Is it possible to have a copy of the Minister's script? Copies were not available yesterday.
Estimates, 1994 (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following Estimates which were moved by the Taoiseach on Thursday, 30 June 1994: Votes 1 to 25, inclusive, 30 to 45, inclusive and supplementary Estimate to Vote 30.
Is there one for everyone in the House?
No, but I will send for some. In the past year, as well as securing increased overall funding for the education sector, I have concentrated on targeting the disadvantaged and on making extra provision for pupils with special needs.
There will be 425 extra teaching posts available in the primary sector this year. I will allocate the posts as follows: an additional 100 remedial teachers have been appointed and this has benefited over 300 schools; additional teachers will be appointed to schools designated as disadvantaged and these appointments will ensure that infant classes will not be more than 29. This is the first phase of the Programme for a Partnership Government commitment to reduce class size to a maximum of 29. One hundred and twenty additional posts will be allocated to special education, an unprecedented commitment to pupils with special needs, and an additional 50 child care assistant posts will be provided for special education schools.
Also in 1994 an additional £2 million has been provided to dramatically increase capitation grants for schools with children with a handicap. I have already announced the precise details in relation to this, but overall it amounts to a threefold increase in the capitation for special education.
As part of the allocation of this fund, I have decided that special schools with children of post-primary going age will be in receipt of capitation fees related to the capitation fee at ordinary second level schools.
The targeting of funds for the disadvantaged in the primary and secondary education sectors represents significant progress but the school alone cannot solve the problems of disadvantage. Co-operation with parents and early intervention in schooling are vital for the life chances of our young people. Other agencies in society must also play their part in combating disadvantage. That is why I am particularly pleased that the pre-school programme which was promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government forms part of the local development programme in the National Plan.
We are unique in Europe in having made so little provision by the State in this area. However, we must acknowledge the extraordinary contribution made by local voluntary groups, on very slim resources, in this area, and I want the new initiative from my Department to complement this existing activity, not in any way to supplant it.
I believe that these pre-school projects represent an important advance for us in education. They represent a recognition that a headstart programme is vital to offset the effects of disadvantage. They also recognise the importance of collaboration between Government Departments and voluntary agencies in tackling disadvantage.
One of the major objectives of Government policy is to encourage and facilitate as many students as possible to continue in full-time education after the end of the compulsory period. In practice, this means that a major policy objective for the 1990s will be that 90 per cent of the 16-18 year old age group should complete senior cycle. Currently an estimated 74 per cent of this group complete the senior cycle. However, this figure of 74 per cent masks great differences in this level of achievement. In some areas completion of senior cycle falls as low as 35 per cent and in other areas it is effectively 100 per cent. There are two factors which contribute to this disparity. First there are socio-economic conditions and, second, the curriculum provided to date may not have suited the needs of the widespread of ability levels. Given the very wide spread of ability levels and aptitudes of students who are now following the senior cycle, it is increasingly necessary to ensure that the curriculum provision at that level is appropriate and beneficial to all students. The availability of the option of a three-year senior cycle for all students entering second level education from 1994 onwards has presented new possibilities. The transition year becomes available to all schools this year, and I recently announced an additional £50 capitation to schools who have students following the transition year programme. The two-year leaving certificate course will incorporate three elements, leaving certificate subjects at ordinary and higher level, the leaving certificate applied programme and the leaving certificate vocational programme. All leaving certificate subject syllabi will be revised on a phased basis beginning in 1995.
This extensive reform of the senior cycle which is now under way involves considerable costs. One of the major costs is inservice training of teachers and I am making provision at post-primary level to help schools implement the changes in both the senior and junior cycles through a new unit in my Department which will administer inservice education. This unit will develop procedures and systems for formulating, promoting and co-ordinating a comprehensive and integrated network of in-career training provision for teachers.
The changes outlined above are of two kinds — changes in resources, by way of increased resources, and changes in the activities which take place in classrooms.
The increase in resources has been very carefully chosen, and very carefully focused. It has not been a question of simply throwing money at problems to solve them.
Since I became Minister, I have continually received representations in relation to increased resources for remedial teachers, resource teachers, school refurbishment and new buildings. The two major Opposition parties are in no way negligent in making these representations, and in having a continuous stream of parliamentary questions to support local cases for more resources. Fine Gael and Progressive Democrats Deputies must be consistent. They cannot luxuriate in the conflict of demanding more resources for education, or indeed any other area of Government activity, and simultaneously seek to brand this Government as a tax and spend Government and engage in the populist politics of continuous tax reductions. In fact, what they are doing is engaging in "Tadgh an dá thaobh" politics. They seek to persuade the public in a general way that they are the parties of low tax, and then at constituency level they are even more assiduous than Government Deputies in seeking extra expenditure. Each time they demand a reduced burden of taxation. I want them to articulate clearly where the reduced expenditure will fall. Are we to go back to the low levels of capitation for children with a handicap? Are we to take away the two £5 increases given to ordinary primary schools over the last two years? Are we to reduce public sector employment by reducing the number of remedial teachers? Are we to reduce Government capital expenditure by leaving the physical condition of our schools in a sorry state? These issues, and these choices, cannot be avoided. They are at the heart of politics. They are central to the kind of society we desire. I say unambiguously that I profoundly support the provision of decent education, and other social services that are central to a civilised society and these services must be provided by the Government.
On taking up office I committed myself to bringing about fundamental change in Irish education over a four-year period. The provision for education in the 1994 budget along with the increases already provided in 1993 will enable me, together with the many dedicated people in the education sector, to maintain and improve the quality of education and to make further substantial progress in implementing the education chapter of the Programme for a Partnership Government.
This Government's sell by date is fast approaching. The recent election results clearly show that the public never voted for this Government. In the last election the Labour Party made historic gains. A vote for Labour was a vote for change, not a vote to restore Fianna Fáil to office. The recent elections show the public have simply not bought Labour's U-turn. Before the election they were bitterly opposed to Fianna Fáil. After the election they were their partners in Government. Any analysis of the transfer pattern in the European, local and by-elections shows that there is deep distrust between Fianna Fáil and Labour supporters.
The Labour Party was not elected on the basis of its Programme for Government. They obtained support because of the blank cheques they wrote to workers in the State enterprises such as Aer Lingus — we heard the Tánaiste speaking out in the hangar in Aer Lingus — Irish Steel, Telecom Éireann, ACC and ICC. Blank cheques were written by the Labour Party in the last election and this is now coming back to haunt the Government.
Middle class voters, particularly in Dublin, were assured that the Labour Party was no longer a party of socialist dogma but now that these people see the high tax, high spending policies resulting in a widening of the net for residential property tax and a reduction in VHI and mortgage relief, their withdrawl of support from the Labour Party is inevitable. In racing parlance, the distress signals are going up midway through the race. Despite the best efforts of the spin doctors and programme managers, the public can see through the Tánaiste's policies. I constantly meet people who are appalled at the flagrant extravagance of the Tánaiste. He was at the match on Monday, in the "Bollinger box", and he travels with an entourage. I am beginning to wonder, considering the number of visitors to the Dáil, whether the global tours by entourages at the taxpayers' expense are in return for all these visits.
The Tánaiste has led by example in the appointment of relatives and cronies to highly paid positions, not only in the Department of Foreign Affairs but in the newly established office of the Tánaiste, which provides no public service. I eagerly await the outcome of the apportionment of legal costs to the Tánaiste's brother and other legal representatives at the beef tribunal, given that the Tánaiste did not substantiate claiming full legal expenses and given that the Tánaiste did not substantiate many of his allegations by failure to produce witnesses at the tribunal.
The Tánaiste's handling of the Presidency of the EU Commission has been the exact opposite of what he would have sought in Opposition. It is undeniably true that much of the Labour Party's success in recent years can be attributed to the Mary Robinson presidential campaign, underlying which was a theme of Ireland on the international stage, sending the best lady forward to represent us on the international stage, giving the country an international profile with a lady of stature. Now that the opportunity has arisen for an Irish candidate to achieve one of the most prestigious global political posts — the Presidency of the EU Commission — the Tánaiste has put petty Fianna Fáil Party interests before the international opportunities for this country.
This behaviour is akin to the most supplicant, subservient cumann party member. Alternatively, it could be the strategy of a stroker who has to repay the debt of having his friend, Barry Desmond, fixed up in the European Court of Auditors. This is exactly the type of issue on which the Labour Party had 33 TDs elected to the Dáil. Therefore, it is of little surprise that the only Labour MEP to be elected was one on an anti-Labour leadership ticket. Those red roses that were in such evidence in November 1992 have truly wilted. The Ministers, Deputies Higgins and Quinn, seem more comfortable in Fianna Fáil membership, given their loyalty to Fianna Fáil transcends past friendships with trade union members. Their zealous support for investors matches that of their partners.
Fianna Fáil now resembles the dog that does not bark anymore. After the reshuffle when the backbenchers see that their last opportunity of promotion is gone, someone will point to the king who has no clothes. Albert Reynolds has presided over the worst electoral results for Fianna Fáil in its entire history.
Members of the House should be referred to in accordance with the position they hold in the House.
The Taoiseach presided over the last general election in which Fianna Fáil got fewer seats than in any general election for many decades. In the Dublin Euro poll its core vote was down to 7 per cent, considering the turnout was so low. Beneath the surface, these realities are apparent. A long period in Opposition is the only cure for Fianna Fáil. It is like pretending that the £1 billion shortfall in the national plan will not have consequences for projects or for the taxpayer — eventually the truth catches up.
The recent passports for investment scandal is clearly understood by the public. People accept there was no illegality. However, this is not the allegation. The issue is whether the Taoiseach, or the Government Ministers involved, knew that the £1 million investment by the Masri family was for the Taoiseach's family company. It is simply not credible that no-one knew where the investment was being placed. Padraig Flynn knew because it was on the file.
Even the most innocent and naïve people understand that such a scheme, dependent on ministerial sanction and introduction rather than independent administrative appraisal, is open to favouring the friends and relatives of Government members.
On the economic position, following the last three budgets tax revenues have been increasing almost three times faster than inflation and almost twice as fast as the increase in national income. This means that taxation for ordinary people is increasing. In simple terms, the tax take of GNP is increasing. Fine Gael believes it is possible, in the next five years, to use the fruits of economic growth to reform the tax system, the focus of which should be to reduce taxes on work by £200 million per year and, cumulatively, over five years, to £1 billion a year. This would still allow public expenditure to grow in real terms by 2 per cent per annum — that answers the point raised by the Minister for Education. For the first time in 30 years we have a unique opportunity in that we neither have to widen the tax base nor cut public services in order to cut taxes on income.
Next Monday's Exchequer returns will show a continuation of this trend whereby the fruits of economic growth are being absorbed in higher taxation and expenditure. The credit for economic sunshine cannot be taken by the Government. It can almost entirely be attributed to lower international lending rates. This is determined by the Bundesbank, international money markets and international monetary policy. Lower interest rates result in cheaper mortgage rates to householders which in turn result in more disposable income. Low deposit rates for investment means that the savings ratio, always high in recession, drops as depositors do not believe it is worth their while saving since the return is so low. Both these factors lead to growth in domestic demand, with a consequent increase in VAT and excise receipts.
Fixed investment — in agriculture, industry, tourism and so on — is cheaper due to lower interest rates and therefore is more attractive. The lower costs of servicing the national debt mean an annual saving of about £400 million. All these factors can be attributed to lower international interest rates, resulting in our new-found so-called prosperity.
The shortfall in funding for the national plan will mean that resources that could have been provided for tax reform and tax reductions will have to be absorbed to prop up Government schemes and bureaucracy that will not necessarily have a lasting benefit to the Irish economy. The annual deficit of at least £130 million a year is equivalent to the income from the dreaded 1 per cent income levy. Notwithstanding the good economic indicators, it must be remembered that the national debt has risen by £6 billion in nominal terms since Fianna Fáil returned to office.
The cornerstone of Fine Gael's economic policy is self-reliance. We place lower taxes at the top of our political agenda. A unique and remarkable opportunity arises, due to the upturn in the international economy, for a substantial reduction in taxes while at the same time improving public services. The focus of tax reductions should be centred on the tax wedge, that is the amount taken in PAYE, PRSI and levies. In simple terms, to the employee it is the difference between gross pay and net pay, and to the employer it is the non-wage element of labour costs. The tax wedge is one of the principal reasons good economic statistics on paper have not resulted in more job opportunities for school leavers. This tax burden leaves Irish labour costs uncompetitive. That is a factor underlying much of the current trauma in Irish Steel, TEAM Aer Lingus and other companies that are having difficulties remaining competitive. Irish workers are not over paid but are over taxed. It is estimated that the cost of our tax system on income is 15 per cent higher than that of the UK. That also represents a significant disincentive for many to take up work or to do overtime. Instead of a systematic reduction in taxes over a planned period, this Government has sought to inflict a heavier burden on home owners.
Many taxpayers were startled when they studied their tax free allowance certificates and saw the extent to which mortgage interest relief had been reduced, in some cases by up to £1,800 on the previous year. The Government intends clawing back £55 million in tax relief previously given by granting mortgage relief only at the standard rate of 27 per cent in the £ over the next three years. It has limited the amount of mortgage interest relief to 80 per cent of the ceiling, in spite of the clear and unequivocal promise by the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil in the last election that they would increase mortgage interest relief. Instead, home owners are substantially worse off. The real cost of providing a home has increased.
The Government is taking its first step in implementing the hidden agenda of the Labour Party — the reintroduction of domestic rates on family homes. This started with the extension of the residential property tax net in this year's budget to homes with household incomes over £25,000 and houses worth over £75,000. The Labour Party in Opposition had promised repeatedly to raise the rate of residential property tax to 3 per cent per annum and to reduce the threshold to houses worth less then £50,000. The Taoiseach let the cat out of the bag in Killarney. It is clear, and this was borne out in a reply to a parliamentary question only the week before last, that the Government is still working on a plan to reintroduce rates on homes by merging residential property tax and service charges or to introduce a poll tax.
The Fine Gael Party will defend home owners against the pseudo tax reforms that are in effect tax hikes to pay for Labour's extravagance in Government. Those additional taxes have to be paid out of meagre after-tax income, the punitive taxes on work having been paid already. Fine Gael believes that the income tax code could be fundamentally reformed over the next three years.
The cost of rearing a family is not acknowledged in the tax code. However, for those in receipt of social welfare the more dependants one has, the greater is one's income. We do not allow 1p of the tax free allowance for the cost of rearing a child. Fine Gael believes that an allowance of at least £400 per child per annum should be restored. We believe the role of the stay-at-home spouse must be acknowledged through the introduction of a tax free allowance of £1,000 per annum. Fine Gael's support for the family would extend to increasing from £110 to £1,000 per annum the dependent relative's allowance for a carer minding an elderly relative and to providing that bona fide child care costs be allowable as a deductible expense. For middle income earners we believe the standard tax band should be expanded. In Ireland people hit the top rate of tax at the lowest level of income in Europe. Ireland is the worst place for middle income earners to live. A single person starts to pay the marginal rate of tax, that is over half their income, if he or she earns more than £223 per week. This Government in spite of its pre-election promises has paid lip service to widening the tax bands. Fine Gael has sought consistently that the standard rate of tax would apply after allowances and reliefs to the first £10,000 of income for a single person and £20,000 for a married couple.
There is an inextricable link between the tax system and jobs. Ireland has one of the poorest conversion rates of economic growth into extra jobs. It has to be acknowledged in this context that three out of four new jobs will be created in small businesses. This year's Finance Bill failed to deal with the fundamental problem of supporting small business and service sector growth. The service sector in this country is treated like a glorified tax collector with 21 per cent VAT, 21 per cent PRSI, 40 per cent corporation profits tax and 40 per cent capital gains tax.
