Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995

Vol. 459 No. 7

Estimates for Public Services, 1995. - Vote 42: Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £4,170,000 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 the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, including housing grants and sundry grants-in-aid.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

I will be discussing the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 40 — Social Welfare.

A Supplementary Estimate of £19 million is necessary on the Social Welfare Vote for 1995. This is the extra amount required in the period up to the end of this year to meet additional costs arising in my Department. The effect of this additional amount will be to increase the published Estimate for my Department to £2,473.9 million.

The reason for the Supplementary Estimate is essentially to part-fund the cost of this year's Christmas bonus which was paid last week to all long-term social welfare recipients. The bonus payment this year amounted to 70 per cent of normal weekly payments with a built in minimum payment of £20. Over 1.25 million people have benefited from the payment, that is, 755,000 recipients and their 500,000 dependants.

The full cost of this year's Christmas bonus is £40 million but only some £36.5 million of that amount is proper to the Social Welfare Vote. The balance of the bonus costs relates to health allowances and community employment participants and is borne on the Votes of the other Departments concerned. However, not all of the £36.5 million is required in the Supplementary Estimate as projected savings in the Vote for 1995 will amount to £17.5 million. This has the effect of reducing the requirement for the purposes of the Supplementary Estimate to £19 million.

I will now detail the main areas in which savings and excesses occurred. In summary, savings arose through income from PRSI contributions being higher than expected and through reduced expenditure on pensions as a result of the number of recipients being lower than expected. On the other side, an increase of 12,000 in the original live register forecast for 1995 and higher expenditure on our employment support services account for the excesses.

An additional sum of £6.7 million is required to meet the Exchequer's share of the cost of operating the social insurance fund out of which all social insurance benefits and pensions are paid. This is a net sum which takes account of excesses in some areas being offset by savings in other areas.

The social insurance fund is the cornerstone of our social welfare system. It operates on a tripartite basis with workers, employers and the State all contributing their share. It provides necessary protection for over 1 million workers in times of illness, unemployment, survivorship, occupational accidents and when they reach pension age. Since 1988, it has provided security of pensions for 120,000 self-employed people and their survivors. The Government is committed to the maintenance of the social insurance fund and to its future development in the interests of those who pay into it and those who draw benefits from it.

The 70 per cent Christmas bonus to social insurance pensioners cost £16.3 million this year and a further £17 million is required to meet the higher cost of unemployment benefit payments as a result of the numbers being higher than originally estimated. Those excesses have been partially offset by an increase of £15 million in income from PRSI contributions over what had been originally provided for and savings in contributory pensions of £11.6 million as a result of lower numbers of recipients. This leaves a net additional requirement of £6.7 million to be provided as part of the Supplementary Estimate.

The balance of the requirement in the Supplementary Estimate arises from social assistance payments which are funded entirely from the Exchequer. The main elements are additional spending of £10.7 million on unemployment assistance arising from the Christmas bonus paid to the long-term unemployed and the higher live register forecast which I already mentioned; additional spending of £9.2 million on our employment support services as a result of higher numbers participating on the back-to-work allowance scheme and students' summer jobs scheme; additional spending of £1.5 million on lone parent's allowance arising from the cost of the Christmas bonus for these recipients, which is partially offset by lower numbers than originally anticipated, and additional spending of £3 million on supplementary welfare allowance as a result of increased costs of rent supplements and provision for recoupment of certain administration costs to health boards.

As the House will be aware, responsibility for the National Social Services Board was transferred from the Department of Health to my Department with effect from 1 June 1995. As the funding arrangements were not settled in advance of the original Estimates being finalised, a token provision of £1,000 only was provided in the published Estimates. The funding position has since been regularised and the Supplementary Estimate includes an amount of £970,000 which represents the cost to my Department of funding the NSSB since 1 June 1995.

An additional sum of £1,050,000 is included under this heading to fund grants of £1 million to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and £50,000 to Protestant Aid. I am delighted that the Government has found it possible to make these special allocations at this time of the year in order to meet the very heavy demands that are made on the services of both organisations. I wish them both continued success in their very important work.

The sum of the additional spending which I have just detailed has been reduced as a result of miscellaneous savings during the year in a number of areas, amounting to £14.9 million and due primarily to lower than expected payments.

As I indicated earlier, the net effect — after taking account of the excesses and the savings which I have detailed to the House — is a Supplementary Estimate of £19 million. This is the amount I am asking the House to approve. I emphasise, however, that even taking account of the Supplementary Estimate, the amount of the revised Estimate for 1995 does not do justice to the overall level of social welfare spending today. Total social welfare spending this year will exceed £4 billion, exclusive of the £200 million being provided to cover the cost of equal treatment payments. Of the £4 billion, the Exchequer will contribute almost £2.3 billion, employees £445 million, employers £1,200 million and the self-employed £85 million through pay-related social insurance.

