Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jun 2002

Vol. 553 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Programme for Government: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

–conscious that there will be considerable additional pressure on the public finances to meet spending commitments in the areas of pay and infrastructure;

–believing that the prudent management of the economy in these challenging circumstances requires realistic and structured spending priorities and that the programme for Government should set the agenda for the nation, identify priorities and chart clear timetables for delivery;

condemns the Government parties for producing a programme which is largely aspirational, contains no costings, few measurable timeframes and no clear targets; and calls on the Government to immediately set out specific targets in key policy areas against which the success of their programme can be judged and the consequential budgetary framework for the next five years within which these commitments will be met.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Naughten, Hayes, Ring, Crawford and Deasy.

That is agreed.

I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development on his re-election and reappointment and wish him well during his term in office.

Fine Gael believes that the programme for Government is an important document and should be treated as such. It should set the agenda for the nation, identify priorities and chart clear timetables for delivery. The current pro gramme for Government was negotiated from two very detailed and, in some respects, very different election manifestos, both of which contained specific promises over a wide range of public policy areas. The merger of the two manifestos could have produced a thick volume of policy initiatives to be undertaken within specific periods during the Government's term in office.

Both Government parties spent the first half of the recent general election campaign demanding detailed forecasts on the economy and costings from every other party except themselves. They maintained this barrage of accountability throughout the campaign.

The Irish Times of 2 May reporting on the failed attempt by Fianna Fáil to introduce the Spanish Inquisition in the shape of dubiously titled “independent economic assessment” of the party's manifestos said that Fianna Fáil remained determined to keep the issue of fiscal responsibility centre stage. On that day, the new Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, then Chief Whip and number cruncher extraordinaire accused Fine Gael of “refusing to produce specific costings for specific proposals” and vowed that he and his party would “continue to argue that the other parties are promising the public more than they can or will fund”. It is obvious that after 17 May that same champion of fiscal accountability suffered what may become terminal memory loss when he metamorphosed into chief negotiator on the programme for Government. He managed to negotiate a programme so devoid of specific costings or specific proposals that the page numbers on the printed copy are the most significant numerical statistics now available.

To remind the Fianna Fáil members and the one and only of its members present what their obsession was during the campaign, I quote from the Minister, Deputy Brennan's words of wisdom, "You can't have a health service or an education service if there isn't a sound economy." He may live to regret that. We may live to regret that he is right, but the Government is wrong. It is obvious the Minister has lost both his memory and his calculator.

True to form in the programme for Government the old maxim of "do as I say, not as I do" applies. Instead of a torrent of specifics, the programme contains only the froth and bubble of aspiration. If the programme is notable for anything, it is its elasticity, its lack of any measurable timeframe for delivery and of targets. The programme for Government is a catch all document, a sort of political "whatever you're having yourself". This document is politically cute and its vagueness is designed to make Ministers less rather than more accountable when new challenges lie ahead in every Department.

There are, however, a few hostages to fortune in the programme. First, it clearly promotes itself as the second in a series of two – the plan for the second half of a Government, not a new beginning in very different economic circum stances. The Government admits that it should be judged on its record since 1997, not on what it can achieve from 2002 onwards. That will leave it somewhat exposed when reality bites, as it will. Second, the document pledges to build a fair society of equal opportunity in a period of unique and unprecedented growth. It admits that the quality of infrastructure and the standard of our public services are not what we should expect after five years of unparalleled prosperity. Third, it commits to transforming Ireland completely in the next five years. These are vague enough aspirations, but they are targets of a kind.

In attempting to deliver on its pledges, the Government faces a number of serious challenges, many of which are of its own making: public spending is out of control, up 27% in the first five months of this year alone; income tax revenues in the same period were down 15%; the inflation rate is 4.8%, twice the European average; a deteriorating competitiveness, which is threatening jobs in the multinational sector; a reluctance among some of the social partners to enter into a new national agreement; Third World transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructures which are hampering economic activity; continuing regional imbalances which see growth choking the eastern seaboard at the expense of the other regions; and growing dissatisfaction with the quality, delivery and accessibility of the key public services.

During the past five years of economic growth and prosperity the Government managed to throw huge amounts of taxpayers' money at problems, but it failed to bring about any real change in the way in which services are provided or plans are implemented. Never was as much money thrown at each Department as during the past five years, yet we have ended up with worse public services. The health services are an excellent example of this failure. Having waited over four years to produce a national health strategy, what eventually emerged was a list of spending commitments rather than a strategy for reforming the way in which health care should be provided to our people.

During the general election campaign the Minister for Health and Children got over-excited at one stage and gave the latest in a series of further false promises, that of permanently ending hospital waiting lists by the end of 2004. I note from the programme for Government that it contains no such commitment.

In terms of delivery, we must judge Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats on their record. In 1997 and again in 2002 the Government promised to tackle waiting lists, yet today there are 26,126 people waiting for a hospital bed, more than half of them in the Dublin area. In 1997 and again in 2002 the Government promised that no adult would have to wait longer than 12 months for a hip replacement, but today five out of every ten have waited well over a year. In 1997 and again in 2002 the Government promised that no child would have to wait longer than six months to have his or her tonsils out, but today seven out of every ten children wait much longer.