This Government specifically rejected various improvements to the services sector which it is now hinting at. An investor with capital that might be used for job creation is not taxed at all if he invests in An Post savings certificates or Government gifts. He is taxed at 10 per cent if he puts his money on deposit in a bank but should he run all the risks of establishing an enterprise — and is one of the four out of ten who succeeds — he has to pay tax at 40p in the £. Our tax system must acknowledge the risk attaching to certain investments. Fine Gael believes that the greatest potential for creating more jobs will come through developing the service sector and small businesses, specifically tourism, home care and personal services and the financial services sector.
The much heralded mid-term review of the Government poses the most serious dilemma in the context of State enterprises. The Labour Party made foolish and unsustainable promises in the last election. It raised false expectations. The monthly display on the plinth for RTE TV news of the Labour Party's indecision, doubts and double think is most disquieting and uninspiring. The future of Aer Lingus, Telecom Éireann and Irish Steel requires leadership rather than political paralysis whereby Fianna Fáil and Labour neutralise each other.
The promise in the Programme for Government to establish a State bank is flawed. It would be disastrous if the TSB, ICC and ACC were to become a political football. Fine Gael believes that the sale of TSB must be open and transparent and must result in the maximum price for the taxpayer, the maximum level of competition in the banking sector and safeguards for the employees involved.
This Government is singularly lacking in ambition. It is content to cruise on auto pilot thereby missing the best opportunity in many decades to transform the Irish economy with its good economic statistics into an enterprise economy with real opportunities for employment and investment. Essentially at the heart of this Government and the Labour Party is the principle, not of public service, but self service. I am pleased to say there is every indication that the public sees this for what it is and will not delay at the first opportunity to replace it.
This Dáil session has been one of real and substantial progress in developing our social welfare services. The framework of this programme has been the clear objectives set out in a Programme for a Partnership Government.
We have a sound economy which is set to move into a new phase of economic growth and prosperity. Furthermore, we have the right policies to benefit from the fruits of that economic progress. Unemployment has fallen for the sixth month in a row. The Government is determined that this progress will be maintained and that those who depend on social welfare will also share in the fruits of our success. We are pursuing a progressive, work-supportive and responsive social welfare service, and we are making sure those objectives are being met.
This year the Government has provided an additional £168 million a year to maintain the real value of social welfare payments; achieve the priority payment rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare; improve payments for children; provide extra support for families at work, for carers, and for lone parents trying to get back to work; introduce a new widower's contributory pension scheme on the same terms and conditions as for widows, and continue to support and underpin the invaluable work done by the voluntary and community sectors.
In just three weeks time, all weekly social welfare and health board payments are being increased by 3 per cent which is ahead of the rate of inflation. This will benefit 822,000 people and their 627,000 dependants. Increases over and above the 3 per cent are being provided by way of: a 10 per cent increase for 112,000 people getting disability and unemployment benefits, a 6 per cent increase for those on the lowest rates of payment such as unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance, and an extra £10.20 a week for 1,100 invalidity pensioners over 66 years of age.
These increases more than maintain the real value of social welfare payments. Their overall effect is to ensure that all weekly payments have now reached the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The new weekly rates coming into payment represent at least 90 per cent of the Commission's main recommended rates. The priority rates have been acceded and now the rates are over 90 per cent of the main recommended rates of the Commission on Social Welfare in current terms.
In addition to the weekly rate increases, we have introduced a number of significant and wide-ranging improvements, including further increases from September next in the monthly rates of child benefit which will be increased from £20 to £23 for the third child and from £23 to £25 for subsequent children. This follows last year's significant increase of 26.6 per cent in child benefit; an extra £6 a week from this month for families getting the family income supplement. Over 10,000 families have now taken up FIS — a 30 per cent increase in take-up since last year; significant improvements this month in the means test applying to the carer's allowance. The first £100 of weekly earnings of a working spouse will now be disregarded in the assessment of means. Almost 1,000 carers will benefit from this improvement, some by as much as £29.50, and including approximately 500 carers who will get the allowance for the first time and improvements in the means test assessment for lone parents who take up work. A new weekly earnings disregard of £30 replaces the current disregards of £6 plus £6 per child. Thereafter, only £1 of earnings will be assessed for every £2 earned instead of the £1 for £1 arrangement at present.
The Government is committed to the maintenance of the social insurance fund and to its future development in the interests of the workers who contribute to it, their employers and the people who draw benefits from it.
The social insurance fund is the cornerstone of the social welfare system. It provides across-the-board protection to over one million workers and their families through insurance-based benefits and pensions, to 114,000 employers who see their contributions to the fund as meeting their responsibilities to their workforce, and to 120,000 self-employed people whom I brought into the PRSI system in 1988 and who now have the security of pensions for themselves and their widows.
Good management and better compliance with PRSI obligations by employers have brought about a situation where the fund is in a very healthy state. The taxpayers' contribution to the fund's deficit has been reduced from 30 per cent in 1987 to 4 per cent this year. This has been achieved through bringing more workers into the protection of social insurance cover as well as greater compliance, mainly by employers, with PRSI obligations. PRSI contributions from self-employed people will amount to £81 million this year while 27,000 part-time workers, brought into social insurance protection for the first time in 1991, will contribute about £9 million.
The security and healthier financial position of the social insurance fund has made it possible to introduce a number of measures in support of jobs. An important package of PRSI reliefs, exemptions and supports for employment — amounting to a cash injection of some £89 million — has been in place since last April. These measures will be of particular benefit to hard-pressed labour intensive sectors such as clothing manufacturing and footwear.
Included in the measures are a reduction in employer's PRSI from 12.2 per cent to 9 per cent where employees earn £173 a week or less; an exemption from the health contribution and the employment and training levy for employees and self-employed on low income; employers no longer liable for the levies where employees are medical card holders and a new two year employer's PRSI exemption scheme which has generated nearly 4,000 new jobs over the past two years. Two-thirds of all employers will benefit from one or more elements of this package. That is a substantial benefit to employers in this year's budget and in the social welfare arrangements for this year.
Having regard to its primary objective of supporting workers and their families in time of need, I will keep the social insurance fund under review to shape the PRSI system in the direction of supporting employment. I must bear in mind, however, that my primary duty is to the members who depend on the fund in the first instance. We have made major changes already this year and our figures are working out in line with our targets. In that sense it appears to be working out quite successfully.
We have continued to support in a very tangible way the tremendous contribution which the voluntary and community sector has made to our national life. Our record in this area includes £850,000 allocated this year to once-off projects administered by voluntary and community groups. Some 170 groups benefited last year: £700,000 for locally-based women's groups, including £100,000 for more established groups. Some 570 groups benefited last year; £2.2 million for the community development programme which includes five new projects this year in three locations to join 41 other projects around the country; £750,000 for a package of measures in a major drive against illegal moneylending, including five new moneylending projects and the appointment of a national coordinator to spearhead the drive; £100,000 cash boost to assist women's refuges and £250,000 for 14 family resource centres as a special contribution to mark the International Year of the Family in Ireland.
The introduction of a new survivor's pension scheme from next October is one of the main achievements during this Dáil session. From 28 October next, the existing widow's pension scheme will be replaced by a new survivor's pension scheme which will entitle both widows and widowers who satisfy the PRSI conditions to a weekly payment of £64.50 per week plus an additional £17 for each dependent child.
About 12,000 widowers are expected to benefit from these new arrangements which will cost some £27 million in a full year. I have already launched a major information campaign to inform these men about the new pension.
This is an important step forward, providing equality of treatment between men and women and putting us in the forefront in Europe in providing equal access to survivor's pensions. Widowers can qualify for a full contributory pension in the same manner and with the same PRSI conditions as widows.
Earlier this week, I brought before the House for approval important new regulations which will significantly improve access to pension cover in the future for women working full-time in the home.
Under the regulations, I am providing that, with effect from 6 April this year, time spent caring for young dependent children up to six years of age will be disregarded in calculating entitlement to contributory old age pension when a woman retires. The new provisions will also apply to people caring full-time for an elderly or handicapped person.
According to the Labour Force Survey there are some 476,000 women under 65 years of age working in the home. The new initiative will increasingly benefit such people in the future when they reach pension age. There are 4,000 men in this category.
Women who take time off to care for a dependent child and work full-time in the home are disadvantaged by the resultant gap in their working record when calculating their entitlement to a pension. This is because entitlement to a pension depends on a worker having a minimum yearly average number of PRSI contributions when all his or her PRSI contributions paid over a working career are counted. Time spent out of the work force without paying PRSI contributions often dilutes a woman's PRSI record to the extent that she cannot achieve this important yearly average number of contributions. The vast majority of women thus end up on retirement as dependants of their husband, receiving a dependant's allowance which amounts to 70 per cent of the full pension.
The new regulations will change that and make it easier for women to get a pension in their own right. They will apply to parents, adoptive parents, foster parents and any person who takes time off to look after a dependent child. All full-time carers are also included not just those getting the carer's allowance from my Department.
In addition to our initiatives in support of jobs we are developing a pro-active approach which will offer unemployed people and others dependent on the social welfare system as wide a range of options as possible to help them back into the workforce and second chance education.
Central to this policy is the dynamic part being played by the new jobs facilitators for which I got Government approval last year. They are the key people in implementing our employment support services and they are proving their worth. They form a country-wide network of 30 people. Their primary focus is to help unemployed people and lone parents, to identify the needs of those customers in their areas and facilitate their progress to employment, self-employment, education, training, work experience or self-development.
The broadly based range of job creation and educational opportunities for those in the social welfare system include: the new back-to-work allowance which has been enormously successful in bringing forward over 3,800 jobs in indigenous industries and the voluntary sector; second chance education opportunities which now provide over 7,000 unemployed people and lone parents with options to avail of full-time second or third level education; the employer's PRSI exemption scheme which has resulted in 4,000 extra employees being taken on at an annual saving to employers of £1,200 for each new employee earning £200 week, and the students' summer jobs scheme which has exceeded the success achieved last year. To date, 10,000 students have applied and over 11,000 jobs have been offered by sponsors.
I welcome the fourth report of the National Economic and Social Forum on "Ending Long-Term Unemployment" which was launched yesterday. This is an important report which provides an analysis of the extent of long term unemployment and its varied causes and puts forward proposals to address what it perceives to be the main deficiencies in existing policies for the long term unemployed.
With the publication of the report those proposals will now be examined in detail by the various Departments and agencies involved. An approach tailored to meet the individual's needs is the most effective. A service which is responsive, accessible and sensitive is a pre-requisite for success. The Government's programme recognises this and has backed this approach with the introduction of jobs facilitators in my Department. These are very well placed to ensure the successful delivery of the type of employment support service recommended in the report. Jobs facilitators are already active in the area and we have the local and regional structure to provide a comprehensive service throughout the country in association with FAS.
Just four weeks into the students summer jobs scheme this year, last year's very successful figures have been exceeded. Three out of every four students participating are from families at work who are not getting a social welfare payment. The work done under the scheme has been of enormous benefit to the community and also to tourism and heritage projects.
This year's scheme introduces a number of significant improvements over last year. These include: students can earn up to £540 this year compared to a maximum of £400 last year through increases in the weekly rate and hours worked; the scheme is available from the beginning of June to the end of September instead of for three months as it was last year; my Department has arranged special insurance cover for both sponsors and participating students; a booklet has been made available by my Department which provides a list of sponsors together with the jobs available and the number of students each voluntary body or community organisation requires. The booklet also gives contact names and telephone numbers that the students will find useful when deciding which type of work they would like to do.
An issue which received considerable attention during the current Dáil session is the proceedings arising from the delay from 1984 to 1986 in implementing the EC Directive 79/7. Equal treatment in matters of social security was introduced in 1986 and implementing measures to provide for retrospective payments covering 1984 to 1986 were put in place in 1992. All these payments had been made by the end of 1993.
The High Court hearing of what amounts to a test case arising from the delay in 1984 in implementing the equal treatment Directive concluded yesterday. These proceedings involve a number of complex legal issues of national and Community law. All these matters were argued during the course of the hearing which lasted seven days. It is now a matter for the courts to decide whether those involved are entitled to receive any payments over and above those provided for in the 1992 retrospective legislation. I reassure the House that the Government will meet any obligations which may arise from the outcome of these proceedings.
I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions recently about the British Government's intention to introduce an habitual residence test in assessing entitlement to three important social welfare payments in the United Kingdom. Deputies will be aware from those statements of my deep concern at the implications which these proposals will have for Irish emigrants to the UK and for Irish people living in Britain.
At a meeting with Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Peter Lilley, last March I received his assurance that the new test was not intended to interfere with the traditional working arrangements and patterns of migration between our two countries. The Secretary of State's main concern was about "benefit tourism" which is a growing problem at European Union level.
Since my meeting, officials of my Department have been meeting their opposite numbers to develop a formula to achieve the objective agreed at ministerial level. Proposals were put to the British side and I was informed this week that a formal response is imminent. I look forward to a satisfactory outcome within a very short period. I am confident that on the basis of this agreement the rights of Irish people to British social protection while working or seeking work in the UK will be maintained. I will, of course, issue a statement as soon as the British response to our proposals is received.
The progress made in our social welfare services underlines the priority this partnership Government attaches to safeguarding the positions of those who depend on our services.
I sincerely thank the staff of the Department of Social Welfare for their continuing good work in delivering our services. We have about 4,200 people working all round the country, many of whom are front-line staff dealing directly with our customers. Over the years, they have shown great flexibility in adapting and adjusting the administration of our schemes and services in the light of continuing changes and improvements. I look forward to their continued support and commitment.
I also thank the many voluntary and community based groups and organisations who co-operated so closely with us during the year. This special co-operation is one of the great strengths of the Irish social welfare system.
I commend the Estimates to the House.
The Government has done more in the last 18 months to bring its business and the process of politics into disrepute than Fianna Fáil ever managed to do in either of its two uninterrupted 16 year periods of Government on its own since the foundation of the State. I do not say that lightly as its record in either of those periods would take some beating. This Government has gone far beyond that.
It is 13 years since I was elected to the House. Those years have been fairly turbulent years in politics but I have not seen a period that matched the last 18 months for deception of the public, disillusionment and U-turns. We have become so used to seeing Government Ministers do U-turns that it is now becoming respectable: people are saying they have finally seen the error of their ways and have the courage to change their minds. This begs the question whether they should ever have decided on the policy they are now reversing in the first place. There have been some spectacular changes in policy and views during the past 18 months among the members of the two Government parties.
We all remember the virulent way in which these two parties attacked each other during the last general election. I will not read out the advertisements they placed in the newspapers or quote from their party political broadcasts on the radio and television. We all remember what was said. Nevertheless it is interesting to recall them as lately the Taoiseach and Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs have been whining in public about the levels of personal abuse they have to put up with. This is rich coming from two masters of the art, two enthusiastic exponents of abuse, during the last general election. Having roundly abused each other and cast all kinds of doubt on each other's credentials politically, they then ended up in Government together. Many of us did not expect much more from Fianna Fáil but we expected more from the Labour Party which had spent some years polishing its public political halo.
Of course, the signs were there to see. Even before the Government had taken up the reins of office the Leader of the Labour Party had shown a very substantial propensity to change his mind, to change direction and to backdown. I remember being in the House when Deputy Spring described the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, as "a virus causing a cancer on the body politic". The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs now complains about abuse. During my 13 years in this House I have never heard a more vile term of abuse of any other Member than the one he used. When Mr. Haughey was finally persuaded by his Fianna Fáil Party colleagues to resign as Taoiseach and Leader of his party Deputy Spring was asked in one of his favourite locations on the plinth outside this House for his verdict on Charles J. Haughey as a politician to which he replied it was too soon to express a view, only months after he had described him as a virus causing a cancer on the body politic.