We spend almost £11 million on social welfare every day, £77 million for each week of the year. In doing so, we provide a weekly payment to around 800,000 people which in turn benefits almost 1.5 million people when adult and child dependants are taken into account. The £11 million a day paid includes £2.9 million 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. There is an additional sum of £0.6 million for administration. I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. McCreevy

It is totally unsatisfactory Government procedure to vote through the House an amount of over £110 million — the sum of the Supplementary Estimates we are discussing today — in a one hour period. If the controversial £60 million which was put through last week and various other Estimates which were debated by the committees are added to that, at least £180 million has been voted through as additional expenditure for 1995. That constitutes about 2 per cent additional spending in 1995 over 1994.

In the debate last year on the Book of Estimates, I pointed out that the Government would not be able to meet its then self-imposed guideline of a 6 per cent increase from 1994 to 1995, as was evident from a very learned article published by a former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who put the matter into perspective. Comparing like with like, it was obvious at that stage that the Estimates for 1995 would be 10.9 per cent up on 1994. The Minister stated in the Programme for Government that the Estimates would stay within an 6 per cent increase. However, the additional Estimates being put through today, and those put through last Thursday, constitute an additional 2 per cent. According to the Minister's figures, the increase from 1994 to 1995 was not 6 per cent but 8 per cent and, comparing like with like, it is in the order of over 13 per cent.

In 1995 the rate of inflation was approximately 2.5 per cent. An increase in public spending of 13 per cent is five times the rate of inflation. Any business run on that basis would eventually go to the wall, irrespective of whatever economic fortunes befell it. Provision must be made for the day when the wheel turns the other way and when very severe pain will have to be endured. I pointed out that self-evident economic fact during my first time as spokesperson on finance and I repeat it today. If we are not prepared to learn from the mistakes made by all Governments in the past, we are heading into the abyss from which we once came.

The reason I feel so annoyed about this type of financial management — as evident from my contributions during the past two days — is that I honestly believe that when the necessary financial medicine has to be administered to the people again, they will not accept it. They did so on a previous occasion on the understanding that no Government — or a succession of Governments — would ever again be as irresponsible. We will pay a heavy price when EU funds run out, the economy turns the other way and some Government has to introduce very severe corrective measures which will have an exceptionally deflationary effect on the economy. Not alone will we pay an economic price, as I said many years ago, there will not be a cohesive response from the people as there was in the past because they will say that the chance was frittered away. That is why I am taking such a strong stand on this issue regarding the public finances.

My second point relates to the controversial £60 million of fraudulent accounting practice on behalf of the Government. Last week, during the Supplementary Estimate debate at the Select Committee on Social Affairs, the Minister for Health devoted most of his eight page introductory speech to all the other matters relating to hepatitis C. In two sentences on page 6 he stated:

The Supplementary Estimate of £60 million is in relation to the estimated 1996 cost of meeting the compensation awards likely to be made by the tribunal. It is, of course, accepted that all awards made by the tribunal will be funded from the Exchequer.

The Minister for Health, or the good civil servant who wrote the speech on his behalf, covered themselves by saying that it is for 1996 expenditure. It is not in accordance with Irish Government financial procedures to provide moneys on an accruals basis — it cannot be done.

This brings me to the point raised by our leader about the article in today's issue of The Irish Times, which I am sure resulted from a briefing by a Government spokesperson. The comments on the salary issues, which were repeated by the Taoiseach this morning, are incorrect. Those moneys were accounted for and paid on the last pay day in the relevant year. The liability in respect of An Post arose as a result of the break up of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs under the 1984 Act. Those liabilities had accrued to the extent that the trustees of the post office workers' pension fund had signalled to various trade union officials and to the Government that they were not prepared to wait any longer and that the Government would have to provide funding, as laid down in legislation. The previous Government used proceeds from the tax amnesty to increase the fund. These were known liabilities and the Minister can verify this by examining the Government decisions and regulations of that time.

The comments on Aer Lingus in this morning's article are also incorrect. As pointed out by the leader of my Party, in December 1993 the Comptroller and Auditor General insisted that the then Minister, Deputy Cowen, bring before the House the air companies legislation to deal with the matter. The Minister for Finance would not have been in a position to accrue the sum he wanted to unless it was provided for in legislation. The Minister can verify this by examining the legislation.

