Opposition, given the ammunition the Government has provided. Deputy Fitzgerald would have been levitating with the ammunition this Government has given us.

Self-delusion is a serious ailment.

Why are you not doing something about it?

I will not repeat what has already been said. The chronology leading up to today's debate has been well rehearsed and delivered by way of fairly extensive research into newspapers and the reports of this House which would form the basis of a very interesting programme on "Scrap Saturday" if it were still on the airwaves. However, I do not think it is appropriate or constructive to try to provide a substitute for that programme here. I will deal, therefore, with something that has not been dealt with so far in this debate.

The reason so much play has been made of the allocation to Ireland goes back to the Maastricht referendum when we heard a well played record to the effect that if people voted "yes" we would be guaranteed a large cash injection to compensate for the negative effects of the Single Market and the fact that Ireland is on the periphery of Europe. It is no accident that so much public attention has been focused on that amount of money since it was such a hot referendum issue. I do not think enough has been said about the negative effects of that process, and that needs to be recognised in the context of the National Plan. There was a certain amount of deception in the way that referendum was fought. The Government used taxpayers' money to push the "yes" argument and the amount of money made available to the Irish people is much less than promised.

There is talk of a mid-term review, which is meant to be some kind of panacea, but the Government should not put too much faith in such a review or try to hype it up as a means of staving off the public's anger. I recognise that other countries did not receive as much as we did. Countries that are more central are better placed to take advantage of the Single Market and would not be treated in the same way as a country on the periphery.

The attention being given to the amount of money concerned is in many ways a smokescreen. The real issue is how the money will be spent. I would be cautious about getting into too much argument about the amount of money involved, scandalous as that episode was. The European Commission laid down guidelines that 50 per cent of the Cohesion Fund should be spent on infrastructure and 50 per cent on environmental projects. However, our wisdom — I say that tongue in cheek — determines that we spend a greater amount on infrastructure and an infinitesimally small amount on environmental projects. I look forward to the Minister's justification of that.

Directives are laid down that, for instance, discharges of raw sewage will cease by the year 2000 for conurbations of 15,000 people or more. We read about this in the newspapers from time to time. However, there is very little talk about the year 2005 and the limit on discharges from populations of 2,000 or more. The Government is playing a very short term game. It is concentrating on immediate needs while not considering the long term effects. I would ask it to turn its attention to the long term aspects. There are many people not of voting age who will be able to vote by the time the Government goes out of office and they will give their answer if long term provisions are not made.

The grand road plans need to be considered carefully. In general, they fly in the face of our commitments at the Rio de Janeiro meeting of world Governments. While one must be discriminating about where road works are needed, towns which are completely overrun with traffic need ring roads and by-passes. However, the plan proposes not simply to provide by-passes or ring roads but to redraw the map of Ireland so that there will be one major Euro route, while other roads will receive less attention. The Minister for the Environment will plead that he is providing for all roads but the evidence suggests otherwise.

They are all potholes.

There is no problem with the Balbriggan by-pass.

By-passes are important but they must not be confused with rewriting the map of Ireland by building long stretches of motorway. I would be happier with a Balbriggan by-pass that is not of motorway standard. I do not think the Balbriggan people require a by-pass of motorway standard——

What about the people who travel through the town?

——while at the same time there is no inner relief road, which is just as important for the economy of the town.

I am very critical of this plan. I agree that jobs are needed, but the Government has structured the plan in such a way that it will get the maximum tax from the jobs created. The plan does not outline in detail how the economy will be structured to cope with future constraints. The agreements made in Rio de Janeiro, particularly the climate convention, stated that by the year 2000 we would cut back on carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels, but that is not being done. The idea of an energy tax is being baulked at, with the argument put forward that we are a poor country. We use an infinitesimally small amount of energy in comparison with our European partners. It is unwise not to introduce an energy tax, because when the time comes to cut back on energy consumption we will not be prepared for the type of economy that will be jobs intensive, with a reduced energy requirement.

We should concentrate on creating jobs in energy conservation. We are not giving sufficient support to this area, particularly by way of European money. Jobs in the recycling area have been neglected because we have not put in place a recycling strategy. Jobs in local horticulture are under threat due to lack of Government support for that sector. Even though £1 million was provided for the horticultural sector, it was only a joke in light of the difficulties faced by that sector. In the area of renewable energy we are helping to create jobs in Denmark because the manufacturing of our renewable energy is being carried out in Denmark and the financing is being done through Danish banks.