The explanation for all this is very simple. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, has shown, and continues to show — I say this a little ruefully — a great talent in one particular kind of judgment. It is not a judgment on political issues or on what the Government should do; rather he has shown a great talent to judge the popular thing to say, something which will contribute to his lionisation as a major figure in Irish politics. He has shown a talent for using the apparatchiks which constantly scurry around behind him to formulate how he should say something and bask in the adulation of the media, if not the public, when he says it. He has another great talent, that is, to sniff the wind, change his mind and say something totally different on the same issue when he thinks it is the popular thing to say.
The record of the Government during the past 18 months has been littered with case after case of the Tánaiste in particular, the Taoiseach and other members of the Government — the Minister for Enterprise and Employment is another expert exponent of this art — saying what they believe is the popular thing, riding the wave until the wind changes and then saying the next popular thing, completely oblivious of the fact that they are now travelling at 180 degrees from the way they were heading the first time. This is one of the things which has brought the political process into so much disrepute during the past 18 months.
There are other examples. During December 1992, the interregnum period, we watched the warm affection with which Democratic Left was treated by Deputy Spring, who could not think of forming an alternative Government without that party. However, once he got his hooks into Deputy Reynolds and had worked out a cosy little arrangement, Democratic Left was excoriated and treated with contumely at every opportunity. The beams between these potential socialist partners — Democratic Left was to be the socialist leaven in a rainbow coalition — suddenly turned to glares and the animosity is something to behold. In fairness, the animosity between those two parties today is fuelled and stoked by a deliberate action of the Labour Party. The partner it could not live without during December 1992 and January 1993 is now to be pushed out and, if possible, extirpated, although, much to its chagrin, the Labour Party found it did not have the means of doing that in Dublin South Central.
When the public becomes disenchanted with all this, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and his colleagues in the Labour Party — the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht springs to mind — complain bitterly about personal attacks against them, vendettas in the press. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, God bless the mark, was muttering darkly about taking action to stop the press saying nasty things about him. This is rich coming from people who were lionised for their courage and pitilessness in pointing out the truth about all and sundry, especially in other parties. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring and the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, showed a rare skill in the art of personal abuse and innuendo while they were in Opposition and a rare skill in the art of tacking to suit whatever wind came along.
The Government has come to grief on a series of issues, some of which were raised by it in its wonderful wonderland document, the Programme for a Partnership Government, and others which were not even thought of when the document was put together. An example of the latter is the saga of the Structural Funds. In Edinburgh at the end of 1992 the Taoiseach pretended he has secured agreement on £8 billion in Structural Funds for Ireland. This was a spurious claim from the very first day. Much as I am tempted to, I will not bore the House by going into the details of this saga as they have unfolded since then both inside and outside the House. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs was sent off to try to rescue the family furniture for the Government during the summer of 1993, maintaining the pretence that we had £8 billion. I would like to know — if the Taoiseach or Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs ever write their memoirs we might find out the truth — whether in this grubbly episode the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs was a willing partner in deception or whether he was simply an innocent pawn. Was he the witless dupe of a Taoiseach who had already decided the game was up and wanted the odium to fall somewhere else? Whatever the answer the Government, including the hapless Minister for £8 billion, continued the pretence. It is only in the past few weeks that the Government has been forced to admit that the claim was overblown in the first place, that the programme cannot be achieved within the kind of resources and financial envelope for the next few years, and that there will have to be cutbacks. Of course, the Government will not say in what areas cuts will be implemented, the concept of buoyancy and revenue will be trotted out every year as long as this Government is in office to try to retrieve its honour in relation to this National Development Plan.
I do not know in what way the Government would describe all that but, from the point of view of an impartial observer — I do not pretend to be impartial — that was a very bad episode for the Government, demonstrating very little concern or attachment on its part to any idea of ethics in the conduct of public policy, in its presentation or even in framing policy programmes which will be important to people throughout this country.
The Government also came to grief on another of the Labour Party's pet projects, the third banking force. Although the Government will not admit it, the story keeps on running that there will be a third banking force. However, that will not happen because the Trustee Savings Bank does not want any part of this unnatural three-way marriage. The Government has found out that it cannot force the Trustee Savings Bank to enter into this kind of arrangement because it does not own the bank. The Fianna Fáil Party, or at least Fianna Fáil Ministers, should have known when they put this Government together that it does not own the Trustee Savings Bank because the last Government introduced the legislation that currently governs its status and independence. Mind you, if it is sold, the Government will reap the profit, but it does not own it and cannot order the trustees to do anything. At present, somewhere behind closed doors in Merrion Street, there is an examination of the proposal put to and agreed by the Trustee Savings Bank. I bet this Government will come out with some kind of new, half-cocked arrangement that will at least maintain the pretence that other people can bid for this, but will wring their hands at the end of the day. I can almost hear it happening. They will send Deputy Kemmy in here, or out to the plinth, to say that they have their attachment to Labour principles and to this part of the programme but that this awful, nasty, commercial world of reality has intruded and, on this occasion, they cannot live up to all their principles. He has done it so often he could do it in his sleep.
Then we discover the Agricultural Credit Corporation was already thinking about a link with Credit Agricole. We find Government Deputies coming along, saying: Ah, wonderful, another rabbit out of the hat, our third banking force will have the ability to establish international links. International links be damned, that third banking force will never happen. Thank God for that because, if it did we would have a Labour Party in Government thinking it now owns a major bank here, that it will make banks work the way the Labour Party wants its political aspirations to work and to hell with markets and whatever happens anywhere else.
I wonder too why a Government which includes the Labour Party has been so strangely silent on the proposal from the communications workers' union that An Post bank should be part of this third banking force. Is it because the Government does not like the idea but is afraid to say so because it does not want to offend yet another one in a long line of unions driven beserk by it? Is it that the Government does not believe the proposal anyway, or has it got something else cooking in its collective and demented mind about An Post? If the Government is still pushing this third banking force idea, if one of the three parties to this unnatural marriage does not want anything to do with it, and another volunteer comes along, perhaps the Government should look at that. I say that mostly in jest, I would recoil in horror at the idea of this Government ever trying to actively put together a third banking force because it does not know the first thing about the function of a bank.
It is sad to see a Government coming to grief on so many issues. While Opposition politicians are always tempted to say: "We told you so", I would not claim that kind of wisdom. However, to find a Government coming to grief in other areas far more important to the daily life of ordinary people is more worrying. Acres and acres of this programme deal with the creation of jobs and tackling unemployment. The Minister for Social Welfare reminded us of some a few minutes ago. Over that 18 month period we have had a succession of new schemes dealing with training, social and community work. New schemes appear with monotonous regularity but they all have one thing in common, they do nothing for the problem of long term unemployment. To the extent that there has been an improvement in employment here, it has arisen because the private sector managed to expand employment in some areas in spite of the obstacle put in its way by a tax system which this Government refuses to change in any substantial way and rigidities in the labour market with which it refuses to deal. I recognise that useful, constructive work has been done at community level under the provisions of all these schemes but they do not alleviate the problem of long term unemployment. They are short term palliatives that do nothing to improve the functioning of our labour market in a manner that will allow us to feel we are doing something concrete about expanding total employment in the long term faster than it would expand as a result of an economic pick-up in our main export markets.
The Government should endeavour to secure a position in which employment here will expand faster than the possibilities created by the position in our export markets, but they are not doing so. Time after time they go for these short term, cosmetic measures of which I know the Minister for Enterprise and Employment is an ardent fan, he would rather have ten superficial, cosmetically attractive short term training schemes, make-work schemes, student work schemes, than become involved in doing any of the fundamental things needed to render our labour market more responsive to the position on the ground, and do something worthwhile for the long term unemployed and who will be long term unemployed over the next two to three years.
This Government has deceived people on major issues like Aer Lingus. I will not go into the famous meeting in the hangar at Dublin Airport except to say that everybody in that business knows, and I say it with concern, that we have not seen the end of its difficulties. I take no pleasure in saying it. The Government continues to try the same kind of stunt with TEAM Aer Lingus. For example, we discovered yesterday there was a subtle but meaningful difference between what the Minister for Enterprise and Employment said in the House about discussions on TEAM Aer Lingus and what was in his script. I wonder why. Did he get cold feet when he realised that what was in his script was not a substantial contribution to breaking the deadlock and decided, for once, to say something sensible but was afraid to write it down because it did not gel with the unreasoning and rigid position adopted by the Government? Is that ethical? Is it something about which we should be talking when discussing ethics in Government?
Finally, there is the fiasco of Dáil reform and what will happen during the recess. We will meet again on 11 October as a full House but in the meantime to keep us amused and busy we will have three Second Stage debates in committees. That is nonsense. We will have a Second Stage debate in a committee, a Second Stage debate here on the same Bill and then in committee for Committee Stage. These committees do not have power to examine fundamentally any of the issues before them, whether they deal with legislation or any of the other issues taking place. Yet, we discover that the nonsensical Ethics in Public Office Bill proposes, in the one case where we give any of these non-statutory committees power, that the committee that will examine our interests and how good we are at filling out our annual returns, will have powers to call witnesses. How is that for open Government? The Government has shown a total inability and unpreparedness to look at the requirements of real politics, real democracy and open Government.
I am pleased to have this opportunity today to report to the Dáil on the significant progress that the Government has made in implementing the health commitments in the agreed Programme for a Partnership Government. The past 18 months has been a time of historic change within the health services in Ireland. Thanks to the work which has been carried out in the health area by this Government there is now a clear and cohesive direction for future health service development. For the first time there is a framework for the future and a detailed development plan of each component of the health services over the next four years.
This Government's commitment to social justice is reflected in the emphasis on social reform and wide-ranging commitment to the poor and disadvantaged which form the bedrock of the Programme for a Partnership Government.
There are few areas of Government policy which can have a greater impact on social justice than health policy. When I launched the health strategy, Shaping a Healthier Future. I said that the primary aim of the health services must be to ensure that Irish people had equal access to health services and above all equal access to health. This commitment to equity has been translated into concrete proposals in the health strategy. It is now an established fact that factors such as unemployment and poverty are linked to poor health status.
We also know that certain groups such as travellers have a health status far below that of the general population. The health strategy contains a number of measures which will address this. The most innovative of these is the creation of health development sectors within regions which will receive special attention in terms of targeting health services. In addition, I am particularly pleased, since coming into office, to have been able to provide additional funds for services for people with mental handicap, for child care, for the physically disabled, the elderly, and for psychiatric services. The commitment of the Government to equity is perhaps best illustrated in the no nonsense and businesslike manner in which waiting lists in our public hospitals have been tackled. The waiting list initiative has been a remarkable success and I have recently committed a further £10 million in 1994 to continue to reduce waiting times.
Building has begun on the new Tallaght Hospital so that the people of Tallaght will at last have the hospital services they need, locally. I recently launched an ambitious dental health action plan and allocated an additional £4.4 million in 1994 towards the cost of implementing it. All of these important developments are significant in their own right. However, I have recognised for some time the need to place future development of the services within a clear policy framework. When I became Minister I initiated a comprehensive root and branch examination of our health services. The result is the health strategy. Not since the 1966 White Paper has there been such a fundamental review.
The strategy, Shaping a Healthier Future, will guide the development and improvement of the health services in the 1990s and I hope beyond that. The main theme of the health strategy is the reorientation of our health services so that improving people's health and quality of life become the primary and unifying focus of all our efforts.
The strategy is built on the underlying principles of equity, quality and accountability. In the coming years the strategy will be seen as marking a new era for our health services. The process of implementing it is already underway. The first step was to get the message of the strategy across to all staff working in the health services. Briefing sessions have been held locally across the country for all health board staff, the staff of the voluntary hospitals and voluntary agencies as well as health professionals. Staff were encouraged to give their opinions and special arrangements were put in place to accommodate that feedback. I am pleased with the very positive responses from all levels within the service, including the professions and the voluntary sector. There is a great deal of goodwill on which to build.
Specific elements of the strategy are now being implemented. The legislation to provide for the new authority in the eastern region and to remedy deficiencies identified in the other health boards is now being prepared. The process of consultation with the statutory and non-statutory agencies which this requires, has already begun and I am especially anxious to ensure that the voluntary agencies are fully involved in this dynamic process.
The development of effective accountability in the management of the health services is a key element of the strategy. Action has already been taken to implement this important aspect. The special allocation of £100 million will address the problems of accumulated debt in the health services. It will assist considerably traders and voluntary organisations in receipt of health board grants. Measures have been put in place to ensure that there is no recurrence of this problem. These measures will be reinforced by legislation which will be published later this year and will considerably strengthen the accountability of health boards.
The four year action plan sets out an agenda for action across the health services which reflects the new emphasis in the strategy on health and social gain. The service developments which are being undertaken in 1994 are the beginning of the implementation of the plan. I would like to comment on those developments.
Since becoming Minister for Health I have made strenuous efforts to develop appropriate residential and community based facilities for people with a mental handicap. I am pleased to say that a total of £12.5 million in additional funding is being made available for mental handicap services in 1994, which will become part of ongoing funding of the services.
Of this funding £10 million will be used to provide a broad range of additional services. These include, the provision of additional residential places, day care places, expansion of home support services and the transfer of 156 persons with a mental handicap from psychiatric hospitals to community based mental handicap services.
In addition to these initiatives I have also confirmed the initiation of a capital programme for the development of training centres for persons with a disability. I would like to emphasise that this is the largest single investment ever made in services for persons with a mental handicap.
What is the Minister doing for the people who picketed the Dáil yesterday?
The Deputy will be glad to know I solved their problem yesterday. The Deputy does not care about that. All he is interested in is trying to thwart the progress we have been making.
The Minister should tell us what he is doing.
This funding is in addition to the £8.5 million made available in 1993 which is being repeated this year. This injection of funds will provide a real improvement in services and I intend to build on this in future years.
The House will be aware that I recently announced details of a package of new child care services improvements for each health board area for 1994. The full cost of these additional measures is £10 million. I should point out that this is the second year in succession that funding of this magnitude has been provided by the Government for child care services. The scale of this investment is unprecedented and demonstrates the resolve of this Government to develop a comprehensive range of services to help children who are not receiving adequate care and protection.
In approving the various new developments, I have aimed at strengthening the health boards' community based child protection teams and increasing the availability of locally-based supports to help children and families in difficulty. This approach will enhance the capacity of the health boards to identify as early as possible children who are at risk and to provide appropriate home support services. The important new developments I have approved include 250 new child care posts, increased financial support for women's refuges, the provision of more places for homeless children and the development of foster care and family placement services.
I have established a review group to examine the current provision of health care services for people with physically and sensory disabilities and to consider how they should be developed. The group will report to me in the autumn. I have, however, already increased the resources to the care of the physically disabled by providing an additional £1.5 million for services in this area in 1993 and again in 1994.
This Government is committed to ensuring that elderly people receive the highest quality health care available. The objectives of health policy are set out in the report The Years Ahead—A Policy for the Elderly. Between 1990 and 1992 an additional £9 million was made available to the health services to implement the key recommendations of the report, including the strengthening of home and community support services, the provision of day care centres and day hospitals, and the provision of extra departments of medicine of the elderly in general hospitals.
The Health (Nursing Homes) Act, 1990, which commenced on 1 September 1993 widens the options available to those caring for dependent elderly relatives. A total of £9 million was made available this year to implement the Act. To date, over 2,000 subventions have been approved under the Act and 150 nursing homes have been registered by health boards.