If we travel along the road of hocus-pocus accounting we will diminish our reputation. It is amazing that politicians often appear bemused by the fact that the public does not have great regard for us. It is irresponsible actions such as this that give us bad publicity. As the Government was caught with its hand in the till in respect of £60 million, it should own up and plead insanity rather than try to defend the indefensible.

Mr. M. McDowell

The House reached a low point in public and political rhetoric today when the Taoiseach attempted to say that in providing the £60 million out of this year's Estimates in respect of next year's payments he was doing a favour for the women infected with hepatitis C. The Taoiseach also stated that he was lending credibility to the tribunal by allocating £60 million now. That is a shabby piece of deceptive rhetoric and marks a low point for the Government, particularly for the Taoiseach who to my knowledge has never before spun such an obvious fantasy to the House.

As yet there is no accrued liability to the women infected with hepatitis C. Not one of them can go to Government Buildings and say she is owed money. The only way compensation can be measured is through a tribunal or a court. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest there is accrued liability to these women, although there will be such in the future. It was wrong, therefore, to set aside £60 million out of this year's Exchequer funding for next year's liabilities.

If we set up special accounts, provide money in one year to meet the following year's liabilities and go down the slippery slope of attacking the public financial arrangements, we will never stop. There is no £60 million or special account. The £60 million exists only on a piece of paper in an official's drawer in the Department of Finance. As Deputy Harney stated this morning, we must borrow approximately £1 billion for State expenditure this year. There is not a surplus of £60 million in a shoe box which is being paid into an account for this purpose. The State's overdraft is being divided into two funds and it has been stated that a payment is being made from one of those funds into the other and that this is an expenditure in this year. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a brazen political lie to suggest that a single penny is being provided for the women concerned in 1995.

It is also a grave discourtesy to the members of the tribunal to suggest that they need the credibility of this political stunt to enhance their status. It is an insult to Mr. Justice Egan, a retired Supreme Court judge, and the other persons who will compose the tribunal to say their credibility will be enhanced by such a blatant political trick. There is no question of the tribunal even considering its first case in 1995. I do not believe application forms are even available. If a person cannot make an application in 1995 it follows that a payment cannot be made in 1995. It is a low point in political life when a Taoiseach states he is doing this to lend credibility to a group of people he has asked to administer the tribunal. That is not the case. He is trying to shore up his credibility which has been blown apart on this issue.

The Minister for Social Welfare stated that the social insurance fund was the cornerstone of our social welfare system. Social insurance expenditure is on a pay as you go basis, there is no fund. It is an accounting figment in the minds of those in the Departments of Social Welfare and Finance. The Minister stated that he wants to continue the social insurance fund which is funded in part by PRSI contributions from employees, the self-employed and employers. That hypothecated taxation should not be differentiated from other forms of taxation. The social insurance fund is funded by direct or indirect taxation. I do not make a distinction between PRSI, PAYE or levy contributions. They are all wage deductions and have the same function. It does not make a whit of difference to employees whether their income tax is increased by 1 per cent and their PRSI is decreased by 1 per cent or vice versa. It does not make any difference to what such people are entitled to or to what they will receive at the end of each week or month. A legitimate distinction cannot be made between PRSI and taxation.

In recent days we have been told that the Government received a report to the effect that every unemployed person costs the State more than £10,000 per annum directly and that £2.3 billion is being poured into keeping the unemployed in welfare payments. This is Ireland's system of human set aside. We are putting a vast amount of money into this area and creating a liability in that these people do not participate in the economic life of the State. That is unjust.

With these Supplementary Estimates, depending on which definition one chooses and the sleight of hand one excuses, as happened on the last occasion when the Minister for Finance presented his budget, the real increase in current spending this year is at least 10 per cent, and possibly, up to 13 per cent. Those are the facts although the Government stated it would confine such increases to 6 per cent. I agree with Deputy McCreevy that the political credibility of our entire parliamentary system is now in question if the public can see that firm commitments can be avoided by accounting and economic trickery and political chicanery.

Public spending must be brought under control. One of the biggest elements is public sector pay. I have never met a public servant who wants more and more by way of gross increases in his pay. I have often met public servants who want their gross pay to be kept at its present value, but want more and more by way of take-home pay. If we are to go down the road of negotiating a new understanding to control public service pay, we must concentrate on take-home pay. Tax reform must be a central element of any new initiative.

There is something radically wrong in a country where 57 per cent of the extra earnings of a single person earning well below the average industrial wage is confiscated by the State; where employers cannot get employees to take up jobs because of the disincentive effect of high taxation, high employment taxes and the difficulties experienced in giving up welfare entitlements; where a married man with four children earning £9,000 per annum, living in a local authority house, paying differential rent and in receipt of family income supplement, taking the cost of getting to work into account, would be worse off if his salary was increased to £14,000 per annum. If there is something radically wrong with our approach to unemployment and taxation, something radical must be done to put it right.

