Vote 45: Increases in Remuneration and Pensions.

That a sum not exceeding £25,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1995, for Increases in Remuneration and Pensions.

I welcome this opportunity to debate the 1995 Estimates. It is appropriate at this stage of the year to review progress to date on the economic and budgetary fronts. It is also a good time to look ahead to 1996 and beyond and to assess our prospects for the future. The economic data for 1994 confirm that Ireland continues to be one of the best economic performers in the industrialised world, with strong growth, low inflation and Government borrowing, rising employment and a strong balance of payment position.

The employment figures published by the CSO last week are also very encouraging. They show that on average, the total employment in transportable goods industries increased by more than 4,000, or about 2.25 per cent last year. This was the largest such increase since 1990. Moreover, there was a strong upward trend in industrial employment through the year, with the numbers at work in December about 8,000 higher than they were in March. These figures demonstrate that strong economic growth is being converted into strong employment growth but we must build on this performance for the future.

As is usual at this time of the year, we are currently reviewing our budget day economic forecasts, taking account of the most recent international and domestic economic indicators and, of course, the Exchequer returns for the first half of the year which were released last Tuesday. We will, as usual, be publishing our updated assessment in "Economic Review and Outlook" before the end of this month.

The indicators for the year to date broadly support our budget day assessment. Output is growing strongly and the volume of manufacturing output rose by 15 per cent year on year in the first quarter. All the indications are that investment is continuing to grow strongly. Payroll related tax receipts suggest that employment continues to expand significantly and while consumer spending in the early part of the year did not seem as buoyant as might have been expected, it is now strengthening. Retail sales showed weak year-to-year growth in the first quarter but recovered strongly in April.

Consumer sentiment may have taken a knock in March because of the two increases in retail interest rates in quick succession and, perhaps, because of apprehension that interest rates might rise further. Since then, interest rate concerns have eased and disposable incomes are now being boosted by the tax and social welfare measures I introduced in the budget. Excise and VAT receipts for May and June, although still running somewhat below budget forecasts for the year, are recovering well and may catch up with forecast levels by the autumn.

The year to year rate of consumer price inflation rose from 2.5 per cent in February to 2.8 per cent in May. This was expected given the impact of the 1 per cent rise in most mortgage interest rates in March. However, underlying inflation — excluding the impact of the interest rate rises — actually fell from 2.7 per cent in February to 2.5 per cent in May.

I am confident that the average CPI increase this year will still be close to the budget forecast of 2.5 per cent. The strong investment performance both last year and this year will increase capacity and thus moderate any inflationary pressures stemming from strong economic growth. The phased abolition of third level education fees this autumn will have a significant moderating effect on the CPI and we have still to see the full unwinding of the unusually high fresh vegetable prices in the early part of the year.

Despite strong employment growth this year, the reduction in registered unemployment is less than expected. It is, of course, well known that a rise in employment does not inevitably result in a corresponding fall in registered unemployment. Strong employment growth creates wider opportunities and choices for those who might otherwise have been forced to emigrate or might have been discouraged from entering the labour force.

My budget day arithmetic was based on the assumption that the average monthly live register figure this year would be 266,000, some 16,000 lower than the 1994 average. It now seems most unlikely that the average reduction this year will be as large as this. So far this year, the monthly live register has averaged 277,000 which is 10,000 or more below last year's corresponding figures. While I expect that it will fall further in the second half of the year, it is unlikely to fall sufficiently to achieve an average of 266,000 for the year as a whole. We are in the process of reviewing the live register outlook and will be publishing our new estimate for the 1995 average inEconomic Review and Outlook.

Looking beyond 1995, the prospects for continued strong economic growth both domestically and internationally over the medium-term are good. In the OECD area, GDP growth is expected to average about 2.75 per cent in the next two years with growth in the European Union likely to be a little stronger at around 3 per cent. The volume of OECD imports is expected to rise by more than 7 per cent next year and this will provide growing market opportunities for our exporters provided we remain competitive. The OECD recently predicted that economic growth in Ireland in 1996 would be around 5 per cent — again well above the OECD average — with further gains in employment and a fall in unemployment.

The general improvement in Ireland's economic performance has been reflected in the public finances. Ireland's performance in relation to the agreed EU convergence criteria to date has been among the best in the Union. Ireland's general Government deficit has been below 3 per cent of GDP each year since 1989, thus meeting the minimum required under the Maastricht Treaty. The debt ratio, apart from the once-off effects of the 1993 devaluation, has been declining steadily, and is expected to be about 85 per cent of GDP this year.

Our inflation performance has also been steady for the past five years. We are one of only three member states out of 15 who are abiding by the Maastricht Treaty budgetary convergence criteria this year.

The reduction in the level of the annual budget deficits in recent years, combined with a professional approach to treasury management, has meant that the burden of debt and debt-service costs has also declined as a proportion of GNP.

The debt ratio will fall again this year and we are determined to ensure that, in accordance with our obligations under Maastricht, the level of debt will continue to decline in the years ahead. We are now consistently satisfying these obligations but because of the large overhang of public debt still remaining, we must continue to keep our annual deficits low, even lower than those in other EU member states.

The Government's focus in formulating the 1995 budget was on the need to maintain fiscal discipline while maximising sustainable growth in output and employment within a low inflation economy. Accordingly, the budget set the Exchequer borrowing target at 2.4 per cent of GNP, compared with the budget target of 2.7 per cent of GNP in 1994. Within that constraint, I identified three primary objectives: reward for work, promotion of enterprise and the strengthening of social solidarity.

The tax and PRSI changes made in the budget combined with the pay increases agreed to under theProgramme for Competitiveness and Work, will lead to an increase in real take-home pay of about 2.5 per cent for a single person on the average manufacturing wage. Most workers benefit, but those on low incomes gain most in percentage terms. This focusing of tax relief on those with modest incomes will improve the incentive for low productivity workers — and hence low wage workers — to take up employment and remain employed. The emphasis on improving the incentive to work was also reflected in the social welfare changes announced in the budget.

The profitability of business should be enhanced through the budgetary measures to reduce taxation on labour and profits. Employers' tax reductions were again concentrated on low-paid employment, which should help firms facing competition from low-cost countries, enabling them to retain workers, and possibly employ additional workers. The lowering of the standard rate of corporation tax from 40 per cent to 38 per cent will be of particular benefit to firms in the services sector, which includes many labour intensive areas.

The mid-year Exchequer figures which I published earlier this week are confirmation that overall borrowing will remain in line with the budget projection. The profile of departmental spending is in line with expectations and, while corporation tax is not performing as strongly as in recent years, overall tax revenue should turn out in line with the budget target. Payroll taxes and indirect taxes are reasonably strong, which are indicative of increases in employment and consumer confidence.

There has already been considerable discussion and debate both within this House and in the wider public domain of this Government's approach to controlling public expenditure. Certain Members of this House, in particular, have been to the fore in attempting to discredit and criticise this Government's expenditure policy.

I need not remind the House that all of these attempts to undermine this Government's determined policy on strict expenditure control have failed dismally. They have failed because the plain fact is that this Government is the first to commit itself in advance to specific and demanding targets for the growth in current public expenditure. These targets are clear and unambiguous. Equally clear and certain is this Government's commitment to achieve the targets.

As I have indicated on many previous occasions in this House, the charges which have been levelled against this Government in relation to its alleged "spendthrift" and "out of control" spending policies are totally unjustified and nothing short of scaremongering. That this is the case has been confirmed by independent economic commentators from the Economic and Social Research Institute which stated in its quarterly economic commentary published earlier this week that "fears that either public spending or fiscal policy are slipping out of control appear excessive". This is independent confirmation that public spending is not out of control but is being managed in a disciplined and prudent fashion as a key part of this Government's overall commitment to firm management of the public finances.

The importance which this Government attaches to strict control of public expenditure is manifestly clear in the commitments we have made inA Government of Renewal to limit the growth in current supply services expenditure to 6 per cent in 1995 and to an average of 2 per cent in real terms over the two years 1996 and 1997. This commitment was based on our concern that the economy's capacity to produce the maximum possible rate of substainable employment growth would be severely constrained if the rate of increase in Government spending of the last five years was allowed to continue unchecked.

The lessons of the past must not be forgotten and the steady growth in public spending which has been evident since 1990 had to be stopped. We are firmly committed to ensuring that the fruits of economic growth are not fully absorbed by higher public spending, as has been the case in recent years, but are used in substantial measure for tax reform which will favour the incentive to work, tackle the poverty trap and encourage enterprise development and growth.

We have made a good start in 1995 in limiting the growth in gross current departmental spending to 6.9 per cent.

This, of course, includes the exceptional payments of £200 million in respect of women's social welfare entitlements under the EU equal treatment directive. We plan to make more substantial progress in 1996 and to fully honour our commitment to contain the real growth in gross current spending to 2 per cent.

Let me make one point absolutely clear. Public spending in 1995 is on target. There are no indications of the emergence of any significant underlying pressures on spending this year. The Government is determined to achieve its target for 1995 of a 6.9 per cent nominal increase in gross non-capital supply services spending. The mid-year Exchequer returns which were published earlier this week provide confirmation that we remain on course.

There has been some comment that inflation may be running slightly higher than anticipated at budget time and that this may cause problems for the 1995 departmental Estimates. I can assure this House that inflation is not a cause of concern in so far as this year's Estimates are concerned. Underlying inflation, exclusive of the recent change in mortgage interest rates, actually declined in the quarter to mid-May. I am confident that the average rate of price increase over 1995 as a whole will be close to my budget estimate.

As I have indicated, we are on course to attain our target for current expenditure growth in 1995 and are determined that our targets for 1996 and 1997 will be attained also. We are fully aware that, as in any business, careful planning is required if one is to succeed in achieving one's objectives and targets. We have, therefore, commenced our review of the 1996 budget so that timely decisions may be taken to optimise our chances of success. This Government has demonstrated its determination to achieve its expenditure target for 1996 by taking decisions at this stage in preparation for the 1996 budget.

I wish to make clear that the interim decisions on public expenditure which the Government took recently are aimed at containing the growth in gross current supply services expenditure in 1996 within the 2 per cent real increase figure to which it committed itself in its programme,A Government of Renewal. A review of spending trends carried out recently by my Department pointed to a risk that, based on a continuation of existing programmes and policies, gross departmental current spending could grow next year at a rate slightly in excess of the 2 per cent real limit. Accordingly, in the interest of prudent budgetary management, the Government decided on a measured and appropriate response at this point to an emerging unfavourable trend in order to avoid excessive dislocation of public services which would have been inevitable had the response been delayed.

The interim measures which were announced on 8 June were as follows:— all Ministers are to identify measures to control public spending within their Departments — this will involve all Ministers reviewing their existing policies and expenditures with a view to maximising the benefits to be obtained within the Government's spending target; there will be no recruitment to posts paid for out of public funds which would have the effect of increasing the numbers of posts above that on 9 June, unless there is specific prior Government approval — all Ministers are to halt the process of recruitment for additional posts with effect from 9 June 1995, unless and until the Government decides that such recruitment may take place in particular areas. Their primary purpose is to ensure that the Government's 2 per cent limit on real current spending next year will not be breached and that there is thus sufficient scope in next year's budget to make further progress in reducing taxes in favour of employment.

The impact of these decisions will be reflected in the detailed departmental spending Estimates for 1996 which are now being drawn up. These Estimates will be examined in detail by Ministers over the coming months and final figures for each Department and agency will be published in the 1996 Estimates Volume.

This Government has been accused of panic and kneejerk reaction in taking action on public expenditure on foot of what was described as a "highly critical" OECD report on the Irish economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The prudent action which the Government has taken has resulted from a careful and timely examination of the outlook for expenditure in 1996. The Government commenced its examination well in advance of the publication of the recent OECD survey on the Irish economy. It is totally misleading to suggest that the Government decision to initiate action to control the emerging expenditure trends in 1996 was taken in direct response to the OECD survey. This is simply not true.

Also, I reject allegations that the OECD survey is highly critical. The survey, in fact, is very positive. I acknowledge that there are some criticisms but these are in general constructive, in that the concern of the OECD is to ensure that the Government's present successful policies are maintained. In this regard, I would remind Deputies that the OECD's comments in relation to the growth in public expenditure relates to the growth in the recent past — not to the Government's plans to contain the real increase in current supply expenditure to 2 per cent per annum on average over the next two years.