The Tánaiste's party, the Progressive Democrats, only discovered patients in 2002 in the context of the publication of the national health strategy. Their remedy was to fly them out of the country as soon as possible.

There are many thousands of people in the queue to join a queue waiting for initial assessment by a consultant who are not part of these statistics and some of those people will wait years for treatment. Only 78 of the 709 hospital beds promised this year have so far been opened – none of them in the Dublin area where waiting lists are highest.

There is a lot of ground to be made up and certainly a lot more to do because the previous Government failed to do anything other than fling cash at the health service for five years. That negligence has slowed everything down. The health section of the programme for Government relies heavily and exclusively on the implementation of the health strategy, but there is no indication of how this can be realised or how much of it will be dependent on the depleted Exchequer resources. Will there be further recrimination in the Cabinet between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health and Children in relation to resourcing this essential part of our programme for Government?

Another example of the Government failing to grasp the nettle is the much delayed national development plan. After five years we have no national spatial strategy and no public private partnerships and there are no new road projects starting this year.

The programme for Government is proof that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats conned the people with their election manifestos. They bought the electorate over a period of economic prosperity with tax cuts and child benefit. Instead of solid economic foundations, we have shifting sands. Instead of the economic calculator of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, we have the shifting sands of depleted resources. So much for the Progressive Democrats watchdog at the Cabinet table. So much for the party of fiscal rectitude and so much for an aspirational programme for Government.

This programme is nothing but a wish list with no clear direction and this Administration has no idea how, or if, it will be implemented. It claims: "We will ensure that every school building attains set modern standards." What modern standards does the programme refer to and by when will this be done? What guarantee is there for children of this country who are sitting in crumbling, cold, wet and dangerous school buildings that their lot will be improved before the next election? Will we get another published list of schools that are about to be improved but which will never happen?

The programme for Government is an exercise in deception of the people because it claims "we will significantly improve transport services in the regions". How will they be improved and how many more buses does the Government promise? What kind of improvement is planned for rail transport? What kind of guarantee is the Government offering to people in rural Ireland who have no choice other than to drive cars that are expensive to insure on roads which continue to deteriorate? Most important of all, how will the Government pay for any improvement?

The programme for Government also envisages "the promotion of integrated ticketing and smart card technologies which will allow a differential pricing system to be introduced". This is a reheated promise drawn from the 1997 Fianna Fáil manifesto which stated: "Tickets between Luas, DART and buses will be fully interchangeable". Then there is Luas itself. Five years ago, Fianna Fáil went to the people claiming the party would build "all three Dublin light rail lines". Where do we stand today? We stand waiting for a tram, with the next one not due for at least two years. The only tram we got from the last Government was the phantom tram produced by the former Minister for Public Enterprise for exhibition purposes at Merrion Square some months ago.

On tourism, there is bluster and waffle but nowhere near the kind of dynamic, urgent and far-reaching policies that are needed to reinvigorate the sector. Fine Gael proposed to provide some relief from local rates for tourism businesses suffering a decline in turnover of 15% or more in 2001 and 2002. As Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh knows the devastating impact foot and mouth disease had in relation to the tourism sector. The Government did nothing to help the sector and does not propose to help the hard-pressed tourism sector in 2002.

The Government also claims: "We will vigorously pursue actions to ensure that that everyone is tax compliant." The Government will forgive me, and forgive the country, if I am sceptical of such promises coming from this Administration. The fact that there is no timescale, no package of measures and no detail on how this will be done suggests this is little more than a vague nod in the direction of the conscience of the Progressive Democrats.

On the national development plan, there is no mention whatsoever of the current difficulties with the plan and instead simply states that the various measures will be completed. The whole nation knows the dire financial restrictions that are facing the implementation of the NDP – mainly due to the lack of competence of the Ministers opposite to do the business and get the programme in place. There is no plan to reverse the situation where 33 road developments are on hold, there is no plan to address the gaping economic holes that are evident in future projected start-ups and there is no hope of Ireland getting the infrastructure it deserves under this Government.

Many people, particularly landowners, have had to endure over the last number of years the spectre of Government big brother descending on them in order to build motorways and major road infrastructural projects throughout the country. They have had great patience. They did not get much understanding but they knew improvements in our road infrastructure were essential from an economic point of view. What will happen the landowners when they discover there will be long delays and they will be in limbo wondering if the projects will ever go ahead. Will the lines that are sterilised now be allowed for development? Will they be allowed for the cut-off points envisaged or for planning permission? There are huge problems in relation to planning and development due to the negligence of this Government in speeding up the national development plan and implementing it on schedule.

How will the Government safeguard the future of our young people, the elderly and the sick? How will it cope with benchmarking? I believe many of the vague aspirations in this programme for Government will fall off the end of its wish list. I regret to say that the programme for Government is nothing more than a compilation of vague aspiration which regrettably is not costed, but will be the hallmark of the Government's ineptitude over the next number of years.