For the first time funding was made available this year to implement the recommendations of the report Planning for the Future. This funding will enable the major improvement of community based and acute mental health services. As indicated in the health strategy, the Government will publish a White Paper on new mental health legislation later this year.
Members will recall that under the 1993 waiting list initiative a sum of £20 million was made available to tackle hospital in-patient waiting lists. That initiative, the first of its kind in this country, proved highly successful and resulted in a dramatic reduction in waiting lists, from 40,130 to 25,373.
As set out in the Programme for a Partnership Government, the aim of the initiative was to tackle those areas of hospital treatment where long waiting times were causing the greatest hardship. The target specialities included cardiac surgery; ear, nose and throat surgery; ophthalmology; orthopaedics; plastic surgery and vascular surgery.
As a result of the 1993 initiative, the number of adults waiting over 12 months and children waiting over six months in the target specialties was reduced from 14,624 to 6,240, a reduction of 57 per cent. In addition, the number of patients waiting excessive periods in general surgery, gynaecology and urology was reduced from 3,389 to 881, a reduction in these areas of 74 per cent.
Based on the success of the waiting list initiative in 1993 the Government has made available an additional £10 million in 1994 to further tackle waiting lists. The main target specialties will be ear, nose and throat surgery; ophthalmology; orthopaedics; plastic surgery and vascular surgery with the objective being to eliminate waiting times in excess of 12 months for adults and six months for children. The 1994 initiative will also provide for additional throughput in general surgery, gynaecology and urology.
At the beginning of this year, the number of adults waiting over 12 months and children waiting over six months in all of these specialties was 8,870. Under this year's initiative health boards and voluntary hospitals will perform an additional 12,678 procedures which will ensure that the objective of eliminating waiting times in excess of 12 months for adults and six months for children will be largely achieved.
The procedures to be performed under the initiative are in addition to the level of baseline activity to be carried out in each agency. As was the case in 1993, where agreed targets are not being achieved, the contracts with the agencies will allow for funding to be clawed back and re-directed to other agencies who have a capacity for additional work. I am confident that we can build on the success of last year's initiative and that the targets set out for this year will be achieved.
In accordance with the health strategy I recently announced details of a dental health action plan to be implemented over the next four years. Among the many initiatives included in this action plan are the setting of oral health goals and the improvement of oral health promotion, a significant enhancement of the public dental services, the extension of eligibility to children under 16 years of age, the improvement of secondary care orthodontic services, the expansion of hospital based oral surgery services and the introduction of new arrangements for the provision of adult dental services with the participation of private dental practitioners.
Under the proposed new dental scheme for eligible adults the services to be provided will include routine items of treatment plus an emergency service and the provision of dentures for the elderly. In the initial phasing the over 65's have been identified as the first priority group. Private dental practitioners under contract to the health boards will be major providers of services. To ensure the speedy implementation of this four year action plan I have provided an additional £4.4 million for the dental services in 1994.
My Department is, at present, preparing a discussion document on women's health which will take account of the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women. This document will be published later this year and I intend to have in-depth consultation on the issues concerned.
I have made it a priority to provide for the treatment of women who test positive for hepatitis arising from the national blood screening programme. Any treatment for these women is being provided by the public hospital service free of charge. In addition, the VHI has decided to provide towards the costs of private hospital accommodation and consultants' charges for members who test positive arising from the national blood screening programme. My Department will continue to cover the costs of any drugs and medicines prescribed by clinicians for all patients, including VHI subscribers who opt for private care. A comprehensive counselling service for those affected by the disease is being provided throughout the country.
As part of our commitments under the Single Market, I recently presented the Health Insurance Bill, 1994, to the Oireachtas to allow for competition in the health insurance market. The Act provides also for the regulation of the health insurance market here. In line with the concept of equity as stressed in the health strategy, the Act provides that community rated health insurance products alone may be marketed here.
Substantial progress has been made to deliver on this Government's significant commitments to improving equity and developing the health services. These commitments clearly stated in the Programme for a Partnership Government have been confirmed in the health strategy, which is the most important initiative in the health services for many years. The strategy is now being implemented.
When I became Minister for Health I was determined to reshape the health services so that improving peoples health and quality of life became the primary and unifying focus for everyone working in the services. We have made a remarkable start. We have an agenda for progress and development for the next four years which we intend to implement.
The other day Deputy O'Malley took the opportunity during the course of the debate on the Ethics in Public Office Bill to outline serious matters which required a response from the Taoiseach. I found it deeply disappointing that he did not receive a response from the Taoiseach in his contribution yesterday to this debate save a rehashed lie circulated from that office. I will outline precisely what I am talking about.
Apparently, a Mr. Cronin who works in the Taoiseach's office faxed the Sunday Business Post some time in May a document stating that Deputy O'Malley had misled the Committee of Public Accounts.
The Deputy has impugned a certain person in relation to irregularities——
I said that it was a rehashed lie which somebody in his office had put together; I am not suggesting that he knew it was a lie. This fax was sent to the Sunday Business Post and to Deputy O'Malley for his comments, who pointed out the untruth of the briefing document that was sent to the Sunday Business Post. At the Committee of Public Accounts Deputy O'Malley was accused by Deputy O'Keeffe of having made an application for costs which was lodged with the taxing master. Deputy O'Malley truthfully denied that this was the case and said he had not made an application for costs, referring to an application to have the costs taxed by the taxing master.
Yesterday the Taoiseach was at pains to repeat this matter, but if he read the transcript, concerned himself with the truth of the matter and did not rely on Mr. Cronin's poisoned mind in regard to this matter, he would discover that Deputy O'Malley did not mislead the Committee of Public Accounts or the public. The record speaks for itself. It is regrettable that on a matter about which Deputy O'Malley raised serious allegations of fact with which the Taoiseach had to deal, we received only recycled rubbish from a dirty tricks department in the Taoiseach's office, recited before this House as if it were novel and true. I do not believe the Taoiseach knew he was misleading the House. He was probably misled in the same way this poisoned pen in his Department attempted to mislead the Sunday Business Post. It is regrettable that we pay people to dream up lies about politicians and that the Taoiseach does not have the wisdom to examine material and judge whether such people are telling lies.
I do not propose to respond to the torrent of bitter and puerile abuse to which I have been subject in this House in the past few days, nor do I propose to engage in abuse. I will not be deflected from my purpose, which is to raise and sustain a clear case of abuse of public office, of calculated deception of the public and improper gain from the exercise of ministerial powers by members of the Government.
In September 1991 when the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance he was the owner of 41 per cent of the ordinary shares of C & D Foods Limited and the remainder of those shares were owned by other members of his family. In that month the financial intermediary, who specialised in citizenship for investment deals, approached the company. That intermediary knew well that the company was one in which the then Minister was the major shareholder and that the company was his major asset. According to a recent radio interview given by the company's financial director, negotiations were in train between the would-be investors and the company between September 1991 and March 1992, when two members of the investor family made what is termed "an investment". In October the Taoiseach lost office as Minister for Finance and remained out of office until he was appointed Taoiseach in February 1992.
The so-called investment turned out not to be an investment. It is reported widely, without contradiction, to be a loan of £1.1 million at 5 per cent over five years, £500,000 being advanced by one of the lenders and £600,000 by another. At that time, the going rate for commercial lending for a three to five year term loan was 12.75 per cent and for a five to seven year term loan it was 14.5 per cent. The loan made appears to have been unsecured in so far as the Companies Office record shows that no preference shares, register debentures or security instruments of any type appear to have been created. If they were, none was registered to give them legal validity. Thus, we have two foreigners offering, through an intermediary, to make an unsecured loan at non-commercial rates to a company in which the then Minister for Finance was the major shareholder and making an unsecured, unsolicited loan of more than £1 million a number of months later when that major shareholder had become Taoiseach.
The financial director of the company claimed on radio that the issue of citizenship was never mentioned. The Taoiseach now claims that he did not know of the proposed investment, even though his fellow directors were putting it in place during the period in which he was out of office and in a position to be fully informed of such a proposal, which would have major implications for the value of this shareholding. The Taoiseach's claim is either true or false. If it were true it would involve a sustained conspiracy to keep him unaware of a major financial change in a company in which he was the major shareholder at a time when he was not an officeholder, between October 1991 and February 1992. Since there can be no possible explanation or motive for such an unlikely scheme, one is driven to the conclusion that the Taoiseach's claim he was unaware of the investment must be false. Neither is it a matter on which he could be mistaken. His close fellow shareholders either engaged in a fantastic or utterly motiveless scheme to deceive him about his company's affairs or the Taoiseach deceived the public.
If the loan was as described, it created no tangible link between the lender and this country. Although its non-commercial status makes it, in effect, a gift in part, it does not and could not be described as an investment, not to mention an investment appropriate for a business migration scheme dealing with naturalisation. Even if it were profit related or had some right attached to it to participate in the management of a company, it could have been described colorably as an investment, but such a claim was not made for it.
We are asked to believe that two strangers, who did not reside here either before or since, made a gratuitous non-commercial loan to an Irish company and that nobody involved knew or suspected that the purpose of the loan was to obtain Irish and, therefore, European Union citizenship. That is a preposterous claim which is not worthy of serious consideration and the reason that claim was made is now obvious. If anybody had known that citizenship was at stake a major conflict of interest would have arisen. We are, therefore, asked to accept that the loan was not known to be for the purpose of acquiring Irish citizenship. What other possible reason was there for the investment to be made? The implications are obvious. The truth is not being told about a transaction on whose probity the reputation and political future of the Taoiseach now hangs.
Were it not for the Dáil questions, the Bill which I tabled and the considerable courage of Martin Fitzpatrick, a Sunday Independent journalist, the public would never have been told of any of these events; they would have remained secret. So far as the granting of citizenship in return for investment is concerned, the only administrative basis for such naturalisation is the business migration scheme. Under the scheme three criteria were established for naturalisation, namely, permanent investment, migration — a substantial element of residence here — and that the investment was demonstrably supportive of national policy on employment and economic development. In this case we know there was no investment on equity participation, just a non-commercial loan of limited duration which was in large measure gratuitous. The lenders would, apparently, have obtained a far greater return on their money if they had invested it in ordinary bluechip investments at the time. The people involved never resided here. A person who was the father of one and the husband of another had, apparently, bought a flat here, but even he has never resided here.
No effort was made to verify officially whether the loan was needed for the creation of employment. In a company whose records show at least £1.4 million indebtedness as at the end of 1992 — the relevant time — and which had other secured creditors whose securities required a much higher interest rate to be paid to them, the introduction of below cost capital was likely to give nothing more than cashflow advantages to the shareholders. It was a displacement of indebtedness and had nothing to do with employment creation.
Contrary to established practice, no checks were made by any Department or State agency on the economic impact of the loan, nor were any substantial checks made in respect of the residence or character of the lenders. In short, two non-residents, through an intermediary, made a largely gratuitous non-commercial loan of more than £1 million to a company in which the Taoiseach was the major shareholder and were granted Irish citizenship in a process which completely departed from the purpose and criteria laid down in the business migration scheme. The people in question do not have any tangible connection with this country except that they gave a significant temporary financial accommodation to the shareholders of a company, one of whom happened to be a member of the Government who made the decision in question. When the loan is repaid they will have no connection with this country, but they will still be citizens of Ireland and of the European Union. That was a gross abuse of public office.
The Minister for the Environment has protested that he did not know the Taoiseach's company was the recipient of the loan. Why did he not know that? Why would the intermediary not tell him of this potential conflict of interest? I reject the Minister's claim as self-serving and implausible. His media performances underline the lack of credibility in such a claim. We are asked also to believe that none of the three Ministers involved mentioned the matter to other Ministers. That is incredible. The Minister for Justice in the House tried to intimidate me into giving up on this issue by threatening embarrassing revelations if I persisted. I have called her bluff and I do not know of any embarrassment thus far.
The Tánaiste has claimed that an examination of the files has shown that there was nothing improper as if the files would contain something which would prove the obvious impropriety of what happened. He cannot seriously survey the facts I mentioned and say that what happened was proper. If he reflected on the matter he would see there has been a highly improper abuse of public office to financially benefit a member of the Government. The Tánaiste's critical faculties are not normally so defective as to prevent him seeing the obvious truth of the situation.
It has been stated that the business migration scheme has been suspended and that further applications for citizenship will not be considered until new criteria are put in place, but if it was blameworthy then it is blameworthy now. If the Tánaiste takes the view that there was nothing untoward in what happened it follows that it is his view that this transaction could be repeated to enrich members of the Government and nothing should be paid against it. If the Tánaiste can see nothing untoward in all of this he is fairly, and not abusively, described as morally brain dead.
We have never heard from a Minister whether fixed criteria on the business migration scheme naturalisations is contained in documentary form. Do such criteria exist? Where did they originate? Was it in the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice or the Department of Enterprise and Employment? Were they relaxed at some stage and, if so, by whom? There has been nothing but silence on this. I spoke about the danger of the media being served with defamation writs. I understand the company in question, C & D Foods Limited, adopted the defamation approach with one newspaper in recent weeks. Far from having nothing to hide, the Taoiseach brazenly referred one and all to his company for further information. In the House he said if Deputies had queries they should be taken up with the company. The company does not give out information on this, not even to the Companies Office where the last returns are for the year ending December 1991 and they were made in June 1992. Why is this permitted?
I have not sought to involve the Taoiseach's family in the matter, as claimed in the House. It is he who has attempted to shelter behind them by inventing the wholly implausible claim that they, in effect, kept him in the dark about the £1.1 million loan to the company of which he owned 41 per cent and which was negotiated during a period when he was mostly out of office. If I wanted to involve the Taoiseach's family in controversy I had ample opportunity to do so by raising issues in my constituency, namely, the Mespil estate and the Ballsbridge creche controversies. I do not have a hidden agenda on this. I do not believe in bringing people's families unnecessarily into political controversy. The loan was made to the company of which the Taoiseach was a 41 per cent shareholder. It was negotiated at a time when the Taoiseach was out of office. There is not a plausible reason why the Taoiseach would have been kept in the dark about it by the other directors closely related to him. I reject the public suggestion that the Taoiseach knew nothing of the making of this loan.
The Taoiseach told Deputy Bruton yesterday that he should put up or shut up on this issue. I am putting up today clear evidence of a major abuse of public office for the personal enrichment of a member of the Government. The evidence speaks for itself. It does not, as some befuddled and cowed commentators seem to believe, need to be further substantiated. We do not need new revelations. I do not have to find an incriminating document, a confession or whatever. The evidence in this controversy speaks for itself and speaks eloquently of the abuse of public office that has taken place. The exculpatory statements offered by the Taoiseach, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn and the Tánaiste are wholly implausible and unacceptable. I have made my case and it is not merely a prime facie one, it is a coercive and cogent one that an abuse of public office has taken place. I doubt if there could be an explanation for the sequence of events I outlined. I doubt if there is a set of circumstances which could make proper the undeniable facts of the case. It is time the Taoiseach put up or shut up in the sense that he should resign and take the implicated Ministers and his partners with him out of Government.
These matters deserve investigation. I do not suggest another costly tribunal but a committee of the House should inquire into these matters and determine whether citizenship was granted on this occasion in circumstances that amounted to an abuse of public office and a departure from established criteria and procedures for the personal gain of a member of Cabinet. It is open to the House to investigate such a matter and the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, which has a special role in relation to the Department of Justice, would be the appropriate forum for such an investigation. The composition of that committee reflects the various strengths of parties in this House and I would be pleased if it investigated this matter. I would be happy if a committee with a Government majority, with a Fianna Fáil representation of 30 to 40 per cent of whatever percentage membership of this House they enjoy, investigated this matter. The Labour Party members would be so embarrassed by an inquiry into this matter that they would pull the plug on the Taoiseach and be forced to be faced up to the fact that there had been a gross abuse of public office for the personal financial advantage of a member of the Government.