This Government is taking positive and determined steps to ensure that the growth in public expenditure is kept firmly under control. We are committed to curbing the excessive growth in current Government spending which has emerged over the last five years. We are convinced that this positive action will yield significant benefits in terms of increasing the room for manoeuvre to improve the incentives for work through the tax and social welfare system, and in terms of keeping downward pressure on borrowing and thus on interest rates and inflation. This disciplined approach will provide the resources to promote additional employment, reward work and reduce taxation.

Our efforts to contain the growth in current public expenditure this year and in 1996 will be helped considerably by the pay agreement under theProgramme for Competitiveness and Work which has strict cost parameters built in.

The pay agreement which forms part of theProgramme for Competitiveness and Work ensures that increases in pay in both the public and private sectors are limited to around the projected rate of inflation over the period of the agreement. In doing so it ensures that pay increases will be moderate and will not reduce competitiveness. In giving certainty of pay costs during the period it will also contribute to the environment for continued growth in the economy.

The arrangements in the public service under theProgramme for Competitiveness and Work pay agreement are that the projected increases over the period of the agreement are broadly in line with the private sector. The provision in the agreement to deal with outstanding claims or unfinished business in the public service limits the level of increase payable and also requires, in return, agreement on flexibility and change and improvements in efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of public services. Furthermore, the reform of pay determination systems within the public service, evidenced by the revised conciliation and arbitration scheme agreed for the Civil Service in 1994, will serve to make these systems more sensitive to the state of the public finances in the future.

The 1995 Estimates include a provision of £25 million in respect of increases in pay and pensions in the public service resulting from unfinished business. Negotiations are continuing on outstanding claims in a number of areas throughout the public service.

As I indicated earlier, the Government has commenced its review of the 1996 budget. The preparation of the 1996 Estimates is under way. We have already taken prudent interim steps aimed at achieving our target of a 2 per cent real growth in gross current spending in 1996. I can assure the Dáil that in considering the 1996 Estimates and possible budget proposals the Government will ensure that the real and substantial progress which has been achieved to date in the public finances and in the economy is secured and enhanced even further.

Mr. B. Ahern

This debate in its traditional form gives us an opportunity to comment on the Estimates and general matters. The performance of the Government in its first six months has been lacklustre and the public is indifferent to it. It is not a Government the people desired and it has not been a good substitute for the partnership Government of Fianna Fáil and Labour. There are few signs of vigour, significant new ideas or political leadership determined to get things done and decisions made. It is a marriage of convenience between disparate partners, with little natural cohesion and shared vision. Being in power and trying to stay there is what holds the Government together. The most that can be hoped for is a competent but uninspired stewardship of the tremendous legacy of achievement and work in hand left by the Fianna Fail-Labour Government and its Fianna Fáil-led predecessors since 1987.

On important issues such as social partnership and the handling of the peace process leading to the ceasefires, the Taoiseach freely admits, to his credit, that he was wrong and, in effect, Fianna Fáil was right. We hear no quibbles these days about the billions of pounds we negotiated in Edinburgh and Brussels, which underpin the Government's investment programme. Agriculture is thriving as a result of the CAP reform measures as applied to Ireland, for which Ray MacSharry and Deputy Joe Walsh deserve full credit. This Government is largely living off the success of its predecessors.

I thank the Minister for Finance, and his officials, for making available the full accounts of 1994 when I was Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government. That was an outstanding year, perhaps even better than we thought considering the figures released this week. I thought the Minister would have been happy to claim that he was a member of a Government that achieved so much, but he did not mention that. Those achievements made matters easy for the Government this year.

In 1994 economic growth stood at 7.4 per cent, the highest since 1990 and the third highest in the history of the State. According to the Government's estimates, net employment last year increased by 36,000 people while average unemployment fell by 12,000. The increase in employment of 2.6 per cent in 1994 was the highest in the European Union where the average was a fall of 0.5 per cent. Exports increased by 13 per cent in volume and industrial production and tourism increased by about 12 per cent. Tourism is receiving a huge boost from the peace process this year. In 1994 there was a balance of payments surplus of more than £2 billion, or 6.6 per cent of GNP, which was exceptional. Consumer spending increased by 5.5 per cent, investment increased by 8 per cent and production in the construction industry increased by 9 per cent. Last year I achieved the first current budget surplus in 28 years, with a debt-GDP ratio falling rapidly. Together with Luxembourg and Germany we are the only countries to fulfil the Maastricht criteria.

The ESRI described 1994 as "a year of exceptionally rapid economic growth", well balanced and with no sign of serious inflationary pressures developing. This is mainly due, as the Taoiseach acknowledged in Killarney, to the price restraint provided by the Programme for Competitiveness and Work of March 1994 which he opposed. It is amusing, but we are glad Fine Gael who opposed programmes and collective agreements, admitted this week that it was wrong. The Taoiseach has gone back on many statements he made in the past five or six years when in Opposition and this is probably his final u-turn. At least he has acknowledged, if not in this House then publicly in Killarney, that he was wrong. The ESRI stated that with a substantial carry-over from 1994 the annual growth rate should again be high.

The economy is continuing to do well and we on this side of the House are proud of the tremendous progress and solid foundations we laid during our eight years in office. Fianna Fáil worked productively with the social partners and with those who supported or worked with us in Government at different times, after turning the national economy around in 1987. No one is in any doubt of the tremendous impact of the Government of Charles Haughey, with Ray MacSharry as Minister for Finance, in 1987 and 1988. We also came through the subsequent recession in the early 1990s under Deputy Albert Reynolds, when I was Minister for Finance, in better shape than most of our partners, repeating in 1994 the high performance of 1989-90. Even as an Opposition party we will take more pride in the Irish economy doing well during this Government's short period in office, than we will take pleasure in any setbacks it may suffer and which we do not need. We can play a useful warning role when we see a danger of things going wrong, as we have done most of this year in relation to the public finances.

From 1988, my party delivered steady tax reform and tax reduction, in tandem with reducing Government borrowing to a very low level. We are not in favour of slashing taxes at the expense of essential public services. There was a tendency to let go the spending reins early this year without sufficient prioritising. If we want real and lasting tax reductions, which is what this country needs, then in periods of high growth we should not be running a current budget deficit. We should even be aiming to try to eliminate borrowing altogether in the longer run. This is what New Zealand is doing, and it is the point at which very substantial savings in national debt servicing would help fund real reductions in taxation. I regret that this year the Government has moved further away from that ideal. This Government caused in its initial months in office a substantial outflow of funds through a loss of confidence. Our currency is still at the bottom of the ERM. We need to create more room for budgetary manoeuvre for the years ahead for at least three reasons: given the economic cycle, we will not always enjoy high economic growth — we must keep public finances under control in anticipation of the next world recession; we have no guarantee of a combination of Structural and Cohesion funding at present levels after 1999; we have to keep open the option of joining European Monetary Union, if necessary without Britain, and this will be realistic only with an ultra-fit economy. For those reasons the Government should continue to implement the economic policies followed since 1987. The real test of this Government's prudence will be the next downturn in the world economy.

The Government's performance has been disappointing on a number of issues. Unemployment is likely to be on average 5,000 higher than forecast at budget time. This is largely attributable to the fact that community employment schemes have not been maintained at last year's level, to the disappointment of local communities throughout the country.

I am sorry that decisiveness is lacking in regard to the third banking force as we had a good plan and a range of partners lined up. I know some of those potential investors are very disappointed at the Government's delay. We do not need State owned banks but more competition in the banking sector. The Government has a series of competing plans from the different ideological viewpoints of its members. It is long past time for decisions in the national and consumer interests, leaving ideology out of it.

I am disappointed there was no effort in this year's budget to move on the many issues identified by the Government Task Force on Small Businesses, which must be the main source of future employment.

There has not been an ESB price rise in the past eight years with the result that its prices have become very competitive, 20 per cent below those in Northern Ireland. I accept we cannot reasonably expect an indefinite price freeze, but the last thing we need is sudden, sharp price increases. Increased competition in our semi-State bodies must not become a euphemism for a deteriorating service, higher prices and larger fees for directors and consultants. The Government should pay close attention to the French Government's attitude to EDF, the French electricity company, in its discussions with the European Commission in Brussels.

I regard the report on CIE produced by Deputy Kavanagh of the Labour Party on behalf of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies as unduly negative. We need an efficient public transport system, bus and rail, if massive road congestion is to be avoided and to reduce pollution, for tourism and regional development purposes and a social service for those who do not have their own transport. By and large those who work in the three transport companies do a good job, but there is obviously further scope for improvement, better service to the public, better use of existing facilities and reducing the real level of subvention. Fianna Fáil backed the investment in public transport in the National Development Plan and we expect this Government to carry it through without cutbacks.

There is a huge law and order problem related mainly to drugs. My party has always been supportive of the Garda Síochána whose record in solving murders and many other serious crimes is second to none. I congratulate them on their drugs finds; in the past we congratulated them on their arms finds. The Garda can be very proud of their contribution to maintaining stability in this State during the past 25 years of troubles. There are many signs, however, of low morale and a lack of confidence in the Minister and the Government.

The shilly-shallying over the bail laws and the deferment of the prison at Castlerea, as well as the new women's prison at Mountjoy, sends the most negative signals about this Government's real commitment to law and order. Making all due allowance for the peace process and more efficient alternatives to custodial sentences in some cases, we need more prison space, so that our penal system remains a credible deterrent and protection to the public, and to solve the problem of overcrowding.

This Government has shown little commitment to the west or the Border counties. The cancellation of the prison at Castlerea says all that needs to be said about this Government's lack of commitment to tackling crime and its lack of commitment to the west notwithstanding the appointment, as an afterthought, of a Minister of state for the west, whose function seems to be largely decorative. The Border counties do not have a single Minister or Minister of State and do not even enjoy the full additionality of funds earmarked for these regions by the EU.

There should be a small budgetary reserve for special capital investment projects that crop up during the year that will be of lasting value. In the mid-1980s, the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition provided funding for UCD's new engineering school and in 1991, Fianna Fáil provided funding for the Smurfit Business School in UCD from a budgetary surplus. It is wrong that projects of this kind, of lasting benefit, should be confined to Dublin. I note that the Minister for Finance believes he will underspend on Central Fund services and on EU budgetary contributions. I believe there is a strong case, following precedents established by successive Governments for examining sympathetically with University College, Cork, grounds for State assistance for the acquisition of Our Lady's Hospital, while the window of opportunity remains open. Cork is entitled to the same favourable treatment as Dublin. We negotiated with University College, Cork, last year and I had talks with the college president and all the main bodies, including the Higher Education Authority. That commitment should be honoured.

The Government initiated studies on the Constitution and devolution and has a long programme of institutional reform largely drawn up by Fianna Fáil. There is no evidence, at the pace it is going, that anything concrete will happen in any of these areas prior to the next general election except that more boards, commissions and committees will be set up with the appointment of consultants and others to run them.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mrs. Doyle)

We learned that from Fianna Fáil.

Mr. B. Ahern

As we go into the summer recess, Members must be concerned about the stalemate in the peace process. I complimented the Government at the time for bringing the Framework Document to a successful conclusion. However, since then we have had a political impasse that has now become dangerous — with disturbances on the streets. There have been limited exploratory talks at ministerial level but the only real success in the past number of months was the Washington Investment Conference. I commended the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials who were involved in organising it. My party played a full role in every possible fora. Week in week out we had by far the best attendance at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and we contributed to every debate on the matter in this House. There has been a lack of progress on the main issues and a marked slowing down of the vigorous momentum that characterised the first few weeks after the cease-fire. I am concerned that this Government is no longer playing the central role in the peace process its predecessors did under the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. That is not just my observation but a view expressed by many independent commentators. The other constitutional partners are frustrated that the political process seems to be reduced to a stand-off between the British Government and Sinn Féin. This morning for the first time we heard from the Sinn Féin spokesperson that this Government could do more to speed up the process. Every other party has made similar comments in recent days.

There is only a limited amount that we can do in Opposition but we have done our best to keep the focus on the issues where movement is needed and to try to help maintain confidence in the peace process.

I would be concerned that the British Government is not paying the same attention to the views of the Irish Government. I need do no more than remind the House what happened this week. The Government's role has to be more than that of a facilitator. I criticised the Government in the past for acting only as a facilitator which is not enough if the process is to work. The Government should have its own views of what needs to be achieved and seek the support of the British Government and other parties for their views. The Government must set out its views clearly. The views of the Fianna Fáil Party are set out in the Joint Declaration which was signed by both Governments in 1993, in the Framework Document which was set out at the beginning of this year and in the Anglo Irish Agreement which was signed some time ago. These documents should form the basis of progress.