We should ensure the stability of our local economies. In France there is a very developed economy, with local economies providing their own bread, cheese and wine. Their local brands are distinctive. France attracts a great number of tourists because of its diversity. We seem to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater — we allowed local economies to be dismantled in the belief that the single market would meet our needs. This has resulted in the depopulation of rural areas and the associated problems of overpopulation and crime in our cities. We need to consider the example we are setting for people outside this House.

Earlier we had a long question and answer session with the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, on TEAM Aer Lingus. Under the final settlement workers will have to accept an overall package that will ensure their lives are far more difficult than previously, whether that means being employed or unemployed. People are being faced with the prospect of working longer hours for lower pay in order to remain competitive. At the same time it is proposed to spend £10 million on the refurbishment of the Dáil. Ministers are still been driven around in expensive ministerial cars; although this does not take up a huge percentage of the overall budget, it is an obvious cause of disdain of ordinary people. They see the taxpayers money being used in lavish ways. I could refer to ministerial trips to the World Cup, but enough has been said already.

I would not like to have the Deputy selling Ireland.

I think I could do a very good job.

The plan gives high hope for jobs but the fulfilment of it is far from realisable. There is no harm in aspiring to create a large number of jobs. When one considers where the money will be spent, the jobs do not appear to be sustainable, which they could be in a more locally based table economy. The proposed jobs will be affected badly by constraints on energy consumption, which is beyond all our control. We have neither large sources of untapped energy nor control over its price. We are putting ourselves in a very vulnerable position.

The unemployed are being asked again to try to be patient or to try to get one of the jobs that will be created. To those who fail to get a job the message is that they have failed and are no longer useful members of society. That is one of the saddest messages we can give to people. What is required is shorter hours, work-sharing and a basic guaranteed income scheme which will allow people work mobility and makes part-time and seasonal work viable. Work gives dignity and people should not have to rely on getting one of the few jobs available. Unfortunately, the Government is still going down that road. When it is reconsidering the National Plan in all its detail I hope it will consider the type of economy that will be sustainable in the future rather than what existed 50 years ago, which because of the growth of technology no longer serves our needs.

The Opposition continues in its attempts to undermine the considerable success this Government has achieved in negotiating a record amount of funds from the European Union.

Tell us about the power station, that invisible station?

I know we have to put up with infantile behaviour even at this hour. I will clarify anything in my portfolio that Deputy Durkan wants me to address.

That is a new departure for the Government. This could have serious repercussions.

Presumably the Deputy has used his opportunity to speak, but if he has not I will not look forward to hearing his contribution.

I can assure the Minister that if he were present he would have learned something.

The new Minister.

Very little time is available so the Minister should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

The Deputy Leader has a great deal to say when she is sitting down but very little when she is standing up.

I have spoken already.

She has suggested I was afraid to come into the House. I am never afraid to come into the House at any time.

It is a complete falsehood to suggest, as has been suggested, that the agreement we have vigorously and successfully negotiated with the European Union Commission involved a substantial shift from the original National Development Plan position. The Government's concern in negotiations was to ensure that the combined Exchequer and EU resources allocated by sector were adjusted pro rata so that the broad shape of the plan was maintained. This we have done and the income has resulted in some marginal adjustments.

Admittedly there has been some shift in the EU aid and Exchequer funding mix in the different sectors to meet Commission priorities on the use of EU aid and for technical reasons such as different aid rates. The Community Support Framework approved by the Commission yesterday makes clear that the Government was able to make offsetting shifts in the allocation of domestic Exchequer resources so as to maintain the relative shares in overall expenditure of the various areas concerned. In this debate I will restrict my comments to the areas for which I have responsibility. The Government has already clearly signalled a key role for transport, energy and communications in supporting our future economic growth and job creations.

In the case of transport the major objectives will be achieved through increased investment under the Community Support Framework. First, investments will be made to ensure that internal and access transport infrastructure and facilities are improved on an integrated basis, thereby reducing transport costs and offsetting the negative effects of peripherality on the economy. Second, the investments will be undertaken with the objective of improving the reliability of our transport systems by removing bottlenecks, remedying capacity deficiencies and reducing journey times.

These objectives are being spelt out in an integrated operational programme for transport which will embrace the transport functions of three Departments:— strategic investments in national, and primary and secondary roads, under my colleague the Minister for the Environment; selective and targeted investment in sea ports, under my colleague the Minister for the Marine; and significant public transport and airport investments, under my own Ministry.