I am not letting this issue die, I do not want to be like a dog with a bone, but I will come back to this issue at every possible occasion and in every possible form. If the Taoiseach does not reveal the background information of the case to the public we may have to table a motion of no confidence in him in the autumn to determine the facts in this case. He cannot do so and that is why we have had the bluster to which Deputy O'Malley and I were subjected. There is not an innocent explanation for these facts. On the contrary, only one inescapable inference can be drawn from the facts, namely, two members of Cabinet, together with the present EU Commissioner, Mr. Pádraig Flynn, in December 1992 granted citizenship to two people in exchange for a loan to the Taoiseach's firm and that all three knew at that time that the transaction was improper.
I will restate this matter until the media and public opinion draw the obvious conclusion that this is a crooked and corrupted Government sustained by those who will not see crookedness or corruption when it stares them in the face. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I will address my remarks on the progress in implementing the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the Programme for a Partnership Government. Under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work a programme for competitiveness and rural development outlines the central objectives for agriculture and food policy over the period of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
They are: to maximise the contribution of the farming, food and forestry sectors to the national economy, in terms of employment and added value and to maximise the number of viable farms and farm households in rural Ireland at sustainable living standards in line with those of other sectors of the economy.
To achieve these objectives greater competitiveness will be required across the agricultural sector in order to prepare for the more liberal trading environment which will exist as a result of CAP reform and the GATT agreement.
I am pleased that a good deal of progress has been achieved this year in a number of key areas of the Programme for Competitiveness and Rural Development. Agriculture accounts for almost 10 per cent of GDP, 13 per cent of employment and 16 per cent of exports compared to the European Union average of 3 per cent GDP, 6 per cent of employment and 8.5 per cent of exports. The combined agrifood sector contributes about 17 per cent of jobs, 25 per cent of exports and 15 per cent of GDP. The importance of the sector to foreign exchange earnings is even more significant because of its use of indigenous raw materials and relatively low level of profit repatriation, accounting for about 40 per cent of net export earnings. It is clear that the agriculture and food sector has an important role in any strategy to maintain or expand employment.
It is a measure of the Government's confidence in the potential and ability of the food industry to create additional national wealth and employment that a commitment was given in the Programme for a Partnership Government to implement a programme for the food industry on the basis of the recommendations of the expert group. That commitment was honoured less than six months later when following consideration of the expert group's report, the Government accepted the broad thrust of its recommendations. It also gave approval for the preparation of a new national programme for the industry as well as legislation to set up a new food promotion and market development agency, An Bord Bia.
The expert group examined all aspects of the food industry. These included the problem of seasonality of raw material supplies and over reliance on intervention and commodity markets. In addition, the group examined the institutional framework within which the industry operates. It examined the issues of research and development in the food industry as well as the external and domestic factors likely to influence the industry's future development.
The expert group stressed the importance of strengthening the prepared consumer foods and food ingredient sectors. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, earlier this week, the Minister for Food and Horticulture, Deputy Brian O'Shea announced the establishment by Forbairt of a new prepared consumer foods group. This group will provide an important focus in the development of the consumer foods sector.
A major focus of the development efforts for the food industry will be on spending under the EU Structural Funds in the period up to 1999. This will take the form of a special sub programme for food within the operational programme for industry.
The sub programme will provide a range of capital, research and development, human, marketing and promotion supports to the food sector over the next six years.
The capital investment measures will assist food companies to invest in new facilities for more diversified production and will enable them to expand, modernise and upgrade their existing facilities.
The food sub programme recognises the central importance of research to the successful development of the food industry. As a result there is a much greater commitment to research in terms of public and private finance. Two separate research and development measures are being provided for, one covering institutional research and the other company research and development.
It is expected that total programme expenditure will reach £670 million over the period of which £300 million will be provided by the EU and national resources.
The other main recommendation stemming from the expert group report was that a new food agency be established whose activities would be part-funded from Structural Funds. Legislation to establish the new agency, An Bord Bia, has passed all Stages in the House and I expect it to pass through the Seanad next week. In line with the recommendations of the expert group report, the new agency will be formed by amalgamating CBF and the expert market development functions of An Bord Glas as they relate to horticultural products.
The farming sector has performed well over the last couple of years. Between 1991 and 1993 aggregate farm income, net of interest payments, increased by some 31 per cent. A major factor in the growth in farm incomes has been the level of direct payments, especially the premia payments negotiated under the CAP reform package in 1992. I expect farm income to increase again in 1994 and also to see a significant increase in the level of direct payments this year. During the negotiations many spokespeople for lobby groups were extremely critical of the system of compensatory payments. They now welcome those payments and I am glad to see they have accepted that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy after 20 years was a good thing which has benefited Irish agriculture substantially.
Despite the overall good performance of the sector in recent years it is important to acknowledge that there are many farmers in less favoured areas who are unable to survive on incomes generated solely from farming. For this reason, headage payments are available in disadvantaged areas. They contribute to providing a reasonable level of income for farmers and thereby help to stem the depopulation of the countryside which would, in time, cause long term economic, social and environmental problems. An additional £10 million has been made available for this scheme over and above what was provided for in the January budget. This is to meet the commitment in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work that during the period of the programme there would be a progressive movement to pay all valid headage payments by October of the year in question.
The efficient and timely payment of both CAP compensation and headage payments to farmers is a major priority for the Government. To this end, we have provided an additional £4.8 million for 1994 to improve the timeliness of premium payments. This money is being invested in additional staff and computers and will lead to a permanent improvement in payments. The Department local office networking programme has now been completed and will, of course, play a major role in this improvement.
On the payment front £440 million has been paid out in respect of 1993 schemes to date. Indeed, in excess of £200 million of this has been paid since 1 January 1994. Payments of the slaughter premium have now commenced ahead of schedule and payments of the first and second instalments of the ewe premium and the rural world premium, amounting to £74 million, will commence later this month.
One of the main impediments to the development of a more competitive agricultural sector is the age structure of farmers. Currently in Ireland, only 15 per cent of farm holders are under age 35 years while 45 per cent are over 55 years. To redress this obvious age imbalance and to encourage the transfer of land to younger well trained farmers, my Department has successfully negotiated a new early retirement scheme. The main provisions of the scheme are well known and are available in an information booklet which we sent out to all farmers and all farming organisations some time ago. To date a total of 271 applicants have been approved under the scheme and a further 100 applicants will be processed for payment as soon as possible. It is anticipated that about 7,000 farmers will join the scheme over the five years to 1998. Expenditure over the period is estimated at about £150 million which is 75 per cent funded from the European Union and 25 per cent nationally.
Funding will also be available under the Operational Programme for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry 1994-99 for a scheme for installation aid for young farmers. The aim of the scheme is to encourage the early transfer of farms to a younger more progressive generation more capable of adapting to the challenges facing the agricultural sector in the CAP reform and GATT environment.
The agri-environmental measures are accompanying measures under CAP reform. The new scheme — the rural environment protection scheme — should have a considerable impact on rural communities. The scheme aims to establish farm practices, and controlled production methods which take account of the increasing public concern for conservation, landscape protection and wider environmental problems. The scheme offers farm families generous premiums, £122 per hectare up to a maximum of 40 hectares, to reward them for their role as guardians of the countryside. The implementation of the plan is not confined to the farmer but can be carried out by farm employees so that the scheme may have some positive employment aspects.
Much interest has been expressed in the scheme and I am confident that it will prove a big success. I am monitoring the scheme closely and will seek changes if necessary following its implementation, as we have done in regard to the early retirement scheme. I expect that it will attract at least 40,000 participants over the next five years. I also expect expenditure under the scheme to reach £230 million up to 1997. Again there is aid from Europe. There are many attractions in this scheme and I would like to see people, particularly in the disadvantaged west of Ireland areas availing of this money to the greatest possible extent.
It is also intended to continue the programme for the control of farmyard pollution and to introduce a new dairy hygiene measure in the new programme targeting those farmers who need to invest in this area but who lack the resources to bear the high cost involved. The small milk producers will benefit most from this scheme.
The primary agricultural sector will continue to play a vital role in the rural economy for years to come. However, the full exploitation of rural potential can only be realised if agriculture is integrated into wider rural development. This philosophy underpinned the operational programme for rural development 1991-93 which encouraged alternative farm enterprises.
The agriculture, rural development and forestry operational programme will contain measures to promote farm diversification for which there was keen demand in the period 1991-93. I expect that the various schemes can be launched later this year when our programme is approved by the European Commission.
As the House knows, the cornerstone of our rural development strategy has been the Leader programme. Some 16 groups throughout the country put forward worthwhile measures for funding, totalling £35 million, and there are projects and jobs in place which would not exist were it not for Leader I. Yesterday we advertised Leader II in the newspapers and I encourage communities and rural groups to make application under that programme. Applicant groups will be asked to submit their business plans by 30 September 1994, with a short summary of their proposals required by 31 August 1994. We want to ensure that Leader II is in operation by the end of the year.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry will be preparing an operational programme based on the business plans of groups, for submission to the European Commission before the end of October. This will be negotiated with the Commission as quickly as possible and I expect the new groups to be approved by the end of the year so that projects will commence early in 1995.
We will be operating the new programme generally on the same lines as with Leader I. As Leader II will run to 1999 the programme offers a unique and unprecedented opportunity to local groups to influence the development of their areas over the coming years and I am confident that there will be an enthusiastic response from local groups to this initiative.
Forestry — a £283 million programme — offers considerable potential for many parts of rural Ireland. Under the forestry element of the Department's operational programme there is a series of measures to help achieve the national planting target of 30,000 hectares a year. The programme will build upon the success of the current forestry programme and continue to develop an efficient downstream sector. Over the period of the forestry programme I expect expenditure to be in the region of £100 million, attracting an EU contribution of about £75 million. I am pleased that the accompanying measures for forestry under CAP reform received Commission approval in May. The afforestation and forestry premium programmes provide for substantial increases in grant aid. Over the period of the programme total expenditure is expected to reach around £183 million, of which £137 million will be EU funded.
In the forest product sector of the industry the outlook is good, with increased production coming on stream in 1995 arising from the £21 million expansion of the Medite facility in Clonmel. Furthermore, the proposed establishment at a cost of £40 million of the Oriented Strand Board facility in Waterford is another major step in the development of our downstream sector. Investment in the timber processing sector will be provided under the operational programme for industrial development.
A strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector to the year 2015 is being prepared by my Department. This plan will focus on the creation of sustainable employment and the generation of added value. Special attention will be paid to areas of export potential, the generation of multiple return from investment in forestry and environmental compatibility and enhancement. I expect the plan to be completed later in the year. Consultants have been appointed to assist in the process and about 100 submissions have been received from interested parties and the public generally.
In response to the reform of the CAP and the imminent implementation of GATT from 1995 onwards, greater priority will be given to research, training and advisory services provided by Teagasc and other institutions. The research, training and advisory services sub-programme submitted to Brussels contains measures to help improve profitability and productivity within the agricultural sector in the coming years. The £5.5 million of additional finances for Teagasc provided in the budget will help the organisation develop and restructure with the aim of improving the services it offers to farmers and the food industry.
In line with our commitment to maintain the maximum number of employed in the sector I am putting in place a new authority to be responsible for the development of the horseracing industry. The Bill to reform the horse industry has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Pending its passing into law a new racing authority has been appointed in order to speed up the development of the industry to its full potential.
In line with our commitment in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill has passed Second Stage in the Seanad. This Bill provides for the abolition of the Cork and Dublin district milk boards and their replacement with a new national milk agency.
All Stages of that Bill should pass through the Seanad next week and it will return to the Dáil in October. The Dáil also passed all Stages of the An Bord Bia Bill and it is scheduled for completion in the Seanad next week.
In the food standards and food quality area we also passed into law in 1993 the Animal Remedies Act. Its strict implementation ensures the highest food standards. The Department has insisted on a quality assurance programme which has stood us in good stead. The most recent example was the difficulty with the UK herd and the German beef market. We were able to convince the German authorities that we have a programme in place which gives 100 per cent assurance to consumers in Ireland and 40 countries worldwide to whom we export our food products that the food we produce is of the highest international standard, safe to eat and of the highest possible bacteriological quality standards. The Animal Remedies Act is very important legislation in that regard.
I am very pleased to update the House on the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and the Programme for a Partnership Government. It is disappointing that when an opportunity arises to make a contribution to develop the economy and make an impact on job creation, a number of spokespeople, particularly the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats who produced much invective, as is his wont when he is not in the Four Courts. It is a pity such people have nothing to base their contributions on but unsubstantiated personal abuse and notorious allegations. It ill behoves Deputy McDowell to use the time of this House to make extremely negative and downright dishonest contributions.
The Deputy opened his remarks by seeking to defend his colleague, Deputy O'Malley, who has spent considerable time in the House trying to discredit colleagues. For example, during a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts on 10 March of this year, a transcript of which I have, Deputy O'Malley said, when referring to his costs for representation at the beef tribunal, that a figure was thrown out in the hope that it would be reported in the newspaper. He went on to say that he had made no attempt to collect any costs because he could not even make an application until after the tribunal issued its report.
I have a transcript of the tribunal, dated 15 July 1993, in which Deputy O'Malley's counsel, Mr. McGuinness stated: "On behalf of Mr. O'Malley, Chairman, I would submit there are sufficient reasons for rendering it equitable that the Tribunal make an order pursuant to the Section awarding Mr. O'Malley the whole of his costs for representation at the Tribunal, and I should say at the outset that the order sought is against the State and not against any other party." If people want to shout abuse and allegations they should first put their own house in order and should not be dishonest before a committee of the House.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Shatter.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The past year will be regarded by the Government as annus horribilis because of the major difficulties it faced during this period. We have had the Government's mishandling of the negotiations on the Structural Funds, misleading the public on the amount of these funds, the passport affair, the debacle in Aer Lingus and Irish Steel, its failure to do anything about the breakdown of the criminal justice system. In general it has failed to face up to high unemployment and other problems facing society, although I accept there has been some improvement in that area. The report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry is due shortly. I am sure the Government will be delighted to have a three months' recess. It did not come as a surprise that it forced us to adjourn earlier than normal this year because we then will not have an opportunity to discuss issues in this House. No doubt the Government will hide as much as possible, which is wrong.
The Government has had its honeymoon, the past year marked a watershed and from now on it will all be downhill.
Whereas Irish exports continued to perform strongly in 1994 in spite of increased competition, a currency crisis is looming. In recent weeks, the IR£ has approached parity with sterling and gained 8 per cent against the $. This could have a serious impact on our economy as 60 per cent of all our exports are priced in these two currencies and 10 per cent of our exports go directly to the USA. The Irish Exporters' Association completed a survey of the impact of the sterling exchange rate on a sample of exporters in small and medium sized enterprises. The survey found that 72 per cent of respondents believe that near parity with sterling, maintained for any length of time, will result in a loss in UK sales of an average of 12 per cent; respondents expect a 26.5 per cent loss in UK profits if near parity with sterling continues. For companies with turnover of less than £5 million, the outlook is very bleak and they predict losses of 40 per cent; 50 per cent of those sampled considered that if our currency remains at near parity with sterling, this would lead to redundancies, the average level predicted being 10.5 per cent; over 90 per cent used some form of hedging technology, either selling forward or using a sterling hold account. Hedging techniques are very useful in the short term, however, if the situation continus production is quickly eroded.