The last budget was not radical, it changed the values of bands and allowances by approximately 3 per cent in real terms. All the indications are that next year's budget will be another exercise in fudging and funking the real issues confronting society and that the Government has given up on the fight against unemployment and intends to do nothing more than spend the remaining months of its period in office freewheeling and preparing for the next election, looking after its separate constituencies, but failing to confront the fundamental problems facing society and the economy.

I regard the Supplementary Estimate presented by the Minister for Social Welfare — and the debate — as examples of precisely what is wrong with this country. Items are put before us with virtually no examination. Under the Constitution this House is supposed to examine the Estimates for expenditures and receipts at the earliest possible point in each financial year. We find ourselves at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour of this financial year in terms of parliamentary time considering Supplementary Estimates presented solely for the purpose of concealing from the public that the projected increase of 6 per cent in public spending to which the Government claimed it was committed last January may be breached without anyone noticing it.

If there is any accountability in economic life, today's shabby exercise by the Taoiseach, in hiding behind the fate of the women who have contracted hepatitis C in order to justify sleight of hand, in which Supplementary Estimates are being railroaded through the House without any adequate examination and the complacent speech of the Minister for Social Welfare about the expenditure his Department is undertaking without any commitment to find radical solutions to the unemployment problem and to taxation reform bodes ill for the next year which I hope will be the last in the life of the Government.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Barrett)

In placing this token Supplementary Estimate before the House I am seeking to use the Marine Vote as a vehicle to consolidate the progress made in recent years in the development of the shellfish sector of the aquaculture industry. In addition, I am seeking to position the Salmon Research Agency so that it can provide the maximum support in future to the improvement and development of salmon and sea trout fisheries.

The first component of the Supplementary Estimate seeks to allocate £400,000 to the shellfish aquaculture sector. The shellfish industry is a young industry with enormous potential. The total amount of shellfish farmed has tripled since 1980. Most of this has been due to the development of the Pacific oyster and rope mussel farms, which together currently employ 1,574 on a full and part-time basis. Over half of existing farms were set up since 1987 and the pace of start-ups has accelerated in recent years. I want to maintain and build on that progress.

I am seeking to allocate £300,000 to oyster cultivation because a substantial number of oyster farmers engaged in the cultivation of Pacific osyters experienced unprecedented levels of mortalities in 1995 seed inputs, because of the unusually hot summer weather and high seawater temperatures. Aid will allow affected growers to restock farms and help to restore production potential, thereby protecting jobs on the farms affected.

Losses experienced by growers because of the abnormal seed mortality levels, excluding husbandry and labour costs incurred during pre-mortality growth, are estimated at £750,000. Loss of sales at today's market prices for the 1997-98 market seasons, if seed is not replaced, is estimated at £5 million. As continuity of supply is the key to developing and maintaining markets for oyster growers, non-replacement of seed inputs immediately would result in a catastrophic disruption in market supply in future years.

The effects of exposure of oyster seed to warm weather conditions can be mitigated and preventive measures and refinements in methods of culture are being researched by my Department's Fisheries Research Centre and the industry to prevent a recurrence in future years.

The industry will have to bear a share of the losses as part of the normal commercial risk associated with farming-husbandry operations. State assistance up to a maximum of 50 per cent of the cost of replacement seed is proposed under the emergency aid scheme.

A further £100,000 is sought to implement key elements of the report of the Task Force on Biotoxin Contamination and Monitoring. Following discussions with the Irish Aquaculture Association this group was established by my predecessor in March 1995 to assist in the search for remedies to the unprecedented toxicity problems arising from contamination of rope-grown mussels commonly known as red tide. The contamination resulted in prolonged closures of farms and restricted harvesting arrangements with consequent adverse economic impacts on growers and markets alike, particularly for the rope mussel industry in the south-west region.

A key recommendation of the task force is a proposal for the introduction of an emergency aid scheme for the industry to restore industry confidence and protect employment. However, financial assistance is only one element of a range of measures designed to combat the biotoxicity problem. In addition, the report has recommended the introduction and implementation of a new marine biotoxin action plan. Key components of the plan include: an enhanced national monitoring programme for biotoxins covering all the main shellfish growing areas in Ireland; harmonisation of biological testing methods at EU level and strengthening of early warning systems in order to minimise disruption caused by harvesting restrictions and closures.

I am confident that the implementation of the initiatives funded by this Supplementary Estimate will help to restore industry confidence, maintain consumer and market confidence in the high health status of Irish shellfish and assist in maximising the production and employment capacity of this important native industry.