Despite what the Opposition has suggested the broad thrust of the individual transport investments listed in the National Development Plan last October will be proceeded with under the transport operational programme. I can reassure the House that under the programme there will be a substantial renewal and development programme for the mainline railways. The programme will involve the provision of modern rolling stock, track renewal and new signalling systems on those lines forming part of the Trans-European rail networks and on other rail links. In short, the national mainline rail network will be developed with particular emphasis on strategic inter-urban links and on improving the accessibility of access transport facilities at our main ports and airports. At the same time the Dublin Transportation Initiative will be substantially advanced over the next five years with a considerable investment programme. The operational programme will clearly demonstrate how progress will be made on the implementation of the public transport elements of the DTI recommended strategy. It will also show how we will commence our investment programme for light rail. There will also be clear evidence of investment in quality bus services and other public transport infrastructure and support measures to help make Dublin transport faster and more effective.

The other area I should highlight is the investment that will take place in our State airports at Dublin, Shannon and Cork. At these State airports there will be upgrading of existing capacity and the provision of new capacity to cater for traffic growth and to maintain service, quality and safety standards. Such investment is required to ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure for the national and international aviation links required by our trading economic sectors and to meet projected increases in these requirements.

I should also mention that a second operational programme — the Economic Infrastructure Operational Programme — will see considerable investment in the areas of energy and communications. In the energy sector the investment programme will focus on tackling the factors which induce uncompetitive energy charges in the Irish economy, as well as minimising fuel consumption and energy infrastructure inefficiencies. The new investments in the energy sector will cater for increased demand from the economy in general, secure improved efficiency in energy supply and consumption and result in a more cost competitive supply infrastructure.

The impact of energy use on the environment has taken on an increasing importance both at national and international level in recent years. Much of the investment planned for the sector over the next few years will have the effect of increasing the efficiency of existing supply technology, thereby reducing energy losses. It is proposed to provide EU aid for key projects in the energy sector. They include peat-fired generating capacity——

It is in again.

——but for me it would not be in at all, Deputy — energy efficiency schemes, investment in rural energy networks and pilot projects in the development of cutaway bogs.

According to the papers it is gone.

It is a floating station.

I would now like to turn to the telecommunications sector. There will be considerable investment in this sector over the next few years. Despite very considerable investment in telecommunications over the past decade, the level of penetration of telecommunications in Ireland compared with most member states remains relatively low and the full range of modern services is still not available nationwide. I hardly need to emphasise to this House the importance of telecommunications for the Irish economy. If telecommunications services available in Ireland fail to keep pace with developments elsewhere, this country would find itself disadvantaged in the context of attracting foreign investment and creating and retaining jobs.

It is against this background that we have, with the agreement of the European Commission, ensured that European funds will be provided to contribute to further improvements in our telecommunications infrastructure, in particular in facilitating investment in certain exchange developments. Finally, I should mention that, for the first time, European funds will be provided to augment investment in modern postal infrastructural developments. This expenditure is being focused in the Economic Infrastructure Operational Programme in such a way as to assist postal services which, in turn, can enhance the capacity of Irish businesses to compete in the Single European Market by improving the quality of service and by reducing operating costs.

It is important that I put on the record of this House the fact that the European Commission has now positively endorsed this Government's development strategy in the new Community Support Framework. The agreement on the Community Support Framework is very satisfactory from the Government's point of view. What is more important, the allocation of overall resources will be in line with our national plan apart from very marginal adjustments. The agreement is also satisfactory for the Commission because it is assured that its priorities for the use of EU aid are being met.

I would like to repeat what my colleague, the Minister for Finance, pointed out yesterday and that is that the amount of EU Structural Funds aid to be provided under the Community Support Framework was decided by the European Commission on 21 October 1993. The allocation approved for Ireland was 5.62 billion ECUs or IR£4.54 billion. It goes without saying that the negotiations on the Community Support Framework were concerned with the use of the CSF aid, but what the Opposition fails to recognise is the fact that the plan also included investments to be aided by the Cohesion Fund, to be aided under Structural Funds Community initiative programmes and to be aided under the EFTA Cohesion Fund in the next five years. These are governed by different administrative procedures.