No other party has presented a document of major assistance since the Framework Document. There has hardly been any discussion during this Dáil session on the Framework Document and no progress has been made on it. I am concerned that the Government is not putting forward a clear, strong coherent viewpoint. The feedback I am getting from America suggests there is confusion as to the Government's position, with one message coming from the office of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and another from the Taoiseach's office. We have had confusing and contradictory statements from the Government on decommissioning armaments. The Taoiseach in Washington and Moscow appeared to back the British line but at other times he has taken issue with it. I regret that the wooing of Unionist opinion which the Taoiseach carried out in Opposition with the Unionist parties does not seem to have brought any benefit to Government as he hoped it might. Fianna Fáil in Opposition has been able to further develop our party's relationship with the UUP and the loyalists which I am sure will help the peace process.

The Framework Document is a fine document which, with the British internal document, focuses on the central issues which have to be addressed in talks. I would have expected that after its publication there would have been some weeks or months of political debate on its contents and that talks would have followed. Instead, we have been diverted down a track of arguments about decommissioning and who is eligible to take part in substantive talks. Our view is — and always has been — very clear on these issues. After ten months of the IRA and loyalist ceasefires, Sinn Féin is fully entitled to take part in talks, North and South, on the same basis as everyone else, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration and public undertakings given to Sinn Féin by the British Government prior to 31 August last. The loyalists must also be directly involved and represented in the talks process on similar grounds. With a clear understanding on how decommissioning will be carried out, the modalities would obviously be helpful to the start of talks.

I am very disappointed that the Dalton-Chilcott talks, no doubt involving other officials, which were initiated as far back as October last year by Deputy Albert Reynolds and John Major are only now being intensified in a crisis atmosphere, having been effectively in abeyance for some months. This sense of urgency is not before time. If Unionists have a difficulty sitting opposite Sinn Féin then the talks should begin with a bilateral phase. If they have a difficulty taking part in political talks, playing their full part in consolidating the peace process and working towards a peaceful settlement then they should say so.

Earlier this week I set out my views on the prisoners' issue. The unilateral release of Private Lee Clegg means that this issue must be addressed as a matter of urgency and independently of progress on any other issue. The Government has no more important task than to try to break the dangerous impasse which is developing in the peace process. The anniversary of the ceasefire must not come upon us with no further progress having been made. There is a sense of frustration among communities in the North that the peace process is producing nothing and that the British Government is doing nothing and is not keeping faith with what it said before the ceasefire.

There has been no movement on the prisoners' issue. Everyone knows that any reversion to violence would be an unmitigated disaster for all concerned and must be avoided at all costs. However crucial the situation becomes, violence is an option which cannot be contemplated because of its proven evil and futility. The battle for full recognition and rights must be fought politically and Fianna Fáil pledges that it will remain fully engaged with the people of the North in working to overcome the obstacles to progress. We will continue to raise without fear or favour the issues of most concern in the maintenance and consolidation of peace. The Government must adopt a firm approach and ensure that the British Government and wider international opinion fully understand the necessity of making early progress on a realistic basis. The peace must and will endure.

We want to see public expenditure controlled and funding spent in a proper manner. The Minister's Department of Finance speech, with which I am well familiar, contradicted Labour and Democratic Left policies. I look forward to the implementation of the policies referred to in his speech, which was not ideological — I could name the two officials who wrote it for him. I hope in the interests of the country that the Minister will implement those policies.

Mrs. Doyle

It is appalling to see the Leader of the main Opposition party trying to score political points on the back of the peace process.

Mr. Cowen

The Minister of State does not know what she is talking about.

Mrs. Doyle

It is an appalling spectacle to see the Leader of the main Opposition party playing politics.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

Order, please. I call Deputy Mary Harney.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister should go back to her Department——

Mr. Cowen

The Minister's problem is that she does not know what she is talking about.

Mr. R. Burke

The people in the Department do not know she is a Minister. They do not even know she exists.

Mrs. Doyle

The Deputy should hang his head in shame.

Mr. B. Ahern

Where is the Government?

Mr. Cowen

The Minister does not know what she is talking about.

Mr. D. Ahern

What has the Minister's party achieved?

We must have order.

Mrs. Doyle

What does Deputy Cowen, the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on agriculture, know about it?

Acting Chairman

Acting Chairman

Please show Deputy Harney the courtesy of listening to her.

Miss Harney

When the Government came into office seven months ago it made great promises. I have with me its programme for Government and last night on my way back from Ballina I reread most of it. I urge the Government to read page 1 of the programme in which it promised that there would be new openness and transparency and our national and local institutions would be reformed to ensure accountability, transparency and freedom of information. In the section dealing with Oireachtas reform the Government promised that the Oireachtas would be reformed with the aim of gearing it to the 21st century. It went on to say that various organs of the State and holders of high office would be more answerable and accountable to the Legislature and that the Executive would be fully accountable to the Dáil.

Only this morning the Government voted down a reasonable Fianna Fáil amendment to the Government motion requiring the Taoiseach to answer questions on two days during the 96-day recess of the Dáil. It is difficult to believe that a Government let by the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, who championed Dáil reform since his election to the House, would vote down such a reasonable amendment. It is clear that the Government is not committed to changing the procedures of the House, is not committed to more openness and accountability, is not interested in making the Executive accountable and is not gearing the Oireachtas to meet the demands of the 21st century.

The Government has said that the civil servants need a holiday. I cannot think of a more pathetic excuse. The amendment was voted down this morning because the Government is not interested in answering questions. I have a file of questions which have been either transferred by the Taoiseach or ruled out of order. There is no openness or transparency. In a parliamentary democracy the only way an Opposition can make the Government of the day accountable and effective is by having the opportunity to ask questions and by ensuring openly, in public, that the Government answers them. That has not happened and is not happening. I regret this very much. There is no reason for the Taoiseach to refuse to take oral questions in the House on 26 July and 20 September. In voting down the Fianna Fáil amendment this morning the Taoiseach can no longer claim to be a champion of Dáil reform.

There was a very interesting article in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times by a commentator who looks in on the proceedings of this House. He said that this Chamber is almost moribund, which it is and the committee system is killing the House. The committee system is particularly difficult for party spokespersons and smaller parties. It is extremely difficult for the eight Deputies in my party to serve on these committees. People will probably say I should try to get more Deputies elected. Deputies are working extraordinarily hard and at the very least the Taoiseach should answer questions on the two days the Dáil pretends to meet. The Government is trying to create a mirage that the Dáil is working harder. Deputies, particularly those from the Opposition parties, are working harder but the Government is going into recess for 96 days. This is no different from what happened before and there is little point in the Taoiseach and the Government pretending that the Dáil will sit in July and September. From the point of view of accountability, that is not the case.

Last May the Government committed its greatest faux pas. It could be seen from the way he dealt with questions on the Fr. Smyth case that the Taoiseach's glass is no longer transparent. When an effort to transfer the question was unsuccessful on 23 May in this House, the Taoiseach refused to give vital information on that matter. He refused to tell the House that the Attorney General, whom he had appointed, had a conflict of interest in his dealings with the senior legal assistant. This House and the committee that investigated that matter were entitled to have that information. On 24 May, when questioned on “Morning Ireland” the Taoiseach told the nation he did not give the information because he was not asked the question. Yet, he came to the House later that morning and said he did not give the information because he could not breach confidentiality; the client was entitled to confidentiality. Who was protecting the public interest in that whole affair?

There can be no doubt that this Government came to office on the back of the Fr. Smyth controversy. Promises were made to the victims and to the public at large. As soon as the Government got into office the file was locked away and that was the end of the matter until the questions were tabled. That is not good enough. The matter was not handled well and there was no accountability.

I worry about the Government's attitude to parliamentary questions and, indeed to this House. It is not a reforming Government, but a conservative Government that wants to give as little information as possible. It is composed of three parties that have not much in common except their desire to be in office. One has only to look at its confused attitude to the Estimates.

This morning the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, told us that public spending would be maintained at 6 per cent. We know that is not accurate. Public spending on a year on year basis this year is rising by 10 per cent. At no stage in his speech did the Minister acknowledge that, never mind seek to deal with it. Only six weeks ago the Minister for Finance sought to put a brake on public spending and announced there would have to be cuts totalling £77 million this year. We are still not clear about where the cuts will be made because the Government has not agreed.

I do not believe the Government will stick to its target of 2 per cent growth in public spending in real terms for 1996, because the Labour Party more than Democratic Left love to spend money. We have only to look at the attitude it has adopted to third level education where the principles of fairness and equity and giving children from a disadvantaged background the opportunity to have a decent standard of education, has been cast aside in the interests of the Labour Party maintaining the core vote it got in the 1992 general election. When we get nearer to a general election next year, that party will not have the courage to control public spending and Democratic Left will also be paralysed. I look forward to being proved wrong because the excessive public expenditure here has destroyed our capacity to compete and to deal effectively with tax reform and competition.

Since 1990, public spending has risen by about 42 per cent, when inflation is 17 per cent. This year public spending is rising at the rate of 10 per cent, three times the rate of inflation. During the next three years, this economy will grow by 5 per cent or 6 per cent. I have some reservations about the growth figures. Whatever is the accurate figure, it will yield the Government at least £1 billion in additional revenue over the next three to four years. We can do various things with that £1 billion. We can spend it on more projects or we can use it as a stimulant for the economy that will encourage enterprise, reward effort and give those at work a real incentive to go to work and work harder.

A single person who takes home £172 per week pays the Government £5,000 per year in tax and PRSI: A single worker pays 57 per cent of his marginal earnings in tax and PRSI to the Government. A married man with four children living in local authority housing with a dependent spouse has to earn in excess of £15,000 per annum to be as well off working as unemployed. One does not need me to tell you how crazy is that scenario. The only way we can deal with it is by having a sensible and radical approach to tax reform.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Small Businesses which has met during the past two months or so. One message that comes across loud and clear is that those involved in enterprise and development want less tax, less bureaucracy and less red tape. They want the State to get off their backs and allow them to do the job they are more than capable of doing. That £1 billion could be ploughed into tax reform. We could reduce income tax to 20 per cent and 40 per cent, abolish employees' PRSI or we could use it to abolish employers' PRSI which is just over £1 billion per annum. We could do a combination of any of those things to help employment reward effort and encourage enterprising people.

Another area in which the Government is not making a determined effort, despite the commitment and courage of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, is competition. Competition, as IBEC said recently on the renewal of the European Union treaties, should become a core principle like European Monetary Union and other aspects of the treaty dealing with social justice, social equality and so on. Competition should become a core principle of EU policy because Europe is losing out to the Asian Pacific countries, to America and to Japan. Europe in the global economy is not as competitive as the other trading blocs.

We are a small open economy and need to export about 70 per cent of our manufacturing and traded services products to maintain our existing jobs base. We have a small internal market and even if we take the island as a whole it is still a very small market. The only way to survive and grow is to sell goods and services at competitive prices. Obviously quality has a huge role to play but so too has price.

We need to examine the role of the State and examine whether the State needs to be exclusively involved in the range of activities in which it is currently engaged. The State runs our ports and airports, is involved in running hotels, and, even, a restaurant and until recently was running a bar in Temple Street in Dublin. There is a host of activities in which the State's involvement no longer makes sense. While the capacity of the market to take up any privatisation floats that might be made is not enormous, we need to have a phased programme of disengaging the State from some of these activities. I am not suggesting we replace a State monopoly with a private monopoly because what would not be the answer. We need competition at every level to ensure the economy develops, reaches its capacity and provides the jobs we need to provide opportunities for our people.

Let us take the area of transport. An island nation such as ours has to be accessible. Since Ryanair became involved in air transport, ten years ago, traffic on the London-Dublin route has grown by nearly 300 per cent, from 983,000 to 2.7 million passengers per year. Fares in 1985, before Ryanair, were on average £208, unless one booked 28 days in advance. Despite an inflation rate of 29 per cent in the intervening years, air fares to London have come down in real terms by 80 per cent. That has happened because of competition. It has been good for tourism, business and the economy. Ryanair is a growing company. Its employment this year has increased by 100. With 11 aircraft it is transporting 2.3 million passengers in and out of this country.