The Salmon Research Agency of Ireland is a national agency under my Department for research in relation to salmon and sea trout. It conducts and assists in conducting scientific and field research for the purpose of improving, developing and extending salmon and sea trout fisheries in Ireland.

The agency has in the past funded its research from commercial activities, in particular the sale of salmon smolts. However, the combined effect of a collapse in smolt prices and the wiping out by disease of the agency's commercial stock in 1992 left the agency with losses and greatly depleted reserves.

With the help of increased Exchequer funding, sponsorship from the ESB, EU funding, contract research and the sale of salmon ova, the agency has fully recovered from the effects of these losses. However, the agency is constrained by a lack of capital for necessary reinvestment and the £66,000 additional funding proposed will assist in these efforts.

Mr. B. Ahern

The sole purpose of Supplementary Estimates is to provide for essential and unforeseen expenditure that has arisen during the course of the year and requires retrospective sanction by the Dáil. Six of the Supplementary Estimates before us involving relatively minor amounts totalling £3.6 million fall into this category. It is totally out of order, illegal and improper to propose a Supplementary Estimate for moneys not required in the current year. I draw attention to the standard title at the top of every Supplementary Estimate in question, the amount required in the year ending 31 December, 1995 for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Health and certain services administered by that Minister and by that office. The £60 million Supplementary Estimate is not required this year as no additional liabilities will be completely processed or determined by the tribunal before next year. It is dishonest and an attempt to deceive the Dáil to say that the moneys are required in 1995, the basis on which Supplementary Estimates are passed in the House. It is deeply ironic that the parties that were supposed to be the champions of openness, transparency and accountability should attempt this subterfuge in order to make their 1996 spending overruns look better.

The Minister for Health, the Minister for Finance and the Government have been caught red-handed cooking the books, pretending that they are more or less achieving their financial target of an average 2 per cent annual increase in current supply services expenditure. The underlying increase is likely to be in the order of 3 per cent when this additional £60 million is taken into account. The figures for this year, which are way over target, will be made worse by this decision. The Government was warned about this by a former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, in an article written in The Irish Times on 25 March this year. He said the best thing the Government could do now would be to very quickly alter this uncharacteristic piece of creative accounting which is much reminiscent of some of Fianna Fáil's budgetary manoeuvres in the early 1980s.

It has been alleged there are precedents for what happened in this House today, but I reject that. The explicit legislative sanction of this House was obtained in the Air Companies (Amendment) Act, 1993, to provide an equity input into Aer Lingus immediately EU sanction was received. It could not be paid at the time as there was no EU sanction for it. On checking the position with the Department of Finance and the law officers of this State we were advised that the provision would have to be included in the Act. Section 4 of that Act provides that in addition to the shares held, funds were to be held as appropriate by the Minister for Finance in the holding company, and by virtue of section 3 the Minister for Finance may subscribe for further shares to an amount not exceeding £175 million. This Government has not attempted to deal with this issue in the same manner, the legally proper way to proceed and one which would not have created difficulty.

We tried to point out this error to the Taoiseach yesterdy but he decided to row in with the camouflage and claimed things are perfect. If we had tried to provide for a similar arrangement in air transport without special legislation the Government apologists would have had a valid point. In other cases moneys were paid out in the year in question in respect of exact liabilities already established. That has always been the case.

The Government has breached its targets for the second year running by a wide margin and is anxious to conceal that fact from the public and the financial markets, a fundamental difference from what happened in previous years. Disregard and abuse of proper financial procedures should not be allowed proceed without correction. I have written to the Comptroller and Auditor General about this matter. I appeal to the Government to withdraw the £60 million Supplementary Estimate which is totally unjustified and an unnecessary sleight of hand.

The Government has been shown to be incapable of sticking to financial targets which it set. The strength of the Fianna Fáil Government during its eight years in office is that it managed to stay within its financial targets in every year. That example is no longer being followed. Nobody will be impressed by the bluster of the Taoiseach and the Govenment about its caring attitude to hepatitis C victims. The victims are far from satisfied with the ad hoc measures proposed by the Government and debated by my colleague Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn. This Supplementary Estimate will not ensure that one victim will be paid a day earlier than has been provided in the 1996 Estimates. If the Government were seriously concerned about the matter the normal practice would have been to introduce a token estimate of £10 or £1 million if it considered payments would have to be made. I call on the Minister for Health to withdraw this Estimate in the interests of good government and honest and straightforward dealing in respect of national finances. If he does not the Government will be judged and will pay the price for its actions.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

Total gross expenditure in 1995 for the education group of Votes is projected to be on target or to show a small saving. The Supplementary Estimates for which I am seeking approval are required mainly to offset the effective delays in receiving payments from the European Social Fund due to my Department as appropriations-in-aid in 1995. They are also needed to increase the payments to the local authorities in respect of higher education grants as well as to provide extra amounts for other subheads which show excesses over provision in 1995.