While the EU aid allocation under the Community Support Framework was less than that underpinning the plan, the shortfall in EU aid has already been taken into account by the Government in the 1994 Estimates and in the pro rata adjustments to the plan and that is totally consistent with the Government's press statement of 1 March. In that press statement the Government indicated that it would be prepared to consider increased Exchequer expenditure in Structural Fund areas in the context of the annual budget. This proved possible in the 1994 Estimates when a reduction of £130 million was made to planned expenditure. This was not a full amount of projected aid shortfall. It was possible for the Exchequer to meet some £40 million of a cost which the plan envisaged would be met by EU funding. Such consideration would have to take account of Government priorities in areas other than those affected by the Structural Funds and the need to maintain budgetary discipline.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the importance of now drawing down the EU funds under the CSF and the operation programmes as soon as is feasible. The success of our plan will depend not merely on the EU funds that we have negotiated, so successfully, it also depends fundamentally on the extent to which opportunities are grasped and challenges confronted. There is no doubt that our plans have ambitious targets — the creation of a considerable number of new jobs and an economic growth rate which is projected to increase faster than the EU average to the end of the decade. To achieve these targets will require considerable co-operation, commitment and consensus from all sectors of the community. It is in all our interests that our plans are successfully implemented so that we can enter the 21st century with a robust economy enjoying higher living standards and with a much higher level of employment. We never want to go back to the situation that existed in the mid-eighties.

The Minister is going where no man has gone before.

He wants to go back to the late seventies and early eighties, a time when he had responsibility. The Minister should not boast about it.

I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, wishes to reply. No arrangement was made in the order of the House for a response. Is it agreed that the Minister of State makes a ten minute statement in reply? Agreed.

Let us hear her answers.

I would like to reply to a number of points made in today's debate. Many Deputies have referred to the Government's aspirations towards openness and transparency. In keeping with that philosophy, I am arranging that copies of the latest available version of the Community Support Framework will now be placed in the Dáil Library for reference.

Only now?

As I told the House this morning, the Commission approved the CSF in principle yesterday. It must go to a number of committees at Community level to give their opinions on it. It will then be finally approved by the Commission and formally published. I would emphasise that official publication is a matter for the Commission, not for us, and the final version approved may vary in points of minor detail from the draft I will lay before the House.

Some Deputies maintained that the Government has not recognised the need for cutbacks to live within the allocation of 21 October which was below our expectations. We have already told the House on several occasions that those cutbacks will be made on a pro rata basis and this is what has now been agreed by the Commission. However, it remains the Government's aspiration to secure additional funding from the Commission if that is achievable, and we will also be examining, on a year by year basis, in the light of revenue buoyancy, to what extent it will be possible to pick up additional expenditure or to accelerate projects which otherwise might have been completed outside the plan period.

Let me stress the fundamental economic point that if an investment is a sensible one from the Commission's viewpoint it is also a sensible one from our viewpoint. I would, therefore, make no apology for investing some of the fruits of revenue buoyancy in projects and programmes that make long term economic sense in terms of increasing our country's output and job potential. If a project yields a greater economic return than the alternative spending options or the alternative of cutting taxation, it should go ahead; otherwise it should not. Any decisions to invest extra Exchequer resources in additional proposals will be on a year by year basis and on a programme by programme basis. It is not the Government's intention at this stage to pick up the total shortfall within the planned period; this year, for example, the Government picked up £40 million of a £170 million shortfall. The pace of progress we can make on implementing elements of the plan which are not at this stage co-funded will also depend on the pace of economic progress and the degree to which that generates revenue buoyancy.

Deputies queried my statement that the Government's approach to the pro rata reductions was largely accepted by the Commission. I am circulating a table which shows the Government's proposal on allocations made to the Commission last March and the final outcome. This table shows the combined Exchequer and EU elements in the CSF. If was on this basis that all the decisions were made at Government. The distribution of a fixed total of EU aid across the different elements in these totals is largely a technical exercise, and variations in the composition of funding make no difference to the final totals.

Now she tells us.

I told the Deputy that this morning.

Why were we not told that a year ago when the Minister was in here telling us there will be no changes.

I told the Deputy last night and a fortnight ago, I think this is the sixth debate we have had on this and we have made this point consistently.

The Minister has not.

This table covers the CSF part of the plan. It does not include the Cohesion Fund or the EFTA Cohesion Fund — the Cohesion Fund has already been agreed — the Community initiatives, where we expect Commission proposals in the near future, or non-Exchequer public sector or private sector expenditure.

Deputy Yates referred to the time taken to complete and publish the CSF text. There was no undue delay on our part. When he sees the final draft he will appreciate the amount of work it takes to complete it and get the text, tables and figures right in a document of this size. For example, as late as last week the wrong regulations were being quoted and obviously the completed document must be accurate. When we agreed the broad framework of the allocation with the Commission last April, it had not produced a CSF text and this first draft only became available towards the end of April.