Column MacDonnell, chief executive of the Irish Exporters' Association said today that Irish exporters quoting in dollars are now faced with severe income reductions, when all information up until recently suggested advantageous movement against the pound. The association considers that, apart from monitoring and responding to short term changes, the Government should push for the removal of barriers in some European Union countries so that the ecu can become the currency of trade. I referred to this on a number of occasions but had very little response from the Ministers with whom I raised it. There seems to be no urgency on our Government's part in establishing this role for the ecu.
It should be borne in mind that the value of our exports is equivalent to 63 per cent of GNP. This is second only to Belgium in the EU. Proportionately, Ireland's dependence on international trade is six times greater than Japan and eight times greater than the USA. We now export two-thirds of our gross manufacturing output and 130,000 plus jobs in manufacturing result from export sales. Continued currency exchange difficulties could have serious implications for our future export performance.
In 1994, we saw the successful outcome of the Uruguay Round, thanks in no small way to the role of Mr. Peter Sutherland. The GATT agreement will certainly present increased opportunities for Irish exporters to win new business. However, like the Single Market it means challenges and intensified competition. We must compete to boost our sales and market share. This is why I fail to understand why the budget for the administration of An Bord Tráchtála has been cut for 1994. The 1994 estimate is £34.868 million — a drop of £3 million on the 1993 provision or 8 per cent.
This in effect means less funds for exporters to develop their overseas markets, and will also result in a decrease in funds available for group promotional activities by the Irish Trade Board. In the past it was this type of initiative that led to the growth in the indigenous sector — of which so much is expected. Also, because of the challenges that the GATT Agreement presents, we need a greater presence in the market-place. Markets which we won in 1993 must be competed for again in 1994 in many cases. While the board did increase the limits of the marketing activities grants scheme from £5,000 to £10,000 at the end of 1993, the reduced fund means that the new limit is in effect meaningless. Exporters complain they will have to curtail their international marketing programmes in 1994 as a result of lack of funds available from the Irish Trade Board.
The most recent estimates for international trade — which incredibly go only to October 1993 — show an increase in exports to the United Kingdom of less than 2 per cent but an 18 per cent increase to Germany, a 46 per cent increase to Japan, 25 per cent increase to USA — which has more significance because of the weakness of the $ against the IR£ — and a 50 per cent increase to Saudi Arabia. These markets where we are increasing our exports are expensive to service and exporters should be given every encouragement and financial incentives to go out and develop them further.
The Minister should consider making more funds available now for export market development, given the need to develop overseas markets which will open up because of the completion of the GATT Agreement. This agreement certainly represents opportunities for our exporters but unless we support them in their efforts, the opportunities will remain just that — opportunities which had not been converted into reality.
We should not overlook the fact that, in spite of our serious unemployment level, up to 200,000 jobs in industry, and at least as many more in services, depend on our export performance. Any falling off there will immediately result in job losses and lay-offs, as was seen during the last currency crisis.
Exports of services can be a major contributor to job maintenance and creation and account for 30 per cent of all world trade. We should be putting a major effort into their development and responding quickly to the Taoiseach's Task Force on Jobs in Services which contains a number of very positive recommendations.
I would like to pay tribute also to the Working Group on Direct Marketing which made its final report to the Central Review Committee some time ago. The implementation of this group's recommendations saw reduced bulk postal rates, an internationally attractive telecommunications package, five important telemarketing projects approved by the IDA with prospects for many more, and the creation of a language register by FÁS with 900 CVs to encourage inward investment in the sector. All this was possible because the Government had the wisdom to respond to market opportunities identified in the growing international services market-place.
There are many examples of Irish companies successfully competing in the international services market-place and many, indeed, like the ESB, in the State sector. Our international consultants, outside of the construction sector, are badly disadvantaged, however, by comparison with their international competition. Our consultancy exporters have to bear the full impact of corporation tax of 40 per cent. Their competition pays no corporation tax in many cases, or a very much lower rate. A reduction of the rate of corporation tax on consultancy exports would result in a not discernible loss of revenue to the Exchequer, an immediate increase in overseas assignments which our companies can secure. They could then use the funds released for market prospecting and the financing of more work, which requires a great deal of working capital. Recommendations have been made by the Taoiseach's Task Force on Jobs in Services in respect of taxation on exports of services which should be examined without delay and implemented, if possible, in the present year. I would like the Minister to take that on board.
Another major question is the calculation or estimation of the amount contributed to the balance of payments by the export of services. It may seem astonishing but the fact is that we do not know what our earnings are — there is no mechanism to collect and analyse the relevant information on what our services mean to this country.
To date in 1994, the number of tourists coming to Ireland would seem to be up on 1993. The numbers of visitors arriving by sea from January to March this year was up 13 per cent on the same period last year. This trend would seem to have continued for April and May, although the month of June would seem to be rather sluggish and patchy. Whereas the USA and British markets are showing definite signs of recovery and growth, the German market is down from last year for a number of reasons. Overall, Bord Fáilte is confident of achieving its target of 7.5 per cent growth in overseas visitor numbers.
However, some fundamental issues remain to be resolved and faced up to by the Minister and the Government including the future role of Bord Fáilte following the publication shortly of the consultants report; the failure of the Government to bring forward legislation to put the EC package holiday directive in place; the issue of unapproved accommodation in the context of the commitment given in the Programme for Government and the promises made by the Minister at the 1994 Hotel's Federation Conference in Kilkenny; the failure of the Government to bring forward legislation — although some effort has been made in that regard — on occupiers' liability resulting in the closure of large tracts of our countryside to tourists and other users for recreational purposes — this also includes access to many famous historical sites; the alarming deterioration of non-national roads in our premier tourist areas and the provision of grants under the operational programme which is expected to be announced shortly to small and medium sized hotels for accommodation, expansion and the provision of leisure facilities.
Media and other reports seem to suggest that the reason the Minister appointed a consultants group to examine Bord Fáilte was to remove responsibility for the disbursement of Structural Funds from Bord Fáilte and keep it within his own Department so that he could use the funds for political advantage. That is the feeling in the industry, but I hope it is not the case. In regard to the examination of Bord Fáilte, other organisations involved in tourism should be examined also. We will not obtain a clear picture of what is happening in the industry unless we examine all the bodies involved in it.
The role of Irish food is crucial to the tourism industry. The Irish restaurant sector is now acknowledged by travel and food writers from all over the world as having made dramatic improvements in the quality and variety of its food and in the quality of its service. Irish restaurants have now become a positive part of what attracts tourists to Ireland. They have also become a showcase for our quality Irish food products. I am amazed that the 27,000 jobs in the industry are given very little recognition by the National Tourism Council.
It is now almost one year since the National Tourism Council was appointed. To date, we have not had a report, recommendations or action from the council and the perception among the public is that it is no more than a talking shop. I understand reports on marketing, access and product development are available. It is important that they be acted upon.
On 29 March the Minister gave me a commitment in this House that all projects undertaken in the tourism industry since 1 January will qualify under the next operational programme if they meet the requirements and regulations. In other words, when the operational programme is announced, all of those projects will now qualify if they have reached their requirements under the new operational programme. I intend to hold the Minister to that promise because people have been forced to go ahead with projects and they now must wait and hope to qualify for funds under the new operational programme.
I intend to raise only one issue in the brief time available to me in this adjournment debate. There has been a need for some considerable time for the Government to enact substantive legal provisions dealing with the whole area of termination of pregnancies, the right to travel and the right to have access to information. It is over 18 months since the last referendum which dealt with these delicate and difficult issues. In spite of promises made that they would be dealt with during the course of the past legislative year, no relevant legislation has yet been published.
Prior to the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty the Taoiseach promised there would be no repetition in our courts of what occurred in the "X" case. He promised that never again would a young pregnant teenager be subjected to the type of traumatic legal proceedings which gave rise to a national outcry in that case.
Despite what was previously stated by Government, I understand that during the past ten days a case has come before our courts in which an individual member of the Judiciary has again been asked to decide whether a young teenage girl should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy. This case raises some issues of a similar nature to those which arose in the "X" case and some additional issues of difficulty and complexity.
Due to the nature of the proceedings that have occurred, the case is being dealt with in camera, behind closed doors. This is as it should be to preserve the anonymity of the people involved. However, in a matter of such grave public importance and of such serious implications, if a final judicial pronouncement has been made, and I am not certain that that has happened, the judgment delivered and the decision given should be in the public domain. The factual background can also be stated in a manner that does not prejudice the position of those involved or reveal their identities. It is not appropriate that any action be taken by the courts to prevent the general public knowing the manner in which constitutional and legislative provisions are being applied in practice and understanding the effect they have on the individuals whose lives they touch. Such matters, in respect of which the Attorney General's office may or may not have been consulted, should be within the knowledge of the Ministers for Health, Justice and Equality and Law Reform. I am asking the Government, through one of those Ministers, to clarify to this House before we go into recess what has occurred, to tell the House when they finally intend to meet their legislative obligations in this area and to end the widespread confusion as to the true current legal position.
I wish to conclude with a very apt quote from the late Mr. Justice McCarthy, who was a distinguished member of our Supreme Court. Delivering judgment in the "X" case in 1992, he stated:
In the context of the eight years that have passed since the amendment was adopted [that is the amendment of 1983, which is now more than ten years ago] the failure by the legislature to enact the appropriate legislation is no longer just unfortunate, it is inexcusable. What are pregnant women to do? What are the parents of a pregnant girl under age to do? What are the medical profession to do? They have no guidelines save what may be gleaned from the judgments in this case. What additional considerations are there? Is the victim of rape, statutory or otherwise, or the victim of incest, finding herself pregnant, to be assessed in a manner different from others? The amendment, [of 1983] born of public disquiet, historically divisive of our people, guaranteeing in its laws to respect and by its laws to defend the right to life of the unborn, remains bare of legislative direction.
That amendment and the amendments to the Constitution less than two years ago still remain bare of legislative direction. The Government has failed to meet its obligations to the House and the State to bring the necesary and badly needed legislation before us for enactment.
This Adjournment debate on the Estimates for the Public Service is an opportunity to reflect on our work in this House in the past year.
In the last 12 months, I have had the pleasure of bringing six Bills before the Oireachtas. On each of these my staff did considerable energetic and painstaking work for which I thank them all.
We have had our ups and downs in that period. Two of my Bills are now law, the Stillbirths Registration Act and the Interpretation (Amendment) Act. Two more are before this House, the Family Law Bill and the Maintenance Bill and one is before the Seanad, the Adoptive Leave Bill.
The one that got away was, of course, the ill-fated Matrimonial Home Bill, and it is no great secret that I was very disappointed at the decision on that Bill, as I am sure were many other Members.
The programme of law reform is still far from complete. In the next 12 months I hope to bring measures to this House to benefit a great many people.
This programme of legislation has benefited greatly from views expressed on both sides of the House during the many debates of the past year. While the Opposition always calls for immediate acceptance of its Bills and amendments and while I have often resisted that temptation, I hope I have listened with an open mind to many of the constructive suggestions put forward by Opposition Deputies. I intend to keep an open mind on their future suggestions. This process has been helped immensely by the new committee system, which represents a quantum leap forward from the bad old days of routine allocation of time motions on Committee Stages taken in the House. The anonymous Member quoted in a national newspaper recently had a point when he or she said that a third House of the Oireachtas had quietly opened up in the form of the new committees.
We have also benefited very much from constructive suggestions made outside this House by the social partners and non-governmental organisations representative of many diverse groups ranging from travellers, to people with disabilities to family law practitioners. Every one of the submissions received has been very welcome and contributed to the formulation of public policy. I hope I will be forgiven for not resisting the temptation to offer a special word of recognition to the work done by the Council for the Status of Women. The council has often criticised Government, but its criticisms have been constructive, practical and centred on our shared agenda to progress towards an equal society. Its work over the past year has been a major contribution to that goal and I am grateful to it for that. A major thrust of my Department's policy has been to legislate to support the family in dealing with the wide range of problems it faces in this modern age. Wherever possible, we are implementing measures which will assist and support families in difficulty. We recognise the reality of family problems in Ireland.
This year the Government is providing funding on an unprecedented level to the Legal Aid Board, which deals with a very significant number of family law cases; to the Family Mediation Service, which assists married couples whose marriages have broken down and helps them reach a voluntary agreement about arrangements for children, property and the family home and to marriage guidance and counselling organisations who do work of immense value, particularly in helping couples who are encountering difficulties in their marriages.
The Government's contribution by way of grant in aid to the Legal Aid Board shows a dramatic increase in moneys allocated in previous years. Almost £5 million was provided this year, an increase which has not been matched by any Government since the legal aid scheme was initiated.
The additional money will allow for the expansion of the board's network of law centres. It will ensure that by the year's end, all countries will have either a full-time or part-time law centre. New law centres will be established at Nenagh, Ennis, Kilkenny, Longford, Monaghan, Portlaoise, Wexford and Wicklow. In addition, two new full-time law centres will become operational in the Dublin area.
These increases mean that since coming into office this Government will have more than doubled the capacity of the board to act on behalf of the clients who use the service.
The purpose of the Family Mediation Service is to assist a husband and wife whose marriage has broken down, and to help them reach a voluntary agreement about arrangements for children, property, the family home, maintenance and succession rights without the need for court intervention.
This year I have substantially increased the financial allocation to the service, thereby facilitating its expansion and development and enabling it to be established on a permanent basis. I intend to give the mediation service all the support it needs.
There has been very little change over the years in the assistance provided to various voluntary organisations involved in marriage counselling. The money provided in 1994 for marriage counselling services represents an increase of 150 per cent over the previous year. This money will be used to assist voluntary organisations in their work and will encourage them to develop and expand marriage counselling and related services to ensure nationwide coverage.
The measures I have referred to and other legislative and administrative action by the Government, set the context for the referendum on divorce which the Government is committed to holding. The House can be assured that although circumstances outside our control may necessitate a deferral of the referendum into next year, the Government is steadfast in its determination to place this issue before the people.
In line with commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government, my Department is attending to a large number of legislative proposals. Twelve Bills in all are in the course of preparation. Among those are proposals to amend the law on occupiers liability and for a Bill on enduring powers of attorney. Legislation to implement the EU Pregnant Workers' Directive is also being prepared. It is due for transposition into Irish law by October of this year. In addition, the equality legislation promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government will come on stream in the near future.
The Department of Equality and Law Reform is just one and a half years old. It has already made a significant impression on our legal landscape and, in view of the proposals in the pipeline, it will be responsible for fundamental changes in civil law over the next few years.
Much of what has been done by my Department involves the provision of extra funding for support services in relation to marriage breakdown. We are all too well aware that this is a growing problem but we must not give up hope. We must find ways to keep our laws and services in touch with the day to day reality of people's lives.
My staff and I have worked hard over the last 18 months to deliver on the agenda of change set out in the Programme for Government. We have had some successes but the most daunting summits still lie ahead. I am passionate in my commitment to reach those summits in the next 18 months — to place the issue of divorce before the people, introduce radical equality legislation and bring the creation of an equal society immeasurably closer.
Next month some one and a half million people who have a social welfare income will find that their income has increased significantly. All the increases will be greater than the rate of inflation and some people will get increases of up to 10 per cent. In September there will be further improvements in child benefit and in October we will introduce a new pension for survivors, thereby extending social insurance to another group of people. We have introduced major improvements for carers, people who care for children or other dependants and people who get benefits such as free electricity allowance etc. We have improved the opportunities for people dependent on social welfare to reduce their dependency by going into education, taking up part time work, working in the community, etc.
These actions show that this is a caring Government determined to ensure that people on social welfare incomes fare as well as people with other sources of income. This Government is determined to improve, not cut, to encourage and support, not penalise. I am particularly pleased to be associated with the reversal of the climate of cutbacks and attack on social welfare benefits which existed when I came into office.
The Minister must be joking. What about the "dirty dozen" and the taxation of unemployment benefit and disability benefit?