Earlier today I suggested we need a second airport in the capital city. Passenger numbers into Dublin airport are projected to grow to 14 million, double the present level, within the next seven to ten years. Dublin airport does not have the capacity to deal with that. It would be bad for the environment there. It would be over-congested. More importantly, we need competition.

The project being promoted by Ryanair to develop a facility at Baldonnel, although it is not being enthusiastically supported by many of my constituents because of the noise and traffic implications, is needed in the interests of the city and the country as a whole. It would make the single greatest contribution to reducing the cost of access fares which is so essential for trade and tourism. The company is seeking a preliminary decision on its submission by November. I hope this will be granted.

An all-party approach to the peace process in Northern Ireland has been adopted in this House for some considerable time. It is important that it be maintained. A similar approach has been adopted at Westminster. I have been saying for the past couple of weeks that there is stalemate. I have my own views on how the problem can be resolved. We need to marry the issue of decommissioning with the issue of prisoners' release; it is not a question of either or.

The main stumbling block to the development of the peace process is the political leaders in Northern Ireland, in particular the leaders of mainstream Unionism. I very much regret that Unionist politicians have been dragging their feet and constantly reject everything on offer. For years Unionists wanted a commitment from Nationalists that they did not seek Irish unity by coercion, that they were prepared to accept this would only come about if a majority in Northern Ireland wished it to happen. All of Nationalist Ireland, with the exception of Sinn Féin, has accepted that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless a majority wish it to happen. Unionists should see this as a victory and as something positive. They will not be coerced against their will into something they do not want. Instead of sitting on the sidelines they should get involved in the process and represent the people they are supposed to represent.

I know from my contacts in Northern Ireland and the many people I have met from the Unionist tradition that they feel they have been let down by the manner in which their representatives have sought to represent them since the peace process was initiated ten months ago. I appeal, as I did ten days ago, to the leaders of the Unionist people, in particular the Official Unionist Party, to stop saying "no" all the time, to get involved in the process and to realise that, because of the geography and their numbers, nothing can happen unless they participate. Politicians can never achieve anything for the people they represent unless they participate and are prepared to negotiate.

Before he took office the Taoiseach was subjected to criticism on the question of Northern Ireland when he was seen as a big threat to the development of the peace process but he has consolidated and developed it. Many difficulties will be encountered along the route in turning Northern Ireland around and transforming it into a real political society. This will take a considerable time. The violence, the bitterness, the ignorance and everything which has flowed from it have left their mark.

I never believed we could turn the peace process initiated ten months ago into an all-inclusive settlement within a short space of time. It will be some considerable time before people begin to trust each other. It is important that the momentum be maintained. After the Cannes summit I was heartened when the two Governments announced that they had adopted a clear, single strategy to deal with the issue. A difference in approach between them would only play into the hands of those who do not wish to see the process succeed.

While the two Governments have a major role to play in stimulating and encouraging the participants to get involved, it is the politicians in Northern Ireland who will either make or break the process. Unless John Hume, Gerry Adams, James Molyneaux, Dr. John Alderdice and others like them sit down at the table, reach agreement and recommend it to their supporters we will not see a normal society in Northern Ireland. I appeal to each of them to play their part and be generous.

On the issue of decommissioning, I appeal to Sinn Féin not to see it as a request from the British Government but to do it for the Irish people. The weapons of war — the semtex and other weapons in the hands of the paramilitaries — were used to kill fellow Irish people. For the sake of the Irish people a gesture should be made. It is unreasonable to expect prisoners to be released if the paramilitaries still have those weapons. I also appeal to Sinn Féin to use its influence to ensure we do not see any more street riots because street rioting and punishment beatings are not compatible with democratic politics.

The Government promised to take action on many issues during this parliamentary term. I am disappointed that it has not delivered. We have yet to see the legislation dealing with the issues of freedom of information and compellability of witnesses. Neither have we seen the Government's proposals on divorce. As we reach the end of this session the Government can be assured that the honeymoon is over and that there will be vigorous opposition next term.

Let me say to the Minister of State who referred to the Leader of the Opposition that Deputy Ahern is the Leader of the largest party in Opposition but there is no leader of the Opposition as I used to remind the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, when he was on this side of the House seven months ago. There are two parties in Opposition under the rules of this House. The Government can be assured that it will be vigorously pursued on its programme, A Government of Renewal. We will hound it at every opportunity until it delivers.

It is essential that we have the right social policies designed to benefit from the fruits of the economic growth and prosperity we are currently enjoying. Latest ESRI forecasts predict our growth rates will be sustained and even improved upon. As a Government, we are determined that our sound economic policies will be maintained and those who depend on social welfare will also share in the fruits of our success.

The amount shown for my Department in the Revised Estimates of Expenditure for 1995 does not do justice to the overall level of social welfare spending in Ireland today. Total social welfare spending this year is estimated at around £4 billion, exclusive of the £200 million being provided to cover the cost of equal treatment payments. Of that £4 billion, the Exchequer will contribute almost £2.3 billion and the balance will be met mainly by employers, employees and the self-employed by way of PRSI contributions.

We now spend almost £11 million every day of the year on social welfare, or £77 million each week. In doing so, we provide a weekly payment to around 800,000 persons which, in turn, benefits almost 1.5 million persons when adult and child dependants are taken into account. This includes: £2.9 million a day in payments to elderly and retired people; £2.9 million a day in payments to unemployed people; £1.2 million a day to the sick and disabled and £3.4 million a day on family income support including widows, widowers, lone parents, carers, child benefit and families at work on low pay and other miscellaneous allowances.

The scale of social welfare spending which I have described gives a useful opportunity to reflect a little on the scale and activities of the Department of Social Welfare today.

When it was established in 1947 — and I mention this is the context of its forthcoming 50th anniversary — the main task of the Department of Social Welfare was to co-ordinate under one agency the fairly rudimentary social insurance and assistance schemes then in operation. The Department developed in piecemeal fashion in the 1950s and 1960s when its impetus stemmed from the welfare state policies of developed and developing countries. Major development occurred in the 1970s with the introduction of many new schemes and services which reflected the changing nature of Irish society.

The 1980s saw further change which marked a significant departure from a role based almost exclusively on income maintenance. This no doubt was an effort to meet the growing complexity and diversity of Irish society with a particular emphasis on equal treatment and equality of opportunity for all its citizens.

Special schemes for the unemployed, second-chance education and community sector supports were all initiatives outside the mainstream social welfare activities which focused on the holistic development of citizens rather than just income maintenance in a time of need.

Today, the Department is the biggest spender of all Departments and one of the largest employers in the country. Total spending this year will be £4.2 billion, over £11 million each day. That accounts for 35 per cent of all Government spending and around 13 per cent of GNP. Total staff in the Department is now around 4,400. A total of around 50 million payments are issued each year. The total number of beneficiaries is now over 1.5 million, comprising 800,000 recipients and their 700,000 dependants.

This year the Government has provided an additional £212 million in a full year for social welfare improvements announced in the budget. This is the largest single allocation of resources for budget improvements in the history of the State. Furthermore, it is 35 per cent higher than last year's allocation.

That allocation has enabled: the payment of increases in weekly rates of payment, six weeks earlier than normal; a 35 per cent increase in child benefit — the biggest ever; significant PRSI reliefs for both employees and employers, which will help to stimulate business, create more jobs and ensure the low paid have more take-home pay; the introduction of a new adoptive benefit scheme and the extension of the carer's allowance to those on occupational pensions.

In addition, we have provided an extra £3 million to bring financial support for voluntary and community activity this year up to £10 million; provided an extra £1 million for improvements to the students summer jobs scheme which is proving to be a tremendous success this year; made further improvements to the back-to-work allowance; taken over responsibility for the National Social Service Board from the Department of Health and allocated an additional £250,000 to develop integrated citizens' information systems; provided £200 million this year to resolve the long-standing issue of equal treatment arrears and introduced legislation providing for changes to the social welfare code so as to ensure that no person will be disadvantaged in terms of his or her social welfare entitlements as a result of his or her spouse's legal status being changed from married, separated or deserted to divorced.

The 2.5 per cent general increase of those on social welfare is in line generally with current inflation levels. It is also in line with the official forecasts for inflation made by the Department of Finance and the Central Bank. Furthermore, the increase is consistent with the 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent increase which most workers are getting this year under the pay agreement of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.

For families with children, the total increase in family income is greater than 2.5 per cent because of the unprecedented £7 per child per month increase in child benefit. In the case of most other families and individuals, the increase is greater than 2.5 per cent when account is taken of tax and PRSI improvements, changes in some of the free schemes and allowances for groups such as carers and pensioners and the substantial increase payable in the minimum rate of unemployment assistance payable to certain young people. Many of these apparently minor improvements were missed by budget commentators who focused extensively on the general increase rather than particular improvements targeted at those in greatest need.

Another important point that appears to have been missed by virtually all commentators is that by bringing forward the 2.5 per cent increase to the middle of June rather than the end of July, six weeks earlier, social welfare recipients will get more money this year than they would have got if a 3 per cent increase had been paid in July. It is the intention of this Government to give the benefit of the increases at an even earlier stage next year so that social welfare recipients will be on a par with taxpayers as far as budget changes are concerned.

Child benefit is one of the best ways of targeting poverty in Ireland because those most at risk tend to be members of large families. In the vast majority of cases child benefit is paid to women and, in many cases, it is the woman's only independent source of income. Recent studies have shown that women tend to spend more of their income on children and on general household expenses than men. Therefore, directing payments to women is more likely to benefit children. We are talking about children in mainly low and middle income families. After all, only 7 per cent of child benefit goes to families with incomes in excess of £25,000 per annum.

The substantial child benefit increase also serves to facilitate employment. Since child benefit is a universal payment which is not taxed and not withdrawn if employment is taken up, it does not act as a poverty or unemployment trap or a disincentive to work. This is a further important rationale for chanelling as much support as possible to families through that payment. It is one of the reasons the Government intends to proceed with the development of the child benefit supplement next year.

This new child benefit supplement is the foundation stone for meeting the Government's commitment to create a form of basic income for children. It will involve a major restructuring of our present system of child income support. The child benefit supplement will be payable in addition to child benefit to all families whose income is below a certain level irrespective of whether that income stems from social welfare, employment or a combination of both. It will incorporate the child dependant allowances currently paid in respect of children to social welfare recipients and the family income supplement currently paid to people on low income from employment.

The Government has come under strong attack from the Opposition benches over the general increases of 2.5 per cent in weekly payments provided for in the budget. Much of that comment was ill-informed and mischievous and was pursued for reasons of political expediency. It lost sight of the fact that an attempt is being made to capitalise on the most vulnerable group in our society for political purposes. Opposition parties should be careful not to proceed down that road. They appear to call for increased payments but also for increased cuts. It is difficult to understand how the Opposition envisages that formula will work, but I am sure they will elucidate further on that in time. The ongoing campaign to vilify the Government over the general increase of 2.5 per cent in weekly social welfare payments will not succeed.

It is time to put that criticism to rest by considering a number of concrete examples which show the impact of budget improvements as a whole.

A husband and wife with five children on long term unemployment assistance will be already receiving a new weekly payment of £200.62, including the child benefit increase. This weekly increase of £10.48 represents a 5.5 per cent increase which is more than double the general increase of 2.5 per cent. If one of their children is 21 years of age and still in full time education, the family could benefit from a further £13.20 a week by way of the continuation of the child dependant allowance up to age 22. Similarly, if one of the children is 18 years of age, child benefit of either £27 of £32 a month will be payable for them from September until they reach 19 years of age.

A couple with three children on either disability benefit or unemployment benefit are now getting an extra £7.25 a week when account is taken of the child benefit increase. That is a 4.8 per cent increase on their current payment. In addition, as set out in the example given, this family could also benefit from the continuation of child dependant allowances up to age 22 and additional child benefit up to age 19.

From next September families in receipt of child benefit will get one of the biggest increases ever in the history of the State. The monthly payment for each child is being increased by £7, giving a new monthly rate for the first two children of £27 each, an increase of 35 per cent. The new monthly rate for the third and subsequent children will be £32 each which is an increase of 28 per cent.

There are significant improvements for those beneficiaries without children also. For example, the minimum payment for a young person on unemployment assistance whose only means are assessed on the basis of parental income, has been increased from £10 to £25, an increase of 150 per cent.