The last five years of Government can be defined as the congestion years. As the Tánaiste put it, we have a First World economy but a Third World infrastructure. Traffic congestion is one of the biggest impediments to business in the capital functioning efficiently. The lack of basic infrastructure and access is the single biggest bar to developing the regions.

The establishment of a single Department of Transport is welcome and will ensure, we hope, a co-ordinated approach to the planning and implementation of the national development plan and other infrastructural developments. While the establishment of a new Department is positive, the specifics in the programme for Government are few. The lack of any detail on how infrastructural projects are to be funded raises serious questions about the ability to deliver on these projects on time. The timescale for many projects under the NDP has already been pushed back. For example, last January the Government set a date of 2006 for the completion of the rail link to Dublin Airport, yet under the programme for Government this has already been pushed out to 2007. We are more likely to see this project completed by 2010 rather than 2007.

In a recent interview the Minister stated that he had been given no guarantees that the funding required would be forthcoming. There remains a serious question mark over the ability of this Government to adequately fund the major infrastructural projects required to prevent the country grinding to a halt.

The programme for Government makes bland commitments regarding a number of proposals such as "the capital development programme for regional airports will be pushed through". When? It says: "We will significantly improve transport services to the regions", but no detail is provided. It says: "We recognise the importance of maintaining a national airline", but how will that be done? It states: "We will ensure that access to public transport is one of the criteria taken into consideration by the planning process." Do we have to wait another five years for another planning Bill for that?

There is no mention of the timescale involved. Will the Government introduce measures to address these issues in the short-term, which is what is required, or will it continue the policy of the previous Administration by introducing major policy initiatives at the end of its term in office without providing adequate resources to achieve the goals as set out in its glitzy launches?

Other proposals raise more questions than they answer. For example, the programmes states: "We will put in place a new five year plan to ensure non-national roads are properly signposted." Where was the old plan? There was none. The programme also states: "We will allocate a portion of the budget on road improvement projects to the provision of new footpaths and allow pedestrians to walk with greater safety and comfort." It is local roads which need footpaths and there is no budget for the improvement of these. The Government plans to establish a traffic corps following a six month consultation process. When will this commence? Will it be like the review of the school bus safety programme which was promised in 1998 but has not taken place yet?

The programme commits the new Minister to replacing the Road Transport Act, 1932, to allow for new services in the bus market. This is not a simplistic solution to bus competition. The aircoach service in Dublin, one of the biggest competitors to the State sector, lost over €300,000 in the last financial year. Even a service which is perceived to be commercially viable needs some element of State subvention. This will not be an easy problem to solve.

Projects which have been given the green light will have to be reviewed. The Dublin Port tunnel is not high enough to cater for heavy goods vehicles using the port. IBEC believes it is not too late to change the height of this tunnel, yet there is no mention of it in the plan. The decision by Irish Rail to wind down its freight service must be overturned. It also requires major investment and incentives to take freight off our congested road network. A small level of investment in this area could result in huge benefits as a result of heavy vehicles being taken off the roads. That would not only impact on congestion but also on road safety and harmful emissions in many of our smaller towns. The programme gives a commitment to the improvement of rail services and rolling stock but investment in rolling stock will not necessarily achieve an incremental increase in the level of service. It is planned to introduce an additional 80 diesel cars into the service in 2002 and 2003 yet there is no indication of the number of cars taken out of the system which they will replace.

The roads programme raises a number of serious questions, including the level of funding available to deliver the projects. A further bottleneck in the system will be the impact the Planning and Development Act, 2000 will have on the supply of aggregates. Under this Act, all existing quarries will have to apply for a new licence under a new licensing regime. That problem has not been addressed.

The programme outlines what will be done over five years but it is weak on specifics, deadlines and the funding that will be required to achieve it.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to discuss the programme for Government. It contains some fine thoughts and aspirations but when one examines its content in detail, many questions arise about its various aspects. The most striking issue is the deficit in infrastructure.

Look at the programme implemented by this Government over the last five years. It brought forward a national development plan which everybody agreed contained many worthwhile projects. However, over the years the Government did not put in place the finances to develop that infrastructure. Throughout the country, roads and bypasses for various towns have been promised but few of them have commenced. I am aware of one case where planning of the bypass started more than nine years ago but work on the project still has not started. It was given the green light earlier this year but there was not enough money allocated to the county council involved to buy the land to start work on the project.

What is happening on the ground is a complete contrast to what is contained in the Government's programme. This applies across all infrastructure. Let us look at what is happening to the railways. I believe we could have one of the finest railway systems in the world if it was properly developed but we have not done that or developed the huge potential of our railways. The programme only refers to the railways in Dublin and what will be done over the next few years in Dublin. There is nothing about the rail line from Dublin to Cork or the line along the western coast or the huge potential they have. Trucks regularly break down on our major roads but that transport could be transferred to the rail network if it was properly planned. That is not mentioned in the programme for Government.