The Deputy should control himself.
The Minister without interruption, please.
While bringing about these improvements in social welfare incomes, the Government is also determined to find better ways of coping with poverty and unemployment than simply providing income maintenance. Many approaches are being adopted in an effort to do this for example, community employment, back to work schemes, the Conference of Religious Superiors pilot schemes and the local development initiative under the National Development Plan. I want to welcome in particular the support shown by the European Commission for the local development plans and the recognition that community development, capacity building and organised and focused community activities generally have a major contribution to make towards combating unemployment.
The NESF report on long term unemployment recognises the need for personal contact with and counselling, etc. for long term unemployed people. It is unquestionably the case that there is now very little direct contact by any Government agency with long term unemployed people. This is partly due to the introduction of computerisation in the Department of Social Welfare, a desirable development in itself but which has certain unfortunate consequences. It is also due to an effective downgrading of the placement role which was carried out by the National Manpower Service since it was integrated into FAS. A well focused and resourced placement service could be developed within the local development programme and, if successful, could be extended. Some of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress partnerships are already doing this successfully on a pilot basis.
I welcome and commend the approach taken by the NESF to long term unemployment. It has adopted a positive attitude that something can be done about it, that we do not have to regard it as inevitable and never ending. We need more of this sort of positive analysis and less of the carping, negative sentiments expressed here today by the Opposition parties. It is part of the role of politicians not only to make decisions which improve the lives of people but to help create a positive atmosphere in which people will believe in themselves and their communities and in which hope and optimism can be the dominant feelings.
Does the Minister believe what she is saying?
Politicians who tell people there is no hope for them, thereby encouraging cynicism and depression, are doing a disservice to all of us.
The taxation of benefits, the "dirty dozen" cuts, the means testing of widows' pensions——
Acting Chairman
The Minister, without interruption.
When politicians are bankrupt of ideas, which seems to be a problem for the Deputies opposite on occasion, one can understand their pessimism and lack of hope.
More passports.
I welcome the Minister back. We have not seen her for months.
The Deputies criticise but they do not have a constructive thought in their heads.
The economy is improving but, as everyone accepts, the long term unemployed will not benefit from this improvement unless specific measures are taken to make sure they do. We have been presented with some specific proposals by the NESF and we should try them to see if they work. The cost involved should not be a deterrent to trying. The costs of not trying are incalculable. The provision of income maintenance by the Government is not enough. The main aim must be to facilitate and encourage people to be independent of the State, a sentiment with which the Fine Gael Party might have agreed in the past.
The Pretty Polly workers in Killarney do not agree with the Minister.
We are doing this in a number of ways and are open to suggestions as to how it can be done.
Yesterday I launched a report entitled "Cost of a Child" which was published by the Combat Poverty Agency. This report is very timely in that it has been published during the International Year of the Family and on the 50th anniversary of the introduction of children's allowances. It shows that the direct financial cost of rearing a child is approximately £20 a week up to age seven and up to £40 a week for teenagers. This is a minimum cost and no frills or discretionary items are included. I think many parents would say that these figures are on the low side.
The issues arising from the report include the amount of State support which should be given towards the cost of rearing children and how best that support should be applied. State support should be in the form of services such as health and education as well as direct financial support to mothers in the form of child benefit. The Government has substantially improved child benefit and is committed to further improving it.
The other major State support should take the form of facilitating parents to provide for their children. This means that parents must be in a position to work and earn. This July we are introducing major changes in the mean test for lone parents who want to take up employment. This improvement arises from a recommendation in the interim report of the Expert Working Group on the Integration of Tax and Social Welfare which I established some time ago.
The Minister took their maintenance payments from them.
A lone parent with one child earning £80 per week and with work related expenses of £35 will be £28 per week better off as a result of these new measures.
What about the people who took a drop of £50?
Lone parents will be able to establish independence while retaining direct State support. The most important aspect of the change is that the lone parent's allowance will be reduced by £1 for every extra £2 earned. This is one of the most innovative measures ever taken in terms of encouraging people to move from social welfare into part-time or full-time work. If it is successful consideration will be given to extending it to families on unemployment assistance. A means test for unemployment assistance would provide a very definite incentive to move away from totally dependency on the State and gradually to establish independence while retaining State support. Such an improvement in the means test could be specifically targeted at families with children. Approximately half of all families with four or more children have parents out of work and approximately half of those under 25 who are unemployed have parents who are out of work.
Adequate child income support which can be composed of direct payments and improved incentives would, therefore, assist in ensuring that families have the resources to enable their children to enjoy a minimum level of participation in activities that form part of normal development and growing up. If we fail to provide this for children from an early age, society as a whole loses out in the long term in that there are established links between deprivation and crime and other social problems.
I would like to express my appreciation of the work and commitment of the some 4,000 staff of the Department of Social Welfare whose adaptability and willingness to change has greatly enhanced the services we provide for people. I also want to express my appreciation to the Combat Poverty Agency which continues to make a major contribution to our understanding of poverty and associated issues and the methods for tackling them. The agency and the Department are involved with the voluntary and community sector whose contribution to our lives cannot be overestimated. I am interested in releasing the energy in the community and voluntary sector and of individuals and families so that they will move from dependency into work, education and training while retaining State support.
This is the road we should travel in terms of approaching the structure of the overall social welfare system we inherited from an age in which certain family and social structures were taken for granted, in which the concept of dependency, the job for life, the male breadwinner, all formed part of that inheritance. We must change the structure and if members of the Opposition have constructive ideas on how we should change and improve the quality of social welfare——
No point, we will not see it.
——how we should empower people, giving them power over their lives, then I shall be interested in listening but am not interested in listening simply to abuse.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Connaughton.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Before the last election the electorate expected that a new Government would address the main issues, creation of jobs, elimination of unemployment, reduction of taxation and protection of the least well off who are victims of economic failure. Before and during the election campaign people were fed promises, were told that, if elected, the Labour Party, as part of Government, would change the national agenda, that the gap between the well-off and less well-off would be bridged, that jobs would be created and that there would be social justice for everybody. What happened? The Labour Party came into power, not to replace Fianna Fáil but to ensure the survival of the Fianna Fáil Party in Government. The socialism of the Labour Party has been replaced by cronyism, the only jobs created to date being those for the families and relations of those in power.
Deputy John Bruton said yesterday that the Government's sole guiding principle is the desire to remain in power. The twin ambitions of reducing unemployment and taxation have been forgotten. Workers in the PAYE sector are still crucified by taxation. The favourable international economic climate that has led to lower interest rates has presented the Government with an unprecedented opportunity to lower taxation. Rather than do so the Government, to win popularity, continued to increase spending, resulting in a lost opportunity to reduce taxation and create a climate conducive to real, lasting jobs. In addition, the opportunity to reduce taxes on employers, leading to the creation of more jobs, has been lost. All the unemployed are being offered at present are training courses and promises.
The old saying that "a rising tide lifts all boats" has not proven to be the case — although it certainly wins votes — the boats of the unemployed and the less well-off are left high and dry, marooned, because of failed Government policies. We now have a society in which the golden circle of the friends of those in power are doing extremely well while business people, the middle class, PAYE sector and the unemployed daily experience greater difficulty in making ends meet.
The recent political scandals at the very top in Irish political life have set a very bad example, particularly when people in power and some of their friends continuously gain as a result of dubious manoeuvres, setting in train a knock-on effect that percolates through society.
Middle income families have been further crucified over the past 12 months by property tax, a reduction in relief on VHI premia and mortgage interest. Despite what the Minister of State, Deputy Burton said, cutbacks in social welfare represented a direct attack on the sick, elderly and unemployed, the real victims of economic failure in our system. Labour and Fianna Fáil have imposed more and more taxes on the PAYE sector. The unemployed and sick have suffered social welfare cuts in the form of the dirty dozen, taxation of unemployment and disability benefit, abolition of pay-related benefit and even an attempt to means test widows' pensions. How can the Labour Party, a so-called socialist party, impose such suffering on people they claim to represent? It has shown itself as unprincipled, eager for power at any cost. The Labour Party has buried itself and its principles, reneged on its promises, its conscience deadened by the trappings of office.
The failure of the Government to deal with major social issues is exemplified by a recent example of a young boy committed to a residential home by court order until he reached his 16th birthday last February, when he was released into the care of the Southern Health Board. A psychiatric assessment deemed him to require secure care in a residential unit for adolescents but no suitable unit exists. A 15 year old youth is in Mountjoy jail because of lack of suitable accommodation. It appears the Departments of Health, Justice and Education see no point in the establishment of such a unit. It is my understanding that centres in the United Kingdom were investigated but could not be used. The first mentioned adolescent boy has been sent to a treatment centre in Austin, Texas, funded by the State, and will remain there for the foreseeable future as it was deemed suitable for him following examination by a Southern Health Board doctor. I call on the Ministers for Health, Justice and Education to get their acts together, once and for all, to eliminate this appalling position. Children with problems should be able to receive proper treatment in this country, close to their families and friends during such difficult periods. This case highlights the appalling gap in our services for young people. The cost of sending this adolescent to the United States is astronomical. Indeed the carers to whom I spoke in the service contend there is a major need for such a facility here. I call on the Minister for Health to make an immediate statement on this scandalous position.
I want to refer to the economic disaster facing Cork if Irish Steel closes. The measures required to rescue the plant are draconian, the 550 workers there are asked to make huge sacrifices, a 20 per cent pay cut, a three year pay freeze, 120 job losses and the abolition of their sick pay scheme. This means they will go from having been a reasonably well paid workforce to circumstances in which they will see a dramatic reduction in their standard of living. When the Minister met Members of the Oireachtas some months ago he set a deadline of June 30 for resolution of this matter. I cannot understand that, subsequently, there was a long delay before discussions when I know that the workforce became extremely unsettled and worried at the apparent lack of movement on the part of the Minister, management and board of the company. The closure of Irish Steel would have a much greater impact on the economy of the great Cork area than the closure of TEAM Aer Lingus in Dublin. Will the Minister give the same attention to the resolution of the Irish Steel crisis as that afforded the TEAM Aer Lingus crisis? Both are critical and must be positively addressed.
I want to repeat the proposal I put forward on the Adjournment debate yesterday, that the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies should hold a special meeting next week to speak to the unions and management of Irish Steel. All public representatives, over these difficult months, have displayed political maturity and responsibility in dealing with this major problem. In fact Opposition Deputies were so responsible in their comments that their stance was interpreted as weak by some workers. I reject and very much resent the allegations of the Taoiseach this morning on the Order of Business, that this matter was being dealt with in a political manner. It is a political issue, in that it is a company subvented by State funds whose fate will be decided by political decisions. Therefore, it is a political issue but not a political football. It is very easy for the Taoiseach to make accusations on this very sensitive, critical matter since he will not have to make an ultimate personal sacrifice if something goes wrong whereas Deputies will be affected in a very personal way if the worst happens. Therefore, for the Leader of this country to behave in such an irresponsible manner is, to say the least, regrettable.
Especially when the Minister for Enterprise and Employment said the Opposition had been extremely responsible.
I call on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to show political courage and maturity in resolving these problems. I am also worried by the comment in this House last evening of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment that the moneys spent to salvage Irish Steel would have created 600 new jobs elsewhere. If job creation was as simple as that we would not have an unemployment problem here. I am worried that the timescale is now panning out for Irish Steel. It is very convenient that a deadline of 30 June, yesterday, was set. It is very convenient that the Dáil is going into recess this evening. I am informed that the board of Irish Steel are meeting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. and will be making a recommendation to the Minister and the Minister will be making a decision later today. I hope this has not been stage managed and that the Minister will draw back from the abyss this evening before any final decision is made on this issue because we are dealing with human beings whose future depends on a ministerial decision.
I ask the Minister to make one major effort to bring the sides together, to talk in a reasonable way and to be flexible. The chief executive of Irish Steel has said there can be no flexibility on the issue. If he says that, it is correct. That may be where the problem lies. I am calling for flexibility, humanity and for the company to be given an opportunity to survive until such time as the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies meet next week and until such time as other efforts are made. I am concerned that the Dáil is adjourning this evening and closing its doors. I hope it is not planned in such a way as to coincide with the closing of the doors in Irish Steel.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Dáil today on these Estimates. This Government is in turmoil. The Labour Party is now no more than a mudguard for Fianna Fáil. The chickens are coming home to roost. The Labour Party was too smart for the electorate. The sophisticated Irish electorate do not like what they see. Where are the high ideals of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, who had the population holding its breath as he toured the length and breadth of the country 18 months ago seeking consensus with every Tom, Dick and Harry, about the way he should approach and pave the way for the marriage with Fianna Fáil? The Tánaiste has discovered that you do not go to bed with Fianna Fáil and keep your innocence intact. The Labour Party has lost the run of itself. It played for high stakes and made extravagant financial promises of a kind that even the US President, Bill Clinton, could not keep. It entered the strokes game with gusto.
I have one piece of advice for the Tánaiste today, when the Irish electorate give you a good vote at the polls please do not underestimate their intelligence. The main reason Labour got 33 seats in the last general election was that the electorate wanted to get rid of Fianna Fáil. By his efforts and his apparent appetite to secure involvement in Government, at any price, he not only miscalculated the mood of the electorate but he also miscalculated the ability of Fianna Fáil to manipulate him to carry the can for their misdeeds.
What would the media say about the former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, if any company run by his family got £1 million in exchange for a passport and he was to declare he knew nothing about it? What a howl of protest there would be. However, the Taoiseach seems to be able to get the Tánaiste to suffer for the passport business which the public despise. The passport issue will haunt Fianna Fáil for a long time.
Personal charges should not be made in this House. The political charges which the Deputy was embarking on are quite in order. When it comes to personalities, the Chair protects the personal integrity of Members.
I will bow to your ruling. This Coalition Government is in danger of disintegration. Many people forecast that the Government's large majority will be their downfall at the heel of the hunt. The fact that the Dáil is going into recess today when 2,000 jobs are at stake in TEAM Aer Lingus and Irish Steel, plus all the associated jobs that will be lost, is making a laughing stock of the Government. All it can do is close the door until 11 October. I have never witnessed such a ridiculous decision.
I want an undertaking from the Taoiseach that when Mr. Justice Hamilton's report on the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry is published the House will have an opportunity to discuss it, even if it is published in August. I recall only too well when the Fianna Fáilled Government called an emergency meeting of the Dáil to pass legislation to help Goodman International out of its difficulties. That took place during the peak holiday season and did not take account of holiday plans. The Dáil was recalled with gusto. I do not want to hear the version by the Government spin doctors to the media before the Dáil can debate this most important report. I have every confidence that Mr. Justice Hamilton will report on the matter as he sees it. I do not want any interpretation on the report before the House has an opportunity to debate it.
It should not be necessary to draw the attention of the Government to the efforts to select a successor to the President of the EU Commission. This most important job, comparable with the President of the US, could yet be filled by Mr. Peter Sutherland. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste will never be forgiven if, through their reluctance for narrow minded political reasons, they fail to back one of the most outstanding Irish statesmen Mr. Sutherland, who looked after the affairs of 114 countries to secure a GATT deal, would appear to be the most qualified for the job.
I wish to address some comments to the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, who is the Chamber. Is he aware of the great unrest in the communities who live on the 75 mile stretch of the N63 from Galway to Longford? Funding has not been provided for this stretch of road. I hope to forward to his office in the next few days a traffic survey carried out by the senior students of St. Mary's College, Ballygar, and the Four Roads Foróige Club which shows the volume of traffic on that road. The view of living along that road is that they have been badly let down.