Vote 28 relates to second level and further education and subhead G relates to payments to local authorities in respect of superannuation charges payable in respect of former staff of vocational education committees. An increase of £2.8 million is sought to provide for increased numbers of persons retiring from the vocational education committees. Subhead L relates to second level schools, building grants and capital costs. An increase of £3.8 million is sought to meet extra costs incurred in this sector to meet increased accommodation needs. Vote 29 relates to third level and further education. In relation to payments to local authorities in respect of higher education grants under subhead A1, I am seeking an additional £13.8 million to meet the cost of grants paid by local authorities in 1995. Subhead A5 relates to grants and supports to trainees and European Social Fund aided programmes. An increase of £3.7 million is sought to cater for increased numbers. Subhead J relates to grants for the National College of Industrial Relations. An additional £0.3 million is sought to cater for increased participation in the college's programmes.

The Supplementary Estimates also have regard to certain savings in specific subheads in the two Votes concerned and have been configured to reflect these savings. The supplementary amounts for which I am seeking approval are for £13.6 million under Vote 28 relating to second level and further education and £31.8 million under Vote 29 relating to third level and further education.

Most of the amounts sought are attributable to the delays in receipt of European Social Fund money. That will be received in January 1996 at the latest. Delays of this nature occur almost every year and accounting procedures for Government Departments require that Supplementary Estimates be taken in these circumstances to enable a Department meet its commitments in the current year.

Educational measures aided by the ESF are designed to develop the capacity of Ireland's education system to contribute more effectively to social and economic well-being. The key contribution of education to economic and social prosperity is fully recognised by the European Union and the Union has invested very substantially in Irish education, recognising it as the crucial factor in promoting Ireland's development.

ESF funding contributes to the improvement of the quality of education and training. This involves, for instance, the provision of resources for the most comprehensive programme ever undertaken in in-careeer development for teachers at all levels of education and for the development of comprehensive national certification for vocational education and training. The recent establishment of Teastas represents a major landmark in this regard.

The Structural Fund programme underpins the value of education and training to the creation of social cohesion and economic prosperity. The range of measures supported is clear recognition that the acquisition of skills among people is at least as important a source of social and economic transformation as more traditional forms of capital accumulation.

Dr. Woods

The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to make up for the moneys expended in the year for which there is no money available this year. Today we have an extraordinary situation which is totally unsatisfactory. Apparently the Minister for Finance will not come to the House to explain the overall Supplementary Estimate. Three or four Ministers will give an outline of their Estimates and reveal what is behind the figures. That is the important part. They will tell us where things went wrong and where adjustments are needed in the expenditure this year, as the Minister for Education has just done. That applies to only four out of 20 Votes.

A great deal of the surplus expenditure during the year will not be revealed here in detail. In this debate we got a listing in respect of the 20 Votes which amounts to over £200 million. We have only five minutes in which to debate expenditure of £200 million; one minute in which to debate expenditure of £40 million, without hearing the contributions of Ministers who are presenting the extra demands. That is totally unsatisfactory.

The Government will have to get back on track or we will be in serious trouble. I remind the House that Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1987. During the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 the Estimates were presented in October and November and it was possible to see and discuss them in detail. We must get back to that system, whereby we can see in advance the Estimates for the following year.

The Government has attempted to avoid discussion on the forthcoming Estimates by publishing them next Monday when the Dáil is going into recess on Friday. That may now be changed and we may be able to get a brief, hurried look at them and to debate them next Tuesday. This is most unsatisfactory.

Today there was more deception. The Taoiseach was seen here trying to bluster and cover up what is clearly a deception in accounting terms and to delude himself into believing that he was open and accountable, which he was not.

The Government began the year with an unprecedented, massive surplus, with a great opportunity to improve the position of those who depended on social welfare, those suffering from disabilities and other groups in society who need assistance and support. Not only did the Government not give that support, we had the lowest social welfare increases in 30 years at 2.5 per cent across the board, but at the end of the year we have to provide extra moneys to cover the mismanagement by the Government under 20 Votes during the year. At the beginning of the year, the Government decided to raid the social insurance fund to the tune of £60 million, a net £50 million, for other purposes. This was the sleight of hand. Instead of addressing the issues and providing the funds directly and openly, the moneys in the social insurance fund were taken out. It was made clear in the House that that was happening. Having succeeded in bringing the social insurance fund into a surplus for the first time since it was introduced, the Minister for Social Welfare informed us it is in the red at the end of the year by £6.7 million. That does not augur well for the worker, the employer and those who contribute to the fund because it was raided this year and has been left in a weakened position. The Minister for Social Welfare informs us that the social insurance fund is the cornerstone of our social welfare system. It is the cornerstone of our social insurance system, which is a major part of our welfare system and we are undermining it.