The programme is Dublin orientated; it is only concerned with what will be done in Dublin. This is the problem. The eastern side of the country has been developed so that it is jammed with people and traffic while the western and southern parts of the country are underdeveloped. The next generation will look back on what is happening now and see that we allowed this country to develop on only one side. That will lead to a major problem and we will come to regret it. We have particularly neglected the road and rail elements of infrastructure.

The programme outlines what will be done for agriculture, food and rural development. I was struck by one comment in this section in which the Government says it will seek to develop the agricultural colleges as wider rural development takes place. What happened in the past under this Government? It closed five agricultural colleges throughout the country. It is a failure on the part of Government to neglect the education of young farmers and this Government has done that. The structure of agriculture is falling asunder simply because the Government is not educating young farmers but closing agricultural colleges.

I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh. He got the credit for keeping foot and mouth disease out of the country last year. He is now in that Department longer than the photographs on the wall and is keeping everybody else out of Agriculture House. I am disappointed he could not find a place for my colleague in Mayo. There are many junior Ministers but, for the first time since the foundation of the State, there is neither a senior nor junior Minister from Mayo. If the Minister could take the wall down in Agriculture House, he could let one of my colleagues into the Department as Minister of State.

I know the Minister is possessive about the Department and that many people are concerned that he remain there. However, it is not the working class or the poor farmers in the west of Ireland on the farm assist scheme who are concerned but the stock farmers and breeders. I have nothing against the Minister but I was hoping there would be a change, a new direction or new beginning to give the farmers of this country a chance. I am disappointed that the Minister has not already put forward a package for farmers. They are in disarray. They cannot cut silage or survive due to the terrible weather. The weather broke when the Government got into office. I blame the Government for it because it has taken credit for everything else. It would even take the credit if the weather was good. The Taoiseach is probably in the Phoenix Park tonight telling the people he was on the substitutes bench if he was needed. That is the type of Taoiseach we have.

There was a serious warning tonight from the Minister for Finance. When one sees the Minister for Finance on the television saying that we might be talking ourselves into a recession one can be sure there are bad days ahead and that there is bad news for the country. The Minister gave that warning tonight. The good news came out before the election when all the announcements were made. It was only in the last week of the election campaign that Fianna Fáil started pulling back when it knew it might have a chance to return to Government. It was typical Fianna Fáil; it thought it would not be in Government to deliver. Now it is caught.

The Government has put forward its programme and we will monitor it weekly, monthly and annually. In health, the Government promised that in two years nobody in the country will have to wait for any type of medical procedure. Thank God because there are hundreds of people in my constituency and thousands throughout the country waiting for medical procedures. I will be waiting to see if the Minister, Deputy Martin, can deliver in that regard.

The Government was not back in power a week before it turned its attention to the FÁS schemes. We know what the Progressive Democrats stand for and it is not for the weak, the poor or the sick. They represent the strongest sector in society, the rich. Their motto is "get rich as fast as you can and do not care about the poor". They have already attacked the FÁS schemes. The Minister said today that she intends to introduce a new scheme to replace them. The FÁS schemes have worked but that is the reason the Government is now tampering with them. The schemes helped people who were not in employment to be retrained and to be brought back into society. The schemes gave them self respect.

Of course, the rich in this country do not want that. They want to keep the poor down and in their place. A man once said to me that the rich, regardless of whether they are Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, will always look after the rich but the Progressive Democrats are there to look after the rich. The Minister represents agriculture in this programme for Government, but there is very little mention of agriculture in the document. The former man from the IFA, Deputy Parlon, used to be up there in the gallery telling us down here what we were doing wrong for agriculture, but what did he do for agriculture when he had such an opportunity, when he was virtually writing the programme for Government?

I went through the document and could not find a lot for agriculture, and I will be passing on that message to my good friends in the IFA. I lost some of their support in this election. They went with the Independents, but no harm, I may get their support back again. They will be glad to have me now, given that their Independent man did not get elected.

All I can say to the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the Government is that it is time to stop picking on the poor, the weak and the sick. The rich are well able to look after themselves, and I will be depending upon the Minister to do something for the hard-pressed farmers over the coming weeks. We do not want to wait until there is a disaster, we want action now. The Minister must go to the Minister for Finance and tell him he wants a package for the farmers.

I take this opportunity to raise a number of issues, particularly in regard to health, agriculture and infrastructure. The Government obviously finds itself in a very different economic situation from that outlined by it only a few short weeks ago. It is clear from the media coverage that there has been a major drop in tax receipts, together with a major increase in costs. The two factors simply do not add up. When one takes into account all the promises made in the manifestos before the election and then looks at the programme for Government, it is evident that even in the few intervening weeks, the Government parties realised that what they promised in their manifestos was unrealistic.