A pensioner getting a contributory old age or retirement pension with a spouse under 66 years of age and additional income of £8 a week is now getting an 8.3 per cent increase to bring their new weekly payment to £125.90. This increase includes the fuel allowance of £5 a week. They will also get the benefit of a free colour television licence.

There are significant improvements also in the carer's allowance which is being extended to those caring for nonsocial welfare pensioners aged 66 or over. This will bring 1,000 new carers into the scheme, at a cost of £3 million in a full year. The means test for the allowance is also being improved. The earnings disregard of £100 a week in respect of working spouses is being increased to £150 a week, an increase of 50 per cent. The new earnings disregard will apply not only to earnings from work but to all types of income such as pensions.

The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is being increased by 14 per cent for each primary school child and 10 per cent for each secondary school child from next summer. Students participating in the students' summer jobs scheme this year will receive a total payment of £600 this year compared to £540 last year, an increase of 11 per cent.

There is an increase of £3 million — which represents a 43 per cent increase in the amount to be provided this year for voluntary and community activity and to help disadvantaged communities improve the quality of their lives. An increase of 25 per cent is being provided this year in the funding provided to the Combat Poverty Agency.

In the implementation of equal treatment payments, a major achievement this year to date has been the initiative taken by this Government to resolve the long standing injustice concerning the non-payment of arrears due to 70,000 women under the 1979 Equal Treatment Directive.

The payment of the arrears due will consist of increases for adult and child dependants and unemployment assistance. They will also receive the transitional payments as provided for in the recent High Court decision. In addition, compensation will be payable based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index from the date of entitlement in December 1984 to the date on which the payments are made. All of the married women involved will receive payments on account by next month.

The total cost of these arrangements are estimated at some £260 million of which up to £200 million will be paid by the end of this year. The remaining payments, estimated at £60 million, will be paid from January 1996 onwards over as short a period as possible.

I regard the work of the expert group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems for which I have responsibility as Minister of State as very important. I readily accept the complexity of this subject and I value very much the work already done by the group in this area. There is a commitment in the programme, A Government of Renewal, to publish the working group's report this year and I understand the group hopes to report in good time to meet that commitment. I look forward very much to its report.

The programme, A Government of Renewal, contains an important commitment to the development of community information. Under the programme we will overhaul the facilities available for community information by building on the network already in place in both the voluntary and statutory sectors. This process will be undertaken in consultation with the National Social Service Board and the Director of Consumer Affairs.

My Department has a close working relationship with the National Social Service Board, mainly through contact at local level in the dissemination of social welfare information. We have a highly developed information service which operates through 59 information officers attached to social welfare local offices around the country. The National Social Service Board operates through 83 citizens information centres. In addition, some 50 per cent of all inquiries to citizens information centres relate to social welfare matters.

The Government has already decided that the commitment in A Government of Renewal would be best served by responsibility for the National Social Service Board being transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Welfare. That process has been completed since 1 June 1995.

It should be noted that the change of departmental responsibility will not affect the statutory role of the National Social Service Board which will continue to carry out its functions in accordance with its parent legislation. The board will operate at arm's length from my Department and will be able to develop its services through the provision of additional resources.

The provision of additional funds is central to our plans for the proper development of community information. In the budget earlier this year, a sum of £250,000 was provided to develop computer-based integrated social services information and to improve the value and accessibility of that information. The focus of this initiative will be the computerisation of the system of information files administered by the National Social Service Board which is available to all citizens information centres and a wide range of non-governmental information providers. The objective is to ensure a more co-ordinated approach to the needs of the community while at the same time making the best use of the benefits of modern information technology.

The objectives of a good and effective information-giving service must be simplicity, accessibility and impartiality. Every citizen has a right to that type of service whether from a statutory agency or otherwise. We are committed to that level of service in our programme, A Government of Renewal, and have taken the first steps with the National Social Service Board coming under the aegis of my Department.

Ireland's social welfare system is among the most modern and progressive in the world today. It has a wide range of income maintenance and support mechanisms to cover a variety of circumstances. Few will disagree that the system operates well for the benefit of our citizens. However, the development of a social welfare system must always involve an ongoing review and evaluation of its effectiveness in meeting the challenges of our diverse society, particularly where financial constraints dictate that the limited resources must be targeted towards areas of greatest need.

Social welfare expenditure will be significantly increased this year and we have taken a fair and balanced approach to the distribution of these funds for 1995. The progress we have made so far this year is further evidence of our concern for those most in need.

I sincerely thank the staff of the Department for their continuing good work in the delivery of social welfare services. We have about 4,400 people working all over the country, many of whom are front line staff dealing directly with our customers. They have shown great flexibility in the light of the ever-changing nature of our schemes and services. I look forward to their continued support and commitment in the future.

Miss de Valera

With respect to the two Ministers of State in the House, the Government is remiss in not ensuring that a Cabinet Member is present for such an important debate. On the last occasion Fine Gael was in Government the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, did not come into the House for a similar debate. He later apologised and stated it would not happen again but, unfortunately, yet again a Fine Gael Taoiseach is absent for an important debate. I hope he apologises for demonstrating such scorn to the House. As we represent the public, this is an insult not only to Members but to them.

Mr. Durkan

This is a discussion on the Estimates.

Miss de Valera

I hope the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and other Members of the Cabinet apologise for their absence.

The Government is held together by the glue of hyprocrisy. The events surrounding the Office of the Attorney General in May and, before that, the handling of the matter involving the former Minister for Defence and the Marine, surprised even the most cynical of the electorate. The rabbits retreated to their burrows in the face of events which would have brought them scampering to the plinth outside this House a few months earlier to talk to the television cameras.

There now appears to be a dual code of ethics in politics, one for the Government parties and another for Fianna Fáil, which led the Irish Independent— a paper we all agree does not generally demonstrate enthusiastic support for my party — to comment in an editorial on 27 May regarding the Attorney General affair:

Two of the most disturbing aspects of this fiasco have been indulgence in hair-splitting and what amounts to double standards. Fianna Fáil are presumed guilty until proved innocent, Fine Gael innocent until proved guilty.

All Members of the House remember only too well the Taoiseach in November last, in a fit of moral indignation, accusing the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, of engaging in what he, Deputy Bruton, engaged six months later. Obviously the Fine Gael Leader has brought into Government a set of moral goalposts he moves with the help of the Labour Party whenever circumstances require. It used be said that Labour wrestled with its conscience and always won; those were the days when the Labour Party at least had a conscience. Of course, the Taoiseach and his party do not care any longer; safely ensconced in Government Buildings, Fine Gael Ministers have abdicated all responsibility for our economy. They sit back watching their new left wing colleagues go mad with taxpayers' money, spending all around them, with little regard for the consequences.

Fianna Fáil handed over a sound economy to the Government as our public finances were well managed and the current budget surplus last year was the first in almost three decades. Our growth rate in 1994, of 7.4 per cent, was the second highest in 26 years, the average inflation rate was maintained at 2.4 per cent and interest rates at the very low level of 6.25 per cent while employment grew by approximately 35,000. Much of the credit for those policies which achieved such good results rests with my party Leader, then Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern.

Our performance this year will not be as good, our growth rate will be lower although our economy will benefit from the favourable carry-over effects of last year. Inflation is forecast to reach 3.6 per cent, interest rates have been increased twice, with further increases predicted, unemployment will be higher than expected and our public finances grossly mismanaged.

On Tuesday last the half yearly Exchequer returns were published by the Government, they appear good but, because of promises already made, there is no doubt that expenditure will increase sharply over the remainder of the year. Last month the Minister for Finance spoke at considerable length about his planned corrective measures, yet no action was taken and the situation has been allowed to drift dangerously. Successive Cabinet meetings failing to agree the package of cuts he proposed, required to prevent State spending getting completely out of hand, is further evidence of the lack of leadership required to get things done. By now, surely the Government should be well aware that overspending in good times brings only severe pain when the economic cycle changes. Of course, only tight control on spending can result in requisite tax reductions.

Even if the Minister for Finance succeeds in having his package of cuts approved in full, he will be hard-pressed to meet his aim of a 2 per cent rise in public spending in 1996. Already he has a bill of £125 million on the carry-over costs of this year's social welfare increases, in addition to which public sector pay will rise by another — approximately — £175 million, as well as hepatitis C reimbursement funds amounting to £70 million, while unemployment is not falling as fast as we would like. Interest rates are also rising, thus adding to the cost of servicing the national debt, leading to a weakening in consumer confidence. In such circumstances it will be almost impossible for the Government to meet its target of a 2 per cent rise in public spending in 1996. Unless drastic measures are taken now to curb such spending, the only action that will also reassure the financial markets. Foreign investors gave their verdict on the Government's fiscal policies earlier this year when there were capital outflows of an estimated £1.6 billion. The simple fact is that the markets do not trust Governments with a left bias and, correctly, fear the worst when it comes to public spending. Therefore, the Minister for Finance and his Cabinet colleagues must persuade foreign investors and the markets that they are prepared to adopt the successful policies of my party. They should remember that my party handed them a sound economy which they should restore to its former healthy state.

Earlier in this debate there were references not only by my party leader but by others heckling from the Government benches to the handling of the peace process. All Members should act responsibly and not allow the type of approach we witnessed this morning by some Ministers of State — who made personal attacks on the Opposition and lowered the tone of this debate. It should be remembered that the Opposition in any democracy has an obligation to its electorate to ensure that the Government is kept on the right track. Therefore, when the peace process encounters difficulty it is the obligation of parties in Opposition to point out that fact and to remind the Government of its responsibilities in that respect.

Surely the Government does not have to be reminded of the seriousness of this overall matter. We are all aware of the sensitive, precarious state into which the peace process could fall if talks do not go ahead soon. To keep the peace process on track, we need to ensure movement on those talks, to ensure, in turn, that everybody is given an opportunity to sit around the table to discuss a genuine resolution which will bring about lasting peace on this island. In addition, we should all be aware that the release of Private Lee Clegg has caused enormous hurt and frustration among the Nationalist and Loyalist communities alike. Prisoners, Nationalists and Loyalists, want to see movement on their case straightaway but it is my firm belief there will be no such move unless the Government takes its courage in its hands and submits firm proposals to its British counterpart; the certainty that such talks will take place — and their results — is dependent on our Government.

It is disingenuous of the Government to endeavour to cover up for its mismanagement and embarrassment by engaging in the type of heckling we heard by its Members, saying that we are attempting to make a political football of the peace process. Let it be remembered that there would not have been a peace process if it had not been for the leadership of Fianna Fáil; that surely means that we, above all, wish to see that process continue and brought to successful fruition.

I might now refer to my area of responsibility as spokesperson for my party on Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. It appears that the Minister, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, has become the Minister for boards rather than for bards, having appointed many people to various State or semi-State agencies, known only for their political affiliation with them rather than for any particular expertise and/or knowledge. Could the House imagine the hullabaloo if a Fianna Fáil Government had appointed the RTE Authority announced last month, with a new Chairman who had spent the preceding few months helping the Minister, contributing to the ideological diatribe contained in the so-called Green Paper on Broadcasting? Indeed, what would the newspaper columnists and the parties now in Government have said if a Fianna Fáil Minister had appointed, say, former Taoisigh, Jack Lynch, Charles J. Haughey or Albert Reynolds a member of the RTE Authority and, for good measure, had thrown in a failed MEP candidate? In his Green Paper on Broadcasting the Minister proposes the new super authority which will supervise RTE and the Independent Radio and Television Commission without giving cogent reasons. Therefore, one must assume he had some political purpose in doing so. Could that reason be to influence broadcasting even further through the appointment of certain individuals to this new board?

The legislative record of the Minister, Deputy Higgins, is appalling. Three items of legislation are promised under the programme for Government but not one of those has been brought before the House. The only Bill dealt with by the Minister of State this year was the Heritage Council Bill, initiated by the last Government.

How will the mini budget of the Minister for Finance impact on the Minister's Department, given that the arts plan is already £3 million short for the year? How can this be implemented? Does he have proposals to deal with it or can we expect a new diluted arts plan? Some time ago we were told by the Minister, Deputy Higgins, that he planned to have detailed discussions with the Minister for Finance about the long term financing of the arts. Did those discussions take place and, if so, what was the response given to the Minister by his Labour colleague in Finance? It is interesting that we have not heard a word from the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht about this matter since he made his original statement.

I could raise many issues in this debate but I do not wish to take up the time of the House as my colleague, Deputy McCreevy, wishes to contribute also.