It is clear from this Supplementary Estimate that the Government has failed in that 12,000 extra people per week have become unemployed. That is the reason other Ministers should put their figures before the House so that they can be seen and judged here. The Government commenced with a surplus and decided to take moneys from the social insurance fund. Under pressure from the Democratic Left Party the Government adjusted the books in other ways. We have had much discussion on the issue this morning. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the Government is cooking the books in relation to next year.

Confidence in the Government's ability to handle the State's finances is being eroded. The glue is coming unstuck and the tail is begining to wag not one but two dogs. The growth and the prospects are good but the drift has already begun. The Government must get back in line for the forthcoming budget but I wonder whether it has the ability to do that.

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

Is cúis sásaimh dom an Meastachán Forlíontach seo don bhliain dar críoch 31 Nollaig 1995 a thabhairt os comhair na Dála mar léiríonn an gá atá leis an beocht agus an bríomhaireacht atá sa Ghaeltacht faoi láthair. Tá trí gnéithe ar leith clúdaithe sa Mheastachán Forlíontach agus déanfaidh mé tagairt do gach ceann acu.

Baineann an chuid is mó den airgead breise le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta. Tháinig méadú suntasach ar leibhéal gníomhaíochta an Údaráis ó thús na nóchaidí i leith. Tá an rian sin le feiceáil, ní amháin ar na torthaí fostaíochta a baineadh amach gach bliain i dtionscail Ghaeltachta, ach san éagsúlacht mhór ghníomhaíochtaí ar an bhfód.

Ceadaíodh tograí suntasacha i 1995, le fostaíocht bhreise sa treis, do gach réigiún Gaeltachta. Tá cúnamh i gceist do thionscadail nua chomh maith le forbairtí ar thionscadail atá lonnaithe cheana féin sa Ghaeltacht. I measc na ngnóthaí sin, tá forbairt ar ghnóthaí déanta cóistí mótair, próiseáil éisc agus comhlacht nua atá le trealamh leictreonach ionghlanadh ceimicí a dhéanamh i dTír Conaill; tá gnó nua teicstíle d'Acaill i gContae Mhaigh Eo, áit a raibh géarghá le poist nua le tamall fada; gnó nua mioncheamara i Ros Muc, áit eile a bhí buailte le ganntanas fostaíochta; forbairt ar chomhlacht próiseála éisc i gCorca Dhuibhne; meadú suntasach ar ghnó innealtóireachta i Múscraí; tionscal nua spéisiúil — fás eileabó (iasc) — ar Oileán Chléire, Contae Chorcaí; agus leathnú ar ghnóthaí innealtóireachta i nGaeltacht na Mí.

Tá suim breise £2 milliún á lorg faoin bhfomhírcheann sa Vóta as a chuirtear soláthar caipitil ar fáil d'Údarás na Gaeltachta chun deontais a íoc le tionscail a lonnaíonn sa Ghaeltacht. Tá meadú agus leathnú suntasach tagtha ar thionscail agus ar ghnónna sa Ghaeltacht le dhá nó trí bhliain anuas — forbairtí atá ag teacht chun cinn de bharr na haeráide dearfa eacnamaíochta sa tír. Mar léargas ar an dul chun cinn atá a dhéanamh, cheadaigh an tÚdarás tograí agus deontais mar seo a leanas i 1993, 1994 agus go dtí seo i mbliana:

Bliain	Líon tograí	Deontais Fostaíocht	Mheasta Bhreise
		£m
1993	446	12.503	1,025
1994	542	17.621	1,455
1995	400	13.14	1,229
(go dtí seo)

Mar gheall ar an mborradh sin, tá éilimh ann anois chun na deontais a ceadaíodh le blianta beaga anuas a íoc. Is chun a chumasú don Údarás deontais atá ceadaithe agus a thiocfaidh chun aibíochta le haghaidh íocaíochta i mbliana a íoc atá an £2 milliún breise ag teastáil. Baineann na deontais sin le meascán de réimsí gnó.

Suim bhreise £3.5 milliún atá á lorg chun íoc as tógáil monarchan nua ag an Údarás ar an gClochán Liath, Contae Dhún na nGall, do Fruit of the Loom Ltd. Is comhlacht é Fruit of the Loom a bhfuil clú agus cáil idirnáisiúnta air mar gheall ar shárcháilíocht a gcuid táirgí.