I wish to bring one small issue to the Minister's attention. The programme for Government states that appointments for treatment within three months, or referral, will be achieved. I wonder what has changed so dramatically that this can happen. I would like to highlight some of the correspondence I have had from people in the past few weeks. A consultant ENT surgeon wrote: "As you may be aware, my waiting list for my outpatient clinic in Monaghan is now approximately 2 years." There is no word of three months there. He stated: "I cannot at this stage give any indication when the patient will have her surgery until after she has been assessed." We have a long way to go. In the case of a lady in Cappagh Hospital, the waiting time for a hip operation is 12 to 18 months. Then we turn to the North-Eastern Health Board's hospital for orthopaedics, where 718 patients were on the waiting list in March 2002. I have been issued with a record of how that shortfall has come about. The current staffing level is three permanent consultants, two temporary consultants and one vacancy. The hospital is currently advertising for additional staff, but there is no hope of getting them. This is a long way off the three months that has been promised. One of the consultant orthopaedic surgeons wrote to me and begged me, as a TD for Monaghan, to try to get something done about the serious problems afflicting orthopaedic and other surgery in the area.

I turn to the general hospital in my own area of Monaghan. The Minister for Health and Children promised that five junior doctors would be appointed to ensure that the treatment room could continue in Monaghan General Hospital. Those five junior doctors have not been appointed. The positions have not even been advertised. I warn the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, and the Minister for Health and Children if he is listening, that unless something is done quickly, the treatment room in Monaghan General Hospital will close down under this great administration on 1 July. I beg, at this last minute, that something be done about this.

Moving on to infrastructure, we were promised on numerous occasions that if only we had the projects ready for operation, all three bypasses on the national road from Dublin to Derry – Derry being the third biggest city in the country – would be dealt with immediately. Two of those are now ready, but in 2002 there is not one penny of funding. The provision of EU money for the BMW region will end in 2006. I ask the Minister for Finance whether money will be spent in the BMW region, as promised when this region was established, or will all the money be spent on the pale?

I will finish on a cross-Border issue. I was at a meeting last week in Monaghan town regarding the Ulster canal and letters were read out from absent colleagues that they all support the reopening of the Ulster canal. Is the Minister for Finance giving his commitment to that? It is vital, if anything is to be done with the Ulster canal as a cross-Border project, that it is done now while there is still some EU money available.

The opening sentence in the crime section of this programme for Government states: "We stand for a society where all people can feel safe in their communities." There is not one mention of rural communities in the document. I read it a couple of times but it seems to have been omitted. Crime is increasing throughout this country. There are more murders and rapes and there is more street violence, but street violence is not something that just happens in cities, it also occurs in villages throughout rural Ireland.

What the Government seems to have done over the past five years is begin the centralisation of Garda stations around the country. What we are left with is a number of rural communities without a garda. Many of these places, years back, would have a garda sergeant and four regular gardaí, now they are left with nothing. Vast tracts of countryside are left unmanned by the Garda Síochána as a result.

It is not just the public who are telling me this, the gardaí are complaining that it is very unfair for the general populace to be subjected to this. My biggest concern in this regard is for elderly people living in rural Ireland, having been left totally unprotected and unsafe in their homes. Many of them in my constituency of Waterford have been badly affected in the past three years, and you can pinpoint those places from where gardaí have been removed. There is a direct correlation between taking gardaí out of a small village and what happens afterwards.

There are part-time gardaí living in other counties and they go home at 6 p.m. In many parts of Waterford where crime is committed, people have to go 30 miles before they get to Garda headquarters. That is simply unacceptable. To my mind, policing has a lot to do with intelligence gathering. It is about information, talking to the locals and figuring out what is going on. What we have done is left these areas without gardaí so they do not know what is going on. The locals have no opportunity to tell a policeman what exactly is going on as far as crime is concerned in the locality, and the problem just gets worse and worse. I know what I am talking about because my grandfather was a garda sergeant for years, and 40 years later they are still talking about him. It may not all be complimentary, but he had a presence, which is a very important factor.

In many cases in rural Ireland banks have been shut down, there is talk about shutting down post offices, teachers are leaving schools and now we are talking about shutting down Garda stations. Young gardaí are becoming managers. They are not encouraged to mix in local communities or to discover what is going on. Programmes are needed to encouraged young gardaí to live in the rural communities they serve, regardless of whether such schemes lead to pay increases or more promotion opportunities.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

–welcomes and supports the clear and specific Programme for Government agreed by the parties in Government, based on the manifestos endorsed by the electorate, which create the framework for the continued development and enhancement of economic and social progress over the next five years.

I am happy to respond to this motion on behalf of the Government and to ask the House to make clear its support for the programme for Government agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, based on the parties' manifestos which were endorsed by the electorate last month. Contrary to what those opposite seek to portray, the programme is a comprehensive programme for action with several key aspects. It is clear, specific and targeted and sets out the priorities for action. It is grounded on the firm basis of seeking to maintain a balanced budgetary position and it reflects the wishes and aspirations of the electorate as recently expressed. Its delivery is supported by the previous Government's record of delivering on its targets during its five years in office. Those who read the programme can see at a glance that it is comprehensive. It covers all aspects of Government from economic and budgetary policy to building a caring society, ensuring balanced regional development, supporting civic life and building peace and justice within and outside the State.