Mr. McCreevy

I wish to make some brief comments on the Estimates for 1995. The publication of the Estimates in January is the first of a series of events. Following their publication we have the budget, some adjustments are made to the Estimates and finally the revised Book of Estimates is published in May or June. On occasion, the Government is required to introduce supplementary Estimates.

In publishing Estimates for any year, a Government should have regard to what it realistically expects to spend in that particular year. I made the point in January that the Estimates did not take account of a number of areas of expenditure of which the Government was aware. I understood the political reasons for publishing a Book of Estimates at that stage — it was said the Estimates would be less than 4 per cent of the outturn for the previous year — but it is unwise to publish Estimates which have to be changed some months later. I am sure previous Governments used that technique but it does not fool anybody. It may be intended to fool the public or perhaps Members of this House, but it will not fool the men and women working in the financial services sector who know what is going on.

I recently advised the Minister for Finance that there is little point in calling journalists in the middle of the night in the hope of headlines to the effect that spending is under control and the big boom is on the way if they do not do anything about it. The people who know the real figures and who are involved in the decision-making know that is not the case. One may spend a lot of time putting a political spin on a story but the financial markets, politicians and the public have become so sophisticated that such a practice is simply a waste of time.

The mid-term Exchequer returns were published recently and, at first glance, appear to be fine. They contain, however, some worrying features. The Government decided not to include a provision for Christmas bonuses in the original Estimates for 1995. That is not unusual. Governments do not make provision for Christmas bonuses at the beginning of a year although they know they must be paid. Given that the figure for total social welfare expenditure was based on a projected annual live register figure which turned out to be much lower — the Minister for Finance referred to this in his budget speech — there will not be sufficient consequential savings in the Department of Social Welfare to allow for the payment of Christmas bonuses. It is hoped that the money received from PRSI will overshoot the projected figure and that that money will be used to make up the shortfall arising from the underestimation of the live register figure. The Department of Social Welfare will have to bring forward a supplementary Estimate to make up for one or the other.

Another worrying feature of the mid-term Exchequer returns is the sluggishness in corporation tax receipts. Various reasons have been put forward for this but I believe that figure will undershoot the projection for 1995. Another feature which concerns me relates to EU Exchequer receipts. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation. I am not saying the Minister for Finance did this deliberately or was advised to do so in the Department of Finance but, for some reason, a figure in excess of £100 million, due to be received from the EU by 31 December 1994, was not received until 1995. If it had been received in 1994, there would have been a larger current budget surplus. Perhaps the receipts were delayed in order to make the figures look better for 1995. I received this information from the Minister by way of parliamentary question in January or February last. It is amazing, therefore, that the EU receipts seem to be running somewhat behind target given that £130 million, attributable to receipts for 1994, must have been received in 1995. Perhaps there is some other explanation for this but it is an area of the Exchequer returns which baffles me somewhat.

For many years I have spoken about the dangers of running current budget deficits. The main mistake the Government made in its economic policy to date was its lack of a plan for a current budget deficit in 1995. Given that the economic predictions were favourable and that it took 27 years to achieve a balanced current budget, any sensible Administration, having broken that particular threshold, would be unwise to go down that road again. I have referred to this many times both inside and outside this House. When the economy is booming it is foolish for a Government not to make provision for when times are not so good. This Government will have severe difficulty in meeting its expenditure targets in 1996.

There has been much confusion in the recent past about official Government statistics, a problem that has plagued successive Governments. In the past few weeks, the Central Statistics Office has revised its growth figures for the past few years. I suggest to the Minister for Finance, and to the Taoiseach's Department with responsibility for the CSO, that there might be a case for having two sets of growth figures, one reflecting the real economy and another which would include the multinationals.

Recently there were further revisions to the figures for the past few years. I am not saying anything incorrect is being done. It is probable that international practice is followed. However, it has been pointed out by an eminent academic in this city, who has been proved correct, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the national income and growth figures when the CSO has to revise the growth figures relating to years for which they have already given figures. There cannot be great reliance on those figures. My experience is that such problems arise because of the treatment of the multinationals.

Regarding the peace process, if politicians and Government Ministers in the last Administration had taken the line that we could make no progress if people did not take the big jump, nothing would have happened. I hope this Administration will not allow the phrase "the decommissioning of arms" to become the new mantra which will stop progress. I wish the Government success in that area.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Higgins)

Despite the relatively unfavourable international environment, the Irish economy has recently performed well and this Government will ensure that this trend continues. For example, real GDP growth in Ireland has been the highest in the European Union in recent years and the economy will grow by more than 6 per cent this year. This compares with an annual average of only 2 per cent for the EU as a whole. Our GNP growth has been equally impressive, averaging 5 per cent annually. This growth performance has been underpinned by solid fundamentals in relation to the public finances, inflation and our external balance. Since the late 1980s when the national debt-GDP ratio was about 116 per cent, we have improved to the point where this year's ratio will be close to 85 per cent. In A Government of Renewal this Government has made clear its commitment to continuing to meet the debt and deficit criteria specified in the Treaty on European Union.

Recent economic indicators show that strong growth in output and employment, with low inflation and a strong external balance will characterise Ireland's economic performance in 1995. Continued moderation in domestic pay settlements will maintain, or even improve, Ireland's competitiveness. The outlook for Ireland's exporting firms is healthy.

Domestic demand is expected to grow strongly this year. The combined effect of the changes in tax and pay-related social insurance contributions introduced in this year's progressive and imaginative budget have led to significant increases in real incomes this year. This increase in disposable income, allied to strong recovery of consumer confidence, will support a strong increase in consumer spending. Furthermore, the combination of continuing wage moderation and an exchange rate policy oriented towards price stability will mean that the level of inflation will remain at the moderate level of 2.5 per cent forecast in the budget.

I listened to Deputy Ahern earlier and also to Deputies Síle de Valera and McCreevy who repeated what he said. Deputy Ahern today reiterated some of the gross inaccuracies of today's tabloid treatment of economics in the Star. He referred to the need to continue meeting European Monetary Union criteria and to the decline in Structural Funds post-1999. What the Leader of Fianna Fáil did not say is that this Government is the first to set itself expenditure and borrowing targets necessary to meet these objectives. Up to now we have had guestimates, estimates and a certain amount of hoping that the figures will pan out. On this occasion we have a Government that has set down in clear detail precise expenditure and borrowing targets. For all their professed interest in the economy, Deputy Ahern and his party never indicated an interest in setting such precise targets. It is worth recalling in the context of what Deputies Harney and McDowell have been saying at the Progressive Democrat party conference and elsewhere that the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government presided over the highest levels of growth in spending in the past decade. It is worth noting in particular that in 1991-92 Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats allowed public expenditure to grow by 10 per cent annually.

In the interests of accuracy and comprehensiveness, I will address the points raised by Deputy Ahern in today's tabloid newspaper article. Deputy Ahern's first allegation is that the country is back in the red. It is obvious that Deputy Ahern did not read the half-yearly returns which clearly show that the current economic position is on target. Deputy McCreevy said the EU receipts were somewhat delayed, in other words, they would have had a bigger budget surplus had the EU Exchequer returns arrived on time. What Deputies McCreevy and Ahern conveniently forgot to say is that the 1994 position benefited substantially from the tax amnesty and other once off gains amounting to almost £300 million which again distorted the 1994 figure. Another allegation was that inflation would be at 2.8 per cent, but Deputy Ahern ignored the fact that the core inflation rate forecast by independent expert commentators for 1995 is 2.5 per cent which, if it pans out — the indications are that it will — will be 5 per cent down on the 1994 figure of 3 per cent. I pay tribute to previous Administrations for helping to chart the course of fiscal rectitude. This Government has continued on that path. It is generally acknowledged that the low inflation performance is spectacular, significant and unique in European terms.

Another allegation made by Deputy Ahern is that interest rates have risen. Although Deputy Ahern might wish otherwise, we have a small open economy whose interest rates are affected by external factors. We have avoided rate increases which have prevailed in other countries. Our interest rates are low by international standards and by comparison with our peers in the EU, and all the indications are that they will remain so.

Deputy Ahern also alleged that outflows in the first quarter realised £1.5 billion. In making such a statement Deputy Ahern again displayed a frightening lack of understanding of the external reserves position. It is obvious that his statements are made on the basis of state information or misguided prejudice. Had Deputy Ahern bothered to read the monthly statistics from the Central Bank published and released yesterday, he would know that external reserves have risen by almost £400 million since December 1994.

I was a teacher and if I were still in that profession I would award Deputy Ahern a low grade. Economic and monetary union offers many advantages for both Ireland and the EU. It will ensure the completion of the internal market and eliminate transaction costs and exchange rate risks for trade, tourism and investment among participating member states. It should also ensure low and reasonably uniform interest rates among them. These potential benefits are of major significance for a small open economy like ours and the Government will continue to wholeheartedly support the goal of economic and monetary union. In order to do this it will be necessary for Ireland to meet the convergence criteria set out in the Treaty on European Union.

In the programme, A Government of Renewal, the Government set itself a demanding task, namely, to constrain the growth of current supply services to a maximum of 6 per cent in nominal terms in 1995 and to an annual rate of 2 per cent in real terms over the following two years of the programme. This tight spending limit is the cornerstone of the Government's policy on public finances. The recent prompt and decisive action of the Minister for Finance is evidence of our unwavering commitment to this objective. The Government intends, through prudent management of the public finances and the economy generally, to ensure that Ireland will be ready to participate in economic and monetary union whenever it comes about.

We are one of three EU members who are on target for economic and monetary union. We hope other countries will meet the criteria so that the 1999 deadline will be met. Although the economy is performing well there remains one outstanding problem — unemployment. However, we do not regard this problem as uniquely intractable. Effective action continues to be taken to deal with it and is showing results. A strong increase in employment is expected this year as the economy continues to expand. Total employment is expected to grow by 2.5 per cent, with the services sector providing the bulk of these jobs.

Continued progress in structural and tax reform is vital to make the economy more efficient in translating economic growth into accelerated employment growth. Measures already taken, or those that the Government is committed to take such as tax reform and reform of the system of public service pay determination, are set to play a significant role in improving the environment for jobs. The high priority afforded in the national development plan to investment in the development of skills through educating and training the long term unemployed is fundamental to making the labour market more competitive and tackling one of the root causes of long term unemployment. The tax and social welfare changes in the 1995 budget were focused specifically on the need to reward work and promote enterprise.

The prospect of peace and political stability will greatly enhance the climate for investment and offers an opportunity to reap the benefits of greater economic linkages and co-operation between the two parts of Ireland. While the impact of peace and stability on output and employment will be positive and significant, it is difficult to measure the economic damage to the island as a whole that has been caused by 25 years of conflict and violence. The new image of peace and stability has already been of special benefit to tourism and will add to the general perception of Ireland as a stable location for investment. Overall the Government anticipates substantial economic gains for both parts of the island derived partly from peace and partly from increased co-operation.

The past few years have seen the successful introduction of many changes in the Defence Forces. Representation for military personnel and the many changes introduced as a result of the Gleeson commission have had a major impact on the working conditions of those who serve in the Defence Forces. Computerisation is beginning to revolutionise routine administration. The Government is committed to reforming the Defence Forces to meet the challenges of the next century. The most important initiative taken in this regard occurred earlier this week when the Government announced that it had accepted the broad conclusions of the efficiency audit group and that a phased programme of reorganisation would now begin. Its objectives are to implement the major structural and administrative reforms considered essential in order to develop the Defence Forces as a modern, properly staffed and adequately equipped organisation, capable of effectively fulfilling the roles assigned to it. The Government's decision is a milestone in the evolution of the Defence Forces. The Government has set out its vision of the Defence Forces as we move into the 21st century. These changes will be a watershed in the development of the organisation.

There is widespread agreement among commentators on the need to modernise the structure and organisation of the Defence Forces. Its basic underlying framework had remained unchanged for decades. We have a structured set of reforms to modernise the Defence Forces, both in terms of organisation and skill levels, which will be introduced on a carefully planned basis in order to allow the organisation to adapt to the necessary changes. The EAG's examination has been the most comprehensive study of the Defence Forces to date.

I am concerned that a number of commentators misunderstood the objectives and thrust of the review, seeing it merely as a cost-cutting exercise. The EAG was not asked to review the Defence Forces in order to produce a programme of cut-backs and closures. The key phrases in the group's terms of reference were "efficient", "effective", "optimum" and "appropriate". The Government wants an organisation that is best suited to discharge its assigned roles efficiently and effectively. A key objective is to release more personnel for operational duties.