My officials and those in the other Departments involved made every effort to finalise a text as quickly as possible at our end. I am told it is not unusual for a process of this kind to take less than two months from presentation of the initial draft to finalising all the details. We have taken no longer than other member states to finalise our CSF, from presentation of the plan to finality. As Commissioner Millan said yesterday evening, negotiations on all the CSFs were more time consuming than he would like.

There was a reference in the debate to Tallaght Hospital which will be completed as per contract and provide much needed health services for the people of Tallaght, south west Dublin and North Kildare as I am sure Deputy Durkan will appreciate.

I will watch it very closely.

As Deputies will see from the table circulated, the combined Exchequer and EU contribution to each programme, including Tallaght Hospital which is listed under hospital infrastructure, is virtually identical to what the Government submitted to the Commission in March. The lower aid rate for the hospital is exactly counterbalanced by higher aid rates elsewhere.

Some Deputies raised the issue of jobs. The central objective of the plan is to increase sustainable employment. I am happy that the improvement in the economy since the plan was published has allowed for the inclusion of a higher net forecast for jobs growth outside agriculture — 15,000 per annum rather than the 12,000-14,000 envisaged at the time the plan was prepared. Our growth forecast is also higher at 4 per cent rather than the upwards of 3.5 per cent included in the plan. The ESRI recommend a higher rate. Some Deputies claimed the ESRI was not independent. My spouse works there but I reiterate——

The Minister of State does not talk about it.

——that the Opposition feels it is independent when it gives advice it likes but not independent when it does not like the advice.

The Minister of State does not chat to him just as the Taoiseach does not chat to his wife about what happens in his company.

On these issues I do not. Deputy Sargent raised a point about the Cohesion Fund and said we had to have a 50/50 balance. That is not laid down in the regulations. I am sure Deputy Sargent more than others will appreciate the environmental benefits of investing Cohesion Fund money on the transport side in the railway network as well as the environmental improvements we are putting in——

There are deadlines to meet.

The balance of 60/40 approximately between transport and environmental infrastructure is perfectly acceptable.

I remind the Minister of State of the deadline.

Deputy Harney spoke about investment in telecommunications and mentioned a figure of £700 million in EU aid.

The figures presented here are highly suspect.

That was never the figure we looked for in EU aid for telecommunications. Her figure was inaccurate. Of course we would like to do better in terms of jobs performance and economic growth than our current forecasts of 4 per cent to 5 per cent. The plan is only one element of Government policy. As we said in the plan it will be possible to improve on our forecasts if our competitiveness improves. In concluding the Programme for Competitiveness and Work we have set competitive wage settlements.

Our employment performance has been better than that of our EU partners.

It is the worst in the civilised world.

Our economic growth is currently the best in Europe.

What about the unemployed?

We have a huge unemployment problem but the numbers are falling and the percentage improvement in the number of people at work is better than elsewhere in the European Union. We have weathered the recession.

Our level of unemployment is higher than Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia.

Deputy Yates compared our position as regards the Structural Fund allocations with that of Spain. He used the expression "Spain wiped our eyes". The facts do not bear that out. We are getting £2,000 per head compared to £1,400 per head for Spain.

Deputy Harney asked about the position in a number of areas of expenditure including human resources, Tallaght Hospital, environmental services and Dublin light rail. I explained several times that the Government has taken account of the shortfall of EU aid through the pro rata reduction in departmental spending allocations it approved at the end of February. This applies to all sectors. In relation to environmental services the greater part of the expenditure is to be aided by the Cohesion Fund and that Cohesion Fund related expenditure was not affected by the pro rata cut.

By the mess.

There are three separate elements in the plan, the Cohesion Fund and the EFTA Cohesion Fund, the Community Support Framework, which is what was agreed by the Commission yesterday, and the Community initiatives on which we have not yet got final proposals from the Commission.

Community development is getting the works.

Community development will do extremely well. We have been able to allocate a significant amount of money to local development, targeting unemployment and black spots. I am glad we were able to put that on the agenda of the Government.

It is the only place it will be.

It is important to recognise that the agreement yesterday opens the door for major investment in Ireland's future. We have had enough of knocking ourselves and talking ourselves down. It is time now to celebrate the major investment by Europe of £4.5 billion in this central element of the Structural Funds package.

I am determined to ensure we get the best possible return on that investment, to use it to generate increased output and jobs and to improve this country's economic potential.

After 18 months we are finally getting the real figures. It has been a long time.

Now we have the truth.

Top
Share