I fail to see how a charge of no clear targets or timeframes can be made. The Government has committed in the programme to improving the quality of public services in the specific areas with which I deal. We will deliver further real improvements to pensioners and those on low incomes and we will meet our targets on major capital and investment programmes. We have committed to establishing the National Development Finance Agency, an innovative concept to address our infrastructural deficit. We will use once-off revenues to create a national transformation fund to enhance capital investment. We will assist enterprise and employment with specific cuts in business taxes in the area of corporation tax and capital gains tax and we will direct resources at those on low pay by removing earners on the minimum wage from the income tax net, putting 80% of tax payers on the standard rate of income tax and using tax credits to better target tax resources to achieve key policy objectives.

The Government's social welfare policies include a target for reducing consistent poverty. It has established a benchmark of €150 per week, in 2002 terms, for social welfare payments and it has set a goal of achieving a State pension of at least €200 per week by 2007. The new programme re-emphasises the Government's commitment to key aspects of the health strategy, including increasing bed capacity by a specific amount, reducing waiting lists, reforming primary care to provide extended coverage and developing community based services for the elderly. The level of investment in the health services since 1997 has been very significant and spending is no longer below the EU average.

Deputies will have noted a report from the Economic and Social Research Institute, commissioned by The Irish Times before the election. The report stated that the amount of money spent by Ireland on health is above the European Union average, including the amount in the United Kingdom following recent spending increases by the Chancellor, Mr. Brown. Furthermore, the ESRI's research, conducted by Professor John FitzGerald, showed that Irish spending on health will be above that of almost all EU countries as a percentage of GNP by the time the health strategy has been implemented. This refutes the accusation made over the years that the Government has not spent money on health. I have agreed on many occasions with the argument made inside and outside the House that many reforms are needed in the health service, but the independent research conducted for The Irish Times by Professor FitzGerald clearly shows that additional funding is not such a necessary reform. The accusation that sufficient resources are not being allocated in the health sector does not stand up to scrutiny. The report was not widely mentioned during the election campaign, but it was noted in the Department of Finance as it re-emphasised what I have been saying for some time.

That is nonsense, of course.

My friend, Deputy Higgins, sometimes reports liberally from the ESRI and quotes its findings to me.

The ESRI has a good record and provides an independent voice. Deputy Higgins will agree that the newspaper to which I referred is not a noted supporter of this Government. It has not supported me as Minister for Finance during the past five years and I do not expect that I will be treated differently in the next five years. The research which was reported must be at least taken on board in this discussion. As we must ensure that a quality health product is delivered as a result of the extra resources, I decided in the last budget to establish a commission on health service funding to review, evaluate and make recommendations. I will return to the theme of value for money and its implications.

The previous Government prioritised education and science during its term of office and provided an unprecedented level of funding to develop and improve services. Under the new programme, the Government will continue to pursue policies aimed at ensuring that children can achieve their potential and that the standards of education and facilities are maintained and improved. Policies will have particular regard to children with special needs and children and adults from disadvantaged areas. Where is the lack of targets or clarity in this? I could go through other parts of the programme in a similar vein, but I will leave that to my colleagues who will be speaking on the motion.

Delivery of targets ultimately requires resources. We must generate these resources, use them prudently and seek maximum value for money. I view this last criterion as crucial in all cases but especially where the capacity to generate funding is more limited going forward than it has been in the recent past. It is not a matter of saving for saving's sake or efficiency for narrow business reasons, but of fairness all round. If an extra €1 of value can be realised, for example in health delivery, that yields an extra €1 for those areas of the health service which might otherwise lose out. It is not a matter of merely saving money; it is a public duty to see that the huge resources put into public service delivery meet as many real needs of the people as possible.

I have made clear on many occasions that we can only spend the resources we have. We cannot spend funds we have not got or cannot reasonably generate. The most secure way to sustain the public finances is to keep a balance in the finances of Government. I took particular pains to include this underlying framework in my party's election manifesto and it can also be found in plain terms in the programme for Government. The programme makes it clear that this is part of our commitments under the EU growth and stability pact, which we signed up to before I became Minister for Finance. As a nation, we have given a sovereign commitment to keep Government finances close to balanced or in surplus and to take corrective action if there is an actual or expected divergence from the objective. The Government will respect this commitment. I can hardly see how such a budgetary framework could be clearer or more measurable. It is not only the Dáil that can judge actions in this area but the Commission and all other member states at ECOFIN. I am not aware of any such previous clear budgetary commitment put and endorsed in any election.

In my view the critical issue is that the contents of the programme for Government were endorsed by the electorate. The Opposition may not welcome the result but they cannot credibly ask the House to condemn the recently expressed choice of voters, as to do so would be perverse. All parties set out detailed proposals in the election; they sought to cost them and to set them in a budgetary framework. We had our differences on how coherent those costings and frameworks were in some cases, but the decision has been made and the Government's task now is to deliver.