The first stage in this process will be the establishment of an implementation group to oversee the programme of reform. This group will prepare a fully costed implementation plan for phase 1 of the proposals which will address the more important issues, including structure, personnel and resources, and will set out the detailed action to be taken over the next three years. This plan will be presented to the Minister for Defence not later than 31 October 1995 for submission to Government. The first phase will concentrate on the internal reorganisation of the Defence Forces and on addressing the age profile. It will include a voluntary early retirement scheme which will be the subject of consultations with the representative associations.

Due to unfounded rumour and media speculation some issues have recently caused undue anxiety. An important element in the organisation of the Defence Forces is their deployment in barracks. There has been much alarmist talk about the closure of Army barracks. I reiterate that the Government has decided that no barracks will be closed as part of the three year plan. There will, however, be a study of facilities occupied by the Defence Forces in the course of the plan. In the conduct of this study, full regard will be had to the socio-economic importance of local barracks.

Price Waterhouse recommended that the number of military bands should be reduced from four to one. This proposal is not acceptable. For many years the Army School of Music and the generations of military musicians who received their training there have made an invaluable contribution to the life of the Defence Forces. Army bands have an important role on many State ceremonial occasions and make a valuable contribution to the community. They are in constant demand to give public performances at major events. For many years Army musicians maintained an admirable standard of excellence. The presence of Army bands adds a unique lustre to important national events. They have an important role in maintaining the esprit de corps of the Defence Forces. The implementation group will be asked to take cognisance of the importance of the Army bands when proceeding with its work.

Following the unauthorised publication of extracts from the Price Waterhouse report in July last year there was speculation about the Army School of Equitation. As has been made clear, there is no question of the school being closed. In the course of implementing the EAG report the focus will be on ensuring that the school has an adequate supply of first-class horses and riders. The school has a long and distinguished record in showjumping, at home and overseas. It has played a major role in promoting the non-thoroughbred Irish horse. The Minister is paying particular attention to the equitation school and addressing the question of ensuring that a continuing supply of good quality horses will be available for teams competing in the international arena. The question of how best to achieve this is being examined and one possibility is the introduction of sponsorship arrangements. I am confident that the school will continue to produce top class riders to represent Ireland. In this year's intake of cadets, two cadetships are being specifically preserved for the equitation school.

The rising age profile of military personnel has been the subject of public comment for some time and is one of a number of issues which will have to be addressed in implementing a programme of reform of the Defence Forces. A voluntary early retirement scheme will be introduced and there will be a process of consultation with the representative associations before the details are drawn up. It would be premature, therefore, to engage in speculation about them. However, it has already been made clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies.

It is appropriate and prudent that recruitment measures should be harmonised and synchronised with the reform plan, particularly in the context of the age profile problem. Thirty-five apprenticeships in the Army and Air Corps will be awarded. In addition, advertisements for the award of cadetships in the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service were placed in the national press some time ago. It is envisaged that about 35 cadetships will be awarded.

The main day-to-day role of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU. The Naval Service's efforts in this regard are complemented by assistance provided by the Air Corps. In addition to surveillance work undertaken by Dauphin helicopters working in conjunction with the LE Eithne, two new CASA aircraft have been acquired for the Air Corps for aerial maritime patrols.

I thank the Members for this opportunity to address the House. I am confident the economic thrust of Government policy is well on target and that, despite the dire predictions and grave prognostications, it will meet those targets.

Dr. Woods

I wish to share my time with Deputy Raphael Burke.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Woods

I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on aspects of the revised Estimate for the Public Services.

The Dáil needs to be empowered. The policy document a Government of Renewal contained a commitment to openness, transparency and accountability but, after six months in office, this promise is already in tatters. The Government is comprised of the most secretive, introspective and arrogant assortment of Ministers and parties that Dáil Éireann has witnessed in many years.

The Taoiseach. Deputy Bruton, has been groomed and tutored on how to avoid transmitting information at Question Time. With studied avoidance he has repeatedly refused to answer with openness the many questions put to him. Instead he has relied again and again on the old tactic of saying that the Deputy did not ask the right question. The Minister for Social Welfare introduced a further innovation by refusing to provide facts — which are in his briefing material — on Committee Stage of a Bill, which is unprecedented. He claimed that he was not ready to deal with the matter and, consequently, would not allow Deputies to have the material.

Accountability has disimproved. The Taoiseach refused to be accountable for the Attorney General or for the head of the Office of the Attorney General. Although the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, were all aware of the client relationship which the Attorney General had with Official A, none of them saw fit to inform the Dáil or the special committee of inquiry that this relationship existed. This concealment was at a crucial time and the rainbow trio have never explained satisfactorily their reason for such secretive behaviour. Was it any wonder that, with this cover-up, further serious errors were made in that office? On this occasion it was the hapless civil servant who was sacrificed. So much for accountability. The Minister for Social Welfare also shirked his responsibility for a premature leak of the budget details. The buck stops on the Minister's desk.

Central to openness, transparency and accountability is the Government's much lauded programme of Dáil reform. However, no real support has been forthcoming for Deputies or for the many extra newly formed committees. This is where the real power lies. If the Dáil is properly empowered, as envisaged in the Constitution, there will be real openness and accountability and the Dáil is where that development must take place. The rest of the Government's approach is just window dressing. The patronising approach of the Taoiseach, his handlers and Ministers is not acceptable. Oireachtas Éireann is constitutionally independent of the Executive. This is a fundamental tenet of our democracy and of the separation of powers. It should be independent — and clearly seen to be — in its operation and, to achieve that, the Oireachtas needs a proper and substantial secretariat, an adequate resource allocation and modern library and information facilities.

Government Departments have too much power and influence in Leinster House, this matter must be addressed and counterbalanced. Dáil Éireann must be responsive to the needs of a modern democratic society and geared for the 21st century by enhancing the role of Members and ensuring that the Dáil has real powers. I would greatly welcome such a development but could the rainbow coalition live with it? What is the reason for its reluctance? Why is it afraid of such real vigorous openness and accountability? There was another example in the House this morning of a refusal by the Taoiseach to be accountable by not agreeing to have written questions dealt with while the Dáil continues its work in July and September.

The issue of divorce appears to be on the back burner, although how far back we do not know. The Fianna Fáil parliamentary party decided to support the principle of changing the Constitution to allow for remarriage. We regarded it to be particularly important that provision is made for the protection of children and vulnerable spouses. We said we wanted to see any outstanding legislation expedited, and that our preference is to specify in the Constitution the period of separation required before remarriage.

However, we are faced with an awful silence from the Government, not a word has been heard on the referendum wording. Is there a problem between the three parties? How realistic is the Government's date of 30 November for the referendum? Is it cynically trying to restrict discussion on the referendum in Dáil Éireann? Do children feature in the Government's thinking on divorce? The Government decided that no spouse should lose as a result of the introduction of divorce but children must also be considered fully before the referendum and divorce Bill are passed. We are happy to participate in that discussion to ensure that we have the best possible referendum and divorce Bill.

The tax treatment of separated or divorced couples has not yet been resolved. If the Government does not know what to do, it is time it shared its problems in this regard with the Opposition and with the public in general. The Government has promised that people will not be worse off in terms of tax following the introduction of divorce, but it seems to be unable to spell out how exactly divorced couples will be treated by the tax system. Meanwhile the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, following his minimalist approach, in bringing forward the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill has spurned the opportunity to provide extra support for families and independence for women in the context of the possible changes envisaged.

There is an onus on the Government to be less secretive about its intentions and to indicate the possible course of events between now and 30 November. From the Taoiseach's reply to my question at the start of business today, the referendum Bill will not be published until after the summer recess, that is after 11 October.

The largest and most vulnerable group who suffer greatly from inequality are pensioners, people with disabilities, unemployed people, widows and lone parents. With one fell swoop the rainbow coalition, particularly its Democratic Left Minister, has degraded and reduced the status of these people. By increasing personal and adult dependant rates by only 2.5 per cent, the lowest in 30 years, the Minister has undermined the confidence and financial independence of these people. The mid-May increase in the CPI is 2.8 per cent, and from the speech of the Minister for Finance, he agrees with the CPI figure, not with the Minister for Social Welfare. Where has all the surplus money left by the previous Government been spent? The Minister should answer that question in the interests of transparency.

The Minister for Equality and Law Reform has introduced useful measures. The setting up of his Department was welcomed and its work is important and helpful. I question the Government's decision to undermine the independence of the Legal Aid Board in the course of making it a statutory body.

We have participated in worthy programmes of decentralisation, regional development and revival of rural areas, which have added greatly to the life and viability of the country, but we want to give our capital city back to the people, to communities, businesses, voluntary organisations and the ordinary decent people who aspire to live in peace and harmony. We must tackle the problems of unemployment and crime. We need more gardaí on the streets, a fast-track process to deal with habitual offenders in the courts, more specialised units of experienced detectives to put the drug barons out of action, an education programme on drugs and an end to the revolving door syndrome.

As a small country on the periphery of Europe we must manage our resources well, and that is where the Government is failing. The drift in expenditure control shown in the half-year Exchequer returns should be a warning to the Government. It is the first clear indication that day to day management is slipping. By playing down this drift, as the Minister for Finance did today, the Government is not helping. There was a surplus of £137 million last year compared with a deficit of £34 million this year. Any sensible manager would tackle this problem. Ignoring it will not help. After its first six months in office is this Government capable of managing the economy? The indications are not good.

I thank the staff of the House and the Ceann Comhairle for their help during the session.

Mr. R. Burke

The single crucial issue that had to be dealt with by this Government on coming to office was to build on the work of the previous Administration on the Northern Ireland issue. We spent the first session of this year pleading with the Government to stop acting as facilitator and take the role of initiator. Since the Framework Document was published last February, regretfully the Government has been sending confused signals, some from the office of the Taoiseach, some from the office of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and elsewhere on its policy on this most crucial issue of building on the peace process.

I will outline Fianna Fáil's view of what should be done. As a party we want to sustain the peace process and make it permanent. We want to move to inclusive all-party negotiations at the earliest possible opportunity and towards negotiation of an agreed political settlement along the lines set out in the Framework Document. We want to encourage closer North-South economic co-operation and integration, between the North and South as a whole, along the Dublin-Belfast corridor and along the Border, with a concentrated effort on creating employment in areas of high economic deprivation. We want to clear up the legacy of the past 25 years, the proposed release of prisoners, fundamental reform of the RUC and the replacement of emergency legislation.

Let us not be ashamed to say that our long term aim and our ideal remains a united Ireland, achieved by agreement and consent, as set out in the report of the New Ireland Forum. Unfortunately the opportunity that has been presented in terms of the peace process has not been grasped by the Taoiseach. He has shilly-shallied on how to move forward. The only precondition before 31 August last for all-party talks was the cessation of violence. Since then a series of preconditions has been set down, particularly on decommissioning. Decommissioning must be on the agenda and must be tackled, but it should not be a precondition to talks. We had ten months of peace up to the last few nights of violence in the North when millions of pounds worth of damage was done.

While we in this House have actively supported a policy of bipartisanship, we would be less than honest if we were to say we are satisfied with the progress and effort made by the Taoiseach. He must stop being the facilitator and become the initiator. For too long he has been led and delayed in action by British political expediency and the problems of internal British politics. The role of prisoners, loyalist and republican, in bringing about and maintaining the ceasefire must be taken into account and recognised. As a first step the British Government should restore the 50 per cent remission rate rather than continue with the 30 per cent rate that exists at present. Difficulties have been created by the release by the British Government of Private Clegg. In that context questions arise about British justice while other prisoners languish in jail. In an overall peace settlement the position of prisoners must be tackled.

I congratulate the Government on its release of 20 Provisional IRA prisoners since the ceasefire. That compares with the British Government's approach whereby a more strenuous, restrictive regime was adopted to releases at Christmas 1994 in the middle of the peace process than at Christmas 1993 in the middle of the conflict. It is essential that the Government has a clear mind on which direction it is going. It must speak with one voice, not reflecting divergent views between the Taoiseach's office and Iveagh House. The people will be harsh in their judgement of this Government if it allows the opportunity of the peace process to slip away. We want to see the peace process built on. My party leader and I have been in the North on a number of occasions to speak to republicans. Nationalists, Unionists and loyalists.