I regret that little time is given to the Opposition to contribute to this debate. This is caused by the Government's mad rush to get out of this House. The full time whistle at 4 p.m. is as eagerly awaited by the Government as the full time whistle by a team in the World Cup taking a hammering from their opponents. There will be a great sigh of relief by the Government at 4 p.m. when it can get away from its major problems and fly to God knows where. Various destinations have been chosen and World Cup venues, as we advance in that competition will be among them. It is leaving behind a great mess. Never in the history of the State has a Government on taking office promised so much and done so little. It appears it is unaware of the problems that need to be addressed.
The Minister for the Environment is in charge of a very important ministry which is responsible for roads. Our road system is in a shambles. Our county roads and lanes are in a deplorable condition and should not be tolerated. No effort is being made by the Minister to provide reasonable funding to the local authorities to repair them. The people are told they have to put up with them and that the Department has no responsibility for them. Why should the people have to tolerate fourth rate roads when major bypasses and highways can be constructed in areas of high density population? The Government has turned its back on rural Ireland. It is making every effort to close off every avenue for development and hoping that the plantation of our countryside will take place so that the problems will disappear. That will not happen.
I listened to the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, speak about the various improvements in social welfare. It appears she is not aware of those who are denied access to social welfare benefits. Is the Government aware that the new poor are small farmers and small business people? On numerous occasions I have invited the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, to visit County Cavan where a co-operative is willing to offer him or his staff a farm of 30 acres to see if they could earn the income that farmers in my county and throughout the country are supposed to be earning. It bears no relation to the true figures. It is an insult and a source of great annoyance for them and their families. They are being assessed with an income of up to £150 per week when the poor people would hardly have an income of £30 per week. It is impossible to explain this to people who are so far removed from reality that they do not want to know.
Small business people who are trying to preserve their independence need assistance at a time of mass unemployment and when there is little money in circulation. It annoys me intensely when the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and senior Ministers speak about the balance of payments or gross national product and use words such as "buoyancy". This is totally irrelevant so far as the people I represent are concerned. All they are seeking to do is make an honest living and provide for their families. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton, listed a series of social welfare improvements which have no meaning for them since only a few will benefit.
It has been mentioned that unemployment is falling. It is not. Some of those on the live register have decided to emigrate while others have been taken off it and placed in jobs for five to six months. They are being removed from the live register to reduce the unemployment figure which stands at over 300,000.
It is outrageous that farmers have to wait for up to three years for payments due to them under various European Union schemes. This does not surprise me, given the way the Government bungled the Structural Funds issue, the £8 billion that never was. The programme has to be rewritten with cutbacks in every area.
Deputy Boylan and his colleagues played the same tune at public meetings throughut the constituency of Connacht-Ulster. There were three seats available. Fianna Fáil took the first two while Fine Gael struggled to finish in third position.
We played a good game and won. The people of Mayo West showed Fianna Fáil up.
This Government is committed to the creation of real and lasting employment. All our efforts are directed towards creating the economic and social conditions necessary to fulfil this central objective.
Much has been achieved already. Reform of taxation has resulted in a system that is more employment-friendly. The burden of taxation on earned income has fallen, and low to middle income earners have been assisted through higher tax thresholds. Tax reliefs have been focused on the areas of greatest need and the impact of PRSI has been modified. We are moving away from a tax system which is a disincentive to work to one which is a central component in creating the conditions to resolve our persistently difficult unemployment situation. We are promoting and assisting the enhanced competitiveness and productivity which is a prerequisite to sustainable economic progress and we are investing in infrastructure so that we can compete effectively with other economies. Services such as roads and sanitary services for which my Department is responsible have a crucial role to play in this.
Transport costs are particularly important in this country in view of our peripheral location and our dependency on export markets. In our situation, a modern national road network is of vital importance in reducing these costs. The priority afforded to the development of this network in the last few years is now showing real results all around the country as major new road sections come into use. Industry and business leaders have already acknowledged this. I regret that spokesmen for the Fine Gael Party are against this development.
This progress is set to continue. Over the six years from 1994 to 1999, over £1 billion will be invested in the improvement of the national primary network, with assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. Our commitment is to complete the primary network by 2005 to the best modern standards.
The standard of our non-national roads is also a very real issue in Ireland today. These roads play a vital economic and social role because of our relatively low level of urbanisation and extensive and low density rural settlement patterns. They are the transport arteries of the local economy and often the sole means of access for economic activity. They are essential for the development of agriculture, industry and tourism. This Government clearly recognises these facts and has demonstrated its willingness to provide the necessary funds to make lasting improvements.
The bulk of the expenditure on non-national roads is now being carried by the Exchequer, in stark contrast to the traditional method of finance which relied almost exclusively on the resources of local authorities themselves. Total expenditure on non-national roads this year will be over £167 million and the Exchequer will provide over £106 million of this amount. Put another way, the Exchequer will provide almost £2,000 for every mile of non-national road and local authorities will contribute a further £1,000 from their own resources.
The effects of the increased Exchequer funding are now becoming evident all around the country, as the local road works programmes are building up. No amount of bleating from the Opposition benches can hide this fact. There is ample evidence already that their disregard for simple facts does not appeal to the electorate. Fine Gael, in particular, would do well to decide where they stand on issues like this, instead of going on with their calls for more and more spending on whatever happens to be the issue of the moment, and at the same time, berating me and my colleagues for being members of what they say, when it suits them, is a high-spending Government.
I am determined that the expenditure on non-national roads will give rise to real and lasting improvements in the condition of these roads and I will be monitoring the effectiveness of the programme closely. Over the period of the National Development Plan, over £1 billion will be spent on these roads and, by the turn of the century, the standard of the network will be greatly improved. Progress will be incremental and not all the problems can be resolved overnight. The extra money this year is to be targeted at the most pressing problems, including those arising from the wet weather experienced over the winter and spring. The additional funds should make an immediate impact on these problems.
We are firmly on course to meet our target of 3,500 housing starts this year. Taken together with the 3,800 starts actually achieved last year, this makes it abundantly clear that this Government is committed to the concept of social housing for those with limited means. As well as meeting social need, the programme benefits the construction industry and should support 3,000 jobs directly and a similar number of indirect jobs. Given that activity under the programme is spread throughout the country, most areas benefit from the employment provided. Building these houses consume very significant resources. This year's capital provision for the construction programme is £129 million, or almost double last year's level.
The new measures in the plan for social housing are making a real contribution to meeting social housing needs also. About 1,000 households took up occupation of the home of their choice last year under the shared ownership scheme and this figure will increase in the current year. The voluntary sector continues to make good progress, assisted by capital and subsidy from the Exchequer. Almost 900 dwellings were provided by this sector in 1993 and output in the current year will be even better.
Between the various social housing schemes, together with the vacancies in the local authority rented housing stock, the housing needs of over 9,000 households will be met this year, compared with 7,000 in 1993 and 6,100 in 1992. In other words, social housing output will increase by 50 per cent in two years, with the result that people will have better access to housing and spend less time on waiting lists.
Despite the success of the measures in the plan for social housing, it is important that we take stock of what has been achieved and examine the scope for improvements. For these reasons, all the schemes in the plan are being reviewed to see what adjustments might be desirable.
The increased housing need reflected in the last assessment carried out by local authorities in 1993 makes it clear that there is no room for complacency. In addition to reviewing the plan provisions, we have therefore arranged to have the ESRI carry out a full analysis and evaluation of the results of the local authority assessments. This should help to identify the factors influencing trends in the level of needs and to develop ways of predicting future trends. The consistency of approach between local authorities in measuring needs will also be looked at so that we can move towards a more equitable and effective basis for allocating resources between the different authorities, if the results of the study show that this is required.
Overall, I am well satisfied with progress in social housing. The private housing market is also performing well, with confidence in the economy generally and sustained low interest rates. Output is likely to be the highest in ten years and should comfortably exceed the 19,300 private dwellings built last year. At the other end of the scale, the proposals on homelessness in the Programme for a Partnership Government have been implemented already so far as my Department is concerned. However, I wish to see better progress in relation to the travelling people. Although there have been considerable achievements, emerging needs suggest that very much more remains to be accomplished if the Government's target of providing sufficient caravan parks to accommodate travellers by the year 2000 is to be realised. A sum of £3.5 million is being provided for this purpose in the current year and more will be provided to local authorities, if required.
The urban renewal programme has breathed new life, in the form of a demand for urban living, into areas of our towns and cities previously thought to be non-viable and without development potential. The success of the scheme can be gauged by the private investment of over £1.2 billion which it has generated.
Despite this, more remains to be done and a new scheme will commence on 1 August next. It will be more focused than heretofore, and overall acreage of designated areas in the five major cities will be reduced. The designated areas in the provincial towns will generally be retained — but new areas may be designated where the existing ones are almost fully redeveloped — and the scheme will be extended to 12 other towns throughout the country. It will be tailored to achieve specific objectives. There will be greater emphasis on residential development, and a bias in favour of the refurbishment and restoration of premises. I will announce the details of the scheme in the near future.
In tandem with this, the National Development Plan provides for an urban renewal programme under which we will make grant-aid available to local authorities to carry out environmental upgrading and streetscape works in selected urban areas, incorporating cultural, heritage and conservation projects.
Maintaining a high quality environment is at the centre of my Department's business and of my ministerial concerns. Environmental protection is about the sound management of our physical resources and capital, in the same way as a commercial enterprise protects its financial capital. We will serve the country and our children badly if we deplete Ireland's environmental resources. That is why the Programme for a Partnership Government, and the National Development Plan, make sustainable development the guide and the test for all economic development policies.
The objectives of protecting Ireland's environment and of managing our development sustainably, are clear and simple ones. Implementing these objectives is a more complex task. It involves sound planning for the environment; adequate legislation; good organisational arrangements; renewal and improvement of environmental infrastructure; and widespread provision of environmental information. In my period as Minister for the Environment, I have developed important initiatives on all these fronts.
I have been concerned to progress the coherent policy framework initiated by the environment action programme for managing the Irish environment. The Green 2000 report, published in March 1993 under the auspices of the Taoiseach, has given added support to this process. It made important recommendations for aligning agriculture, energy, industry and other sectoral policies with the needs of the environment; these recommendations are being pursued with the Departments concerned.
In June 1993, I published a national climate change strategy. This systematically addresses the adjustments we need to make to our energy and other policies to play our part in EU and wider international efforts to combat climate change.
My Department has also published strategic reports on promoting cleaner technologies and sewage sludge management. A major policy document due for publication in the coming weeks is the national strategy for recycling domestic and commercial wastes. We will continue to develop systematic plans and strategies like these in the area of environmental protection to ensure a clear and coherent framework for action by all parties concerned.
Environmental protection needs strong legislation to support good environmental practice and to control pollution. In my period of office, we have enacted the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 and the planning Acts of 1992 and 1993 — the latter to control State and local authority development. We have strengthened planning control procedures through the consolidated regulations I have recently made and had important new regulations to introduce Environmental Protection Agency licensing, to control noise and to deal comprehensively with waste imports and exports.
The major legislative project now in hand is a comprehensive Bill on waste which will be ready for consideration by the Dáil in the next session.
The Environmental Protection Agency brings a new and strengthened organisational resource to the task of protecting Ireland's environment. We have made considerable progress in mobilising the new agency since its establishment one year ago. Its staffing now stands at more than 100. It has established temporary headquarters in Ardcavan, Wexford, as well as regional offices. The Environmental Protection Agency, acting in its independent capacity, has already produced valuable status reports on national water quality, as well as analyses of a number of serious environmental incidents.
EPA licensing operations have commenced and already extend to industries in the chemical, waste, energy, food and drink, and certain other sectors.
Adequate infrastructure is a vital support for a high quality environment. The environment action programme promises a major expansion of water services to ensure compliance with EU standards on waste water and drinking water. This expanded programme is on course. More than 100 water and sewerage projects were carried out under the 1989-1993 water and sanitary services programme, with further work completed under Envireg and Interreg. These projects include recent water supply schemes at Killybegs, North Roscommon, Fardystown, Nenagh, Kells-Oldcastle, North Dublin, Lough Mask and Dún Laoghaire. Work on many of these schemes will continue this year. Recent sewage treatment schemes include those at Tralee, Greystones, Dingle, Longford, Kanturk, Tuam, Clonmel, Dún Laoghaire and Wexford.
This progress will be continued under the new environmental services operational programme 1994-1999, and with the support of the Cohesion Fund. In all, some £650 million investment in environmental services is provided for under the National Development Plan.
A new feature of the current environmental services programme is the significant provision — some £36 million — for solid waste infrastructure. This will support implementation of the national recycling strategy, as well as the development of better waste management strategies and hazardous waste infrastructure.
Information is a positive and powerful force for environmental protection, which is the shared responsibility of all sections of society. More and better information on the environment can increase public support and vigilance. It should also help industry, farmers and public authorities towards a better understanding of their responsibilities.
Through the ENFO service and different environmental campaigns, awards and publications, my Department has sought to improve the quality and range of environmental information available to the community. We will continue and intensify these efforts, in co-operation where appropriate with voluntary organisations and groups.
In May 1993, I made important regulations which provide a statutory right of access for all citizens to information on the environment held by public authorities. These regulations broke new ground for Irish administration in terms of freedom of information, which I am pleased to have facilitated. We are now reviewing the operation of the regulations and guidance notes after one year's experience, and we will make any necessary adjustments.
Ireland has maintained an active profile in the wide range of international efforts to protect the environment. We have recently ratified the Climate Convention, the Basel Convention on Transboundary Waste Movements and new provisions of the Ozone Convention. We have participated closely in the post-UNCED process and have this year submitted a national progress report to the UN Commission on sustainable development.
The important measure of the effectiveness of all of these policies and activities is whether Ireland's high quality natural environment is being maintained. We will have a full assessment of this vital question when the Environmental Protection Agency completes its preparation, anticipated for 1995, of a full state of the environment report.
Some of the signs are good. Air quality in Dublin has greatly improved and national emissions of sulphur and lead have been decreasing. Serious river pollution is now down to 1 per cent of the overall river channel length. Some 94 per cent of Irish households now receive drinking water supplies which fully conform to EU standards — a high percentage in relative EU terms, but there can be no grounds for complacency. Some 12 per cent of our lakes are showing signs of significant pollution. There is concern at the management of certain landfill sites, and we need continued vigilance in industry, farming and other potential sources of pollution.
Environmental protection and development go hand in hand. Government policy clearly recognises this. Ministers in charge of other Departments are already seeing to it that environmental concerns are properly reflected in the development and implementation of their policies and programmes. My Department has both environmental and developmental responsibilities, both of which we must advance in an integrated balanced manner. The record shows that we have discharged this onus creditably in the last year. We are set for significant further advances on all fronts in the months ahead. I detailed the progress we are making on a number of fronts.
I regret I must conclude by rebutting a number of points made earlier. Personal attacks from Deputies like the Progressive Democrats Deputy representing Dublin South East cannot conceal the unprecedented progress being made on all fronts by the Government. Attacks based on a distortion of the facts and on unfounded assumptions, serve only to show the panic-stricken status to which the paragons of virtue and propriety on the Progressive Democrats benches have been reduced. According to them we are all out of step, not only the parties in Government but the media, editors and their legal advisers. The electorate are not fools. They are not taken in by strident speeches from those who have nothing else to contribute to economic and social progress. In the recent elections the Progressive Democrats made this an election issue and lost the seat they held in the European Parliament, even though their former leader was the candidate in my constituency.
The passport issue has been raised many times. The procedures were followed to the last letter. I made my position clear and I will not waste the time of the House by going into detail again. The House should lend its energies to resolving our problems instead of indulging in personal attack and unsubstantiated accusation. I challenge Deputy McDowell to have the courage to say outside the House what he was prepared to say inside it.