We spent a number of years talking about joining the euro. During the run up to the introduction of the euro I heard people say that this question was not put to the Irish people. As Members will be aware, the question was put to the people during the Maastricht referendum, even though much attention was not paid to it. The terms of the EU stability and growth pact were negotiated and clearly spelt out when we held the Presidency in 1996. As I have stated on a number of occasions and ad nauseam during the election campaign, irrespective of who occupies the position of Minister for Finance and irrespective of what party that individual is drawn from, we are bound by these commitments.

There was some discussion in the House on the finance aspects of European matters arising from the recommendation by myself and Mr. Solbes that the deal was to be outside the broad economic policy guidelines. I pointed out at the time, whatever about the broad economic policy guidelines, the serious matter was the terms of the stability and growth pact. In recent months two member states have had some difficulties in this regard. The ECOFIN Council recently adjudicated on the German stability programme and the Portuguese programme. People will also be aware that an ECOFIN meeting is scheduled for this week in advance of the Seville European Council to finalise the position regarding the French proposals. It has been possible post the French elections to adjudicate on this matter in a more sober light. Therefore, the terms of the stability and growth pact are not of academic importance or something we can pick and choose. The rules were laid down in line with all the countries joining up to the euro.

We will be in a privileged position in years to come. Perhaps in future Deputy Michael D. Higgins will be the Minister for Finance. Who knows what the electorate will throw up in the future. Deputy Joe Higgins may be Minister for Finance. There may be a majority of Sinn Féin Deputies in the House. They may form the Government and some of their illustrious group may occupy the position of Minister for Finance. Irrespective of what party is in office it will be bound by the rules of the euro. The Government and future Governments may make adjustments in micro areas and in terms of taxation or spending.

The Minister is changing.

There is no change. These rules have been clearly laid down. The rules of the stability and growth pact must be adhered to.

The Minister will be campaigning for the Nice treaty.

The Minister, without interruption.

During the election campaign, despite answering parliamentary questions in advance regarding the broad economic policy guidelines and talking about the stability and growth pact, some parties, including parties one would expect, made commitments in various Government programmes about what could or could not be done and what could or could not be counted. For example, under the terms of the stability and growth pact, the amount of money we sent to the pension reserve fund does not count. It is as if it never left the Government coffers. One is not penalised in terms of the stability and growth pact. On the other hand, one does not get credit for privatisation of State assets, except in terms of reducing the interest on the national debt. These issues must also be taken into account.

The terms of the stability and growth pact are such, irrespective of who is Minister for Finance, that they will have to be adhered to. That aspect was highlighted more clearly during the election campaign despite all the talk during the previous five years. In the end, all parties regarded this as the main issue. In my view, this is the critical issue. What is in the programme is what was endorsed by the electorate. The Opposition may not welcome the result but it cannot ask the House to condemn the recently expressed choice of the electorate. That would be perverse. During the election campaign all the parties set out detailed proposals. All sought the costings of the said proposals in the budgetary framework. There were differences on how coherent those costings and frameworks were in some cases. However, the decision has been made and the Government must now deliver. I suggest that as a student of politics and a participant in the art of politics, Deputy Michael D. Higgins would be interested in this aspect from an academic viewpoint.

I note since the election that some commentators more or less blame themselves for letting the Fianna Fáil Party in particular dominate a lot of the election coverage regarding the economy and that the Opposition fell into the trap also, as if we might otherwise have had a different election result. I recall some of the blame being attributed to me as if there should have been a greater debate on other aspects of the Government's programme such as the public finances. It was suggested that the Opposition got caught in the trap set by Fianna Fáil of having to discuss the economy during at least half the election campaign, as if it was the job of Fianna Fáil to plan how there could be a greater debate to help the other par ties get elected. There is a new kind of principle of falling on one's sword which I have not heard enunciated during a campaign for a number of years.

Economics were discussed during much of the campaign. The terms of the stability and growth pact were discussed which highlighted the problems going forward, irrespective of what party is in power. That has been the one positive aspect of the election campaign.

That was on the day of the count.

Deputy Hogan will be aware that my job was to win the election for Fianna Fáil, not help his party or Deputy Higgins's party, much as I like individuals in both parties.

The Minister and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, played a good part in it.

One sound way to judge whether someone can deliver is to look at what they have done when given the chance in the past. In the case of the parties forming the Government, the record shows that we can meet the targets. At the risk of making those opposite feel uncomfortable, I believe it is worthwhile to go over this record. Since taking office in 1997, both parties in Government presided over one of the best economic performances in the world. During that period of office economic growth in GDP terms averaged around 10% per annum; real living standards and take home pay increased substantially; we put an end to forced emigration; over 300,000 new jobs were created; unemployment fell from over 10% to 4% in 2000; the long-term unemployment rate was cut by 80%; the economy became one of the most open and competitive in the world; and the public indebtedness dropped sharply from 74% of GDP in 1996 to around 34% now, giving us the second lowest national debt in Europe.