A White Paper will be published in the course of the summer recess but it should have been published when the Dáil was sitting to allow proper debate. Let me set down a marker for the Government here and now: this Government White Paper must build on the 60 years of progress that Fianna Fáil has made in the area of foreign affairs, from de Valera, Aiken, Lemass leading us into Europe, our first Commissioner, Paddy Hillery and the work done by the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, during the last Presidency. The question of military neutrality has to be set out clearly in the White Paper. We want an open and public debate on it when the Dáil resumes in October. The achievements of Fianna Fáil in guiding foreign policy for 60 years must be recognised and the Government must build on this. I look forward to the debate on it.

Minister for Enterprise and Employment (Mr. R. Bruton)

I disagree strongly with the Deputy's suggestion that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have not been working painstakingly and patiently to advance the peace process. There is no doubt that a great deal of work has been put into it. It is a fragile flower that has to be nurtured. It is less than fair of the Deputy to suggest that there is not the same degree of commitment and effort being put into this process. It is absolutely clear to every fair minded commentator that this is not the case. Of course, I recognise the contribution of the previous Government and I would not be in the least ungenerous to it in respect of what it has done. It is important that we maintain cross-party work in this area.

This Government is performing extremely well and is presiding over a period of good economic progress. This year, employment outside the agriculture sector will grow by 37,000. That is a very significant increase. In the past with an increase of 20,000 to 25,000 in the labour force we only produced a net increase of 1,000 or 2,000 jobs. That has been the case for many years and we have seen the constant attrition through emigration of young talented people. There has been a great sea change and we have the opportunity to provide good employment opportunities for our young people. It is quite clear that our young people are seizing the opportunities. In the first six months of this year, industrial redundancy figures are down by 21 per cent on the same period last year. Clearly there is greater confidence in the economy and we are building on that.

The Government has been very prudent in its approach to public spending. This is the first Government in my memory — perhaps Members with longer memories will correct me — that has set clear public spending targets for itself. In the past Governments have talked about borrowing targets — borrowing is the gap between spending and taxation and it is easy to meet borrowing targets if one is willing to increase taxation indefinitely. This Government, however, has set itself not only borrowing targets but targets in respect of public spending and is determined that the fruits of growth should be shared equally between providing improved services through public spending and tax relief in order to underpin good employment performance. The Government is taking prudent measures to meet the public spending targets it has set itself. The Minister for Finance is to be commended for adopting such a prudent approach, ensuring the Government makes the necessary adjustments in good time to ensure that public spending is on course and leaves room for tax reform and for the economy to continue its path of employment growth.

I indicated to Deputy O'Rourke that I would afford her a couple of minutes at the end of my time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

Today we are introducing a Supplementary Estimate for the Irish Productivity Centre. As Members will know, the Irish Productivity Centre, the IPC, is jointly owned by IBEC and the Congress of Trade Unions. It was established back in 1963. Its work predominantly is building on the notion of partnership and disseminating it in the workplace. It has provided a very valuable source of expertise on the theme of adjusting to change. A very important part of its service has been in dispute resolution and particularly in providing expert opinion that has the support of both sides of industry. It can go into a dispute and help to advise on technical matters that will help to resolve the dispute. I availed of its services in our efforts to deal with the Packard Electric dispute where clearly there were technical issues of great importance that needed the services of outside advisers to assist in bringing things to a satisfactory conclusion. Last year the centre received a grant-in-aid of just under £500,000. Pending the development of the business plan to make the centre fully commercial and financially independent over a period of years an initial provision of £330,000 is made in the Estimates. The business plan to make the IPC financially independent has now been finalised. It already raises a substantial part of its funding through fees and it plans to restructure its workload to achieve financial independence in the short term. It will require additional moneys and the moneys made available today will enable it to discharge accumulated debts and continue its operations on a sound financial basis. These funds are required urgently in order to implement the plan and to avoid a possible closure of the centre. I am providing for these funds to be sourced from savings of £299,000 from subhead D.2, the loan subsidy for the small businesses expansion scheme, without in any way curtailing that scheme, and £1,000 from the Supplementary Estimate before the House today.

The House will be aware of the important element of the work that the Irish Productivity Centre has been involved in linked to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. This includes acting as a national participating agency where they have been closely monitoring employee involvement in both the public and private sectors and providing reports to the Central Review Committee. It has also been pioneering partnership initiative at enterprise level.

It is participating strongly in the new unit in the Department dealing with new forms of work organisation and it will be one of the leading consultants in an EU funded project under the title "New Work Organisation in Ireland".

There is a sea change in industry throughout the world. We are moving from high volume to high value forms of production and are moving away from the old structures of control with repetitive tasks, hierarchy, supervision, long conveyor belts and mass production. Companies and their work-forces must adjust to the need to be innovative, produce differentiated products which are customised to the needs of people, meet very high quality standards, cut down stockholding by "just in time" methods and move away from demarcation of tasks to multi-skilling. These changes pose huge challenges and the Irish Productivity Centre, among others, will play an important part in helping both sides of industry to respond to these. We are facing global competition and we must meet world class manufacturing standards and produce high quality products.

I am very pleased that one of the bodies leading the debate about change is the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which has published a document entitled "Managing Change". We have moved away from where industrial relations were introverted and concerned with demarcation, dispute settlement and grievances to where industrial relations is increasingly about teamwork, sharing information and responding to shared challenges. It is important to develop this area and I am glad the IPC will play a role in this regard.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I welcome the Estimate for the IPC which will ensure the necessary funding to make a change in the "stop-go" arrangement which was at the root of its problems for many years. The centre's business plan has been deposited with the Minister and this funding will ensure that it will be able to work to a structure and raise fees in a more intensive way.

The Irish Productivity Centre was way ahead of its time when it was set up in 1963. At that stage disputes led to major confrontation and the IPC was given the task of working in partnership, which was unheard of 32 years ago. My father used the fledgling IPC to solve industrial difficulties which arose in his textile firm. The way the centre has structured its work is very much in keeping with the way industrial relations, community relations, partnership programmes etc. have been developed between the Government and the social partners. I am pleased that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment is taking the social partnership seriously — it took a while for his older brother to do so. The fabric of industrial life will be all the better for this.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions' conference was held in Tralee this week and on the radio the new ways of working, dealing with strikes etc. Were referred to. If people want to take up part-time or casual employment that is fine, but there must be some structures whereby they can be given training and motivation.

I commend the Estimate to the House and I look forward to working with the IPC. The title of Irish Productivity Centre has an old fashioned ring to it and perhaps consideration could be given to changing it. This modern organisation with modern ideas of which it can be proud should consider a more modern title.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Quinn)

I reject Deputy Harney's assertion that we were not being factually correct in the presentation of the figures of public expenditure or the increase for the gross current supply services in 1995. At all times, we have clearly published the figures and the basis on which they have been calculated. The efforts by the Progressive Democrats to suggest that public expenditure is somewhat out of control and that this centre left administration has lost the run of itself compare very badly with the apparent lack of control in terms of public expenditure during the period 1990-92 when the Progressive Democrats were in Government. I do not want to score political points but I had to reply to that point made by Deputy Harney.

The provisions in the Book of Estimates for 1995 and the outturn at the mid-year point for receipts from Exchequer returns and other components which go to make up the public finances clearly indicate that we are on course to meet the objectives we set ourselves and the obligations which will fall from those. In other words, the arrangements and the management of the public finances are on course to do precisely what they were meant to do. People can take comfort from that.

I pay tribute to the social partnership and the way in which in various national agreements since the Programme for National Recovery — I have supported all of them — it has enabled a climate of consensus, conciliation and dialogue to prevail within which very difficult issues, some of which were painful, have been addressed and in most cases satisfactorily resolved. In this context I refer to the unique contribution the former President of the ICTU, Phil Flynn, made to that process during the past two years. It may well be that his closing remarks and his contributions to the conference in Kerry this week will be as enduring as was his contribution during his term of office. He and his General Secretary, Peter Cassells, and all the associated members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, have identified not only the necessity to embrace change but the absolute imperative for working people, in all aspects of life, to determine that agenda and to ensure that human values and concerns are uppermost on the agenda when change is being negotiated and implemented.

The House will at 3 o'clock approve the Estimates for expenditure of millions of pounds of taxpayer's money on a whole array of activities to deliver services and commodities to our citizens. It is a vast sum of money which will be spent responsibly and in a manner that is accountable by both civil and public servants. Those who deliver and receive those services will have to ensure that the agenda of change, so clearly staked out on the ground in Kerry by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, is embraced in full by the public sector and Civil Service unions.

There are demands for improved services at all levels in society, in the health care area, in education, applied services in the fields of agriculture, the environment and culture. There is an endless list of areas where we have to do more and do it better. We have come to the point where doing more and doing it better means doing it with the same amount of resources. This unique lesson which the Irish Congress of Trade Unions prescribed in Kerry will have to be taken on board.

I commend the leadership of senior officials in the Civil Service and the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who launched the strategic management initiative, which is designed exclusively to address the matter to which I have referred and to ensure it is implemented in a way that is shared in terms of ownership by all the participants who will be affected by it and all the political parties who have the honour to be represented here. We will not be able to do the things we want or need to do on behalf of our diverse constituencies unless the efficiency and the productivity of which the people are innately capable, and which they have demonstrated in other sectors, are transferred and translated into the broad public service. Many people in the public service who have given their lives working on behalf of others must realise this is an opportunity which creates great possibilities in a positive sense for them as individuals. In many cases the working environments with which they have to contend are antiquated, the procedures they have to observe by the letter of the law are ludicrously outdated and the reporting relationships — which are based on a structure of societal hierarchy and owe more to the Victorian age than to the age in which we live — treat many well qualified adults like children. All those things have frustrated people who work in the public service and, ultimately, turned them into, at best, passive and, at worst, cynical participants in the system.

As a young man I worked for over two and a half years as a junior architect in the housing architects' department of Dublin Corporation. I reject out of hand the trite criticism many people in the private sector make of those working in the public service. Frequently, those people have never worked in the public service and do not understand the sense of frustration felt by people working in it. They simply want to do their own job better and in a more satisfactory and fulfilling way, not for themselves but for the people for whom the services are designed.

It is appropriate in discussing the Estimates and the vast amount of money that will go into many different aspects of society that we look at questions which we ignore at our peril. How do we get value for money? How do we unlock the potential of adults working in the public service in 1995 and not in 1905? If one looks at some of the terminology, rules and regulations and attitudes one would think we were closer to the beginning than to the end of the century.

We will be coming back in the autumn with a reform package based on the programme, A Government of Renewal, setting out how, among other things, we intend to revise and amend the fundamental administrative legislation known as the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. We will be making suggestions and proposals for reform in a number of areas. In the presence of the Chief Whip of the main Opposition party, Deputy Dermot Ahern, I hope we will be able, once those proposals are put on the table, to ensure they are discussed comprehensively at the appropriate Oireachtas committee. Every Member who aspires to deliver public service as a member of Government or as a Minister of State has a vested interest in ensuring we have the best possible system of administration that will take us comfortably and efficiently into the next century. The Estimates we will vote on are the financial foundation upon which so much depends: the enthusiasm of the teacher, the dedication of the nurse, the creativity of the cultural worker and so on. All these bring together that wonderful array of people who work in the extended public service and who deliver the State's services to us. The delivery of those services is not harnessing all the energy, enthusiasm and creativity which those individuals have in the public service.

The agenda of change, identified so courageously by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in Kerry, is one we ignore at our peril. It is an agenda we have to embrace critically and uniquely because of the dominance in some aspects of the public service unions within the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is an agenda of change that must be embraced wholeheartedly by the constituent parts of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

So far as we will have responsibility for the next two years, this Administration — I have no reason to believe that successive administrations will be any different — and I as Minister for Finance will reach out to and enter into constructive and positive dialogue with the public service unions to ensure that the strategic management initiative, the basis upon which we can all move forward, is properly identified, discussed and disseminated within the public service and consequently is comprehensively owned by all the participants and employees within the public service so that not only can their working conditions be improved but the services can be more effectively and more efficiently delivered. Nobody has anything to fear or lose from that agenda. Everybody has something to gain from it. The people who have most to gain are the many public servants who have been trapped for too long in the bureaucracy of rules and regulations which are no longer relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 3 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Estimates for the Public Services, Votes 1-45, inclusive, and the Supplementary Estimate, Vote 34: Enterprise and Employment, for the year ending 31 December 1995 be agreed."

Question put and declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 7 Jul 1995