Tá suas le 3,000 duine fostaithe ag an ngnó in aonaid éagsúla dhéantúsaíochta i gContae Dhún na nGall agus i nDoire. Tá mar straitéis ag an gcomhlacht an leibhéal gníomhaíochta agus fostaíochta a mhéadú go suntasach idir seo agus deireadh an chéid agus is sa chomhthéacs sin a aontaíodh plean mór forbartha a chur i gcrích sa Ghaeltacht i gcomhar leis an Údarás. Tuigtear dom ón Údarás gur fadhbanna gearrthréimhseacha is cúis leis an tseachtain ghearr atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair sa ghnó.

Tá 80 duine fostaithe ag Fruit of the Loom ar an gClochán Liath i láthair na huaire i monarcha de chuid an Údaráis. Tá plean forbartha don chomhlacht aontaithe agus ceadaithe ag an Údarás faoina méadófar an fhostaíocht sin go gar do 500 duine. Tá monarcha nua 6,000 méadar cearnach á críochnú ag an Údarás ar an gClochán Liath agus aistreofar an gnó ón áit ina bhfuil sé lonnaithe faoi láthair go dtí an mhonarcha sin. Tá ardmholadh tuillte ag an Údarás as ucht an tionscail tábhachtach seo a aimsiú don Ghaeltacht.

Cé go bhfuil spiorad na fiontraíochta ag dul ó neart go neart sa Ghaeltacht féin, bíonn gá le hinfheistíocht shoghluaiste le teicneolaíocht agus saineolas a mhealladh chun na Gaeltachta chun freastal ar chuid den riachtanas ó thaobh cruthú fostaíochta de. Bíonn iomaíocht ghéar ann go hidirnáisiúnta don infheistíocht seo agus is cúis sásaimh a fheabhas a d'eirigh leis an Údarás i 1995 san obair seo.

Maidir le deontas tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht is cosúil go mbeidh ardú beag ar líon na n-iarratas i mbliana. Chomh maith leis sin tá níos mó cásanna scrúdaithe ag foireann cigireachta mo Roinne agus réidh le n-íoc, rud a fhágann go mbeidh £240,000 sa bhreis ar an Mheastachán ag teastáil chun na híocaíochtaí sin a dhéanamh roimh deireadh na bliana. Ba é £1,499,928 an caiteachas tithíochta i 1994 agus, leis an Meastachán Forlíontach seo, beidh figiúir comparáideach £1,500,000 i gceist i 1995.

Maidir le Scéim Labhairt na Gaeilge, ba é £349,060 an caiteachas a bhí i gceist i 1994. I mbliana d'eirigh le foireann stiúrthóireachta mo Roinne níos mó iarratais a scrudú ná mar a measadh agus ní leor an £340,000 a cuireadh ar fáil don Scéim sna Meastacháin agus tús na bliana. Meastar anois go mbeidh £30,000 sa bhreis air sin ag teastáil chun na híocaíochtaí ar láimh a dhéanamh roimh dheireadh na bliana — caiteachas iomlán de £370,000 i 1995.

Molaim an Meastachán Forlíontach seo don Teach.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

Deputy Martin has one minute.

Mr. Martin

I thought I had five minutes.

Acting Chairman

The debate is due to conclude at 1.05 p.m. and it is outside my remit to change an order of the House.

Mr. Martin

In that case all I can do is protest at the lack of time available to me to debate the Estimates for the Departments of Education and Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I wish to record my disappointment at the farcical nature of this debate and the time made available. The speech of the Minister for Education was not made available to us while she was speaking. I received a copy after she had spoken but it should have been provided while she was speaking. I would have preferred if she had dealt with some issues in more detail.

Likewise faoin óráid a thug an tAire Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta. Fuaireas athchoimriú den óráid. Bhí an chaint a thug an tAire i bhfad níos faide agus bhí i bhfad níos mó eolais ann.

Acting Chairman

As the time permitted for the debate has expired I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of today: "That Supplementary Estimates for Vote 3, Department of the Taoiseach; Vote 18, Transport, Energy and Communications; Vote 20, Garda Síochána; Vote 25, Environment; Vote 28, Second-Level and Further Education; Vote 29, Third-Level and Further Education; Vote 30, Marine; Vote 31, Agriculture and Food; Vote 34, Enterprise and Employment; Vote 40, Social Welfare; Vote 41, Health — Second Supplementary Estimate — and Vote 42, Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of December 1995 are hereby agreed to".

Votes put and agreed to.