In the area for which I am responsible, I undertook a series of major reforms and restructuring of the tax system. The first five budgets I introduced reduced both the standard rate and the top rate of income tax by six percentage points and replaced the personal and PAYE allowances with tax credits, making the system more equitable. Increases in those credits have ensured that 37% of income earners are now outside the tax net and 90% of the value of the current minimum wage is exempt from tax.

On top of that, the budgets progressively widened the standard rate band, thereby reducing the numbers paying tax at the top rate; increased the incentive to work by reducing average tax rates, thus reducing the tax wedge which is now the lowest in the EU for those who are on average or low pay; increased the wage exemption limits for those aged 65 or over, thereby removing significant numbers of older citizens from the tax net; reduced the rate of capital gains tax from 40% to 20%, thereby encouraging people to release assets into the market and greatly increasing the tax yield; reformed the taxation of inheritance and gifts by introducing a single 20% CAT rate across the board, introducing a shared home exemption which was widely welcomed, simplifying the aggregation rules and abolishing probate tax; simplified the health expenses scheme, disposing of the need for complicated covenant arrangements and extended the relief to cover a wider range of family members as well as others such as those aged 65 and over and the incapacitated; amalgamated the existing tax reliefs for donations into one new simplified and expanded scheme, which now covers charities in general, second level schools and third level educational institutions as well as capital sports projects.

It has rationalised and expanded the tax relief for third level fees and introduced relief at source for mortgage interest and medical insurance, aligned the income tax year with the calendar year and brought forward related benefit for budget day tax on social welfare changes. New pension arrangements for the self-employed have been introduced and other categories to give a person more control over their own pensions on retirement removing the obligation on them to purchase retirement annuities in all cases. Provision has been made for a phased reduction in corporation tax to 12.5% across the board for all corporate trading income by 2003.

The Government ensured in its term of office that the Revenue Commissioners were provided with adequate resources to carry out their duties, both in terms of manpower and statutory powers. Specifically, in regard to powers, the Government introduced a number of measures to enhance the Revenue Commissioners' powers to enable them to obtain a greater range of information from third parties, to access bank accounts and to audit records of financial institutions. We have committed in the programme for Government to further address tax evasion and we will also deliver on that. I plan to further overhaul, reform and rationalise various aspects of the tax and revenue systems where that helps to simplify tax administration, assist the taxpayer in dealing with taxation, enable resources to be used more effectively and to better target tax resources towards achieving Government priorities.

No matter how good the record of achievement is, there will always be challenges for the future. A key challenge to address is investment in infrastructure which we need to do to secure future growth. We need to invest to meet the demographic challenge of ageing and the implications this has for the cost, provision and structure of the public services going forward. Over the last five years the Government committed significant resources to capital investment, especially to roads, public transport and housing.

There is a huge shortfall.

Capital spending will have increased from just €2 billion in 1997 to just over €5.7 billion in 2002. Even with such a high level of investment in our infrastructure, more is needed to meet the growing needs of the economy and the new Government is committed to this.

Deputy Hayes should note that pumping too many resources into the capital programme will have an effect, which we can point to over the last number of years. All one does is drive up inflation in that particular sector and one gets less return for one's buck, which is what has happened regarding some of the capital programme over two years. Resources were pumped in, but only the same pool was there to do the work and tender prices went up. There is another myth out there that needs to be exploded.

The Minister should be able to control that.

One will only get that if one has severe amounts of competition and the encouragement of outside contractors coming in with their own pool of expertise. Even if they come in and engage in joint ventures, one still has the same pool here and all one does is push up the prices.

Can that not be controlled?

It is something that should be borne in mind when people say "Just put in more money in one particular year".

I agree with the Minister.

Accordingly, the programme for Government sets out ambitious and specific targets in areas such as transport and environmental services. Achievement of these targets will be assisted through the implementation of the infrastructure investment programme of the national development plan. Despite some misinformed commentary to the contrary, progress in rolling out the NDP infrastructure programme has been satisfactory. In particular, good progress has been made under the economic and social infrastructure programme of the plan with financial outturn well on target and significant physical output being recorded. In financial terms over the first three years of the plan, total investment under the economic and social infrastructure programme will amount to €10.2 billion, which is €140 million more than originally planned. The Exchequer and EU contribution over the same period will amount to €8.5 billion or €740 million more than originally planned.

Particular attention was paid by the previous Government to the delivery on the ground of the NDP programme and a major innovation was the creation of the Cabinet committee on infrastructural development, including public private partnerships, chaired by the Taoiseach and supported by an interdepartmental team of senior officials. This institutional structure, which will be continued by the new Administration, provides a powerful framework to address institutional, administrative, legal and other factors which impact on infrastructural delivery. In addition, the establishment of a Department of Transport responsible for major roads and public transport investment will enable a better and more integrated focus on delivery of investment in this key area.

The roll out of the NDP infrastructural programme has resulted in projects of an unprecedented scale and size being constructed throughout the country, even with a number of factors which have intervened to limit progress. Construction industry inflation has been higher than anticipated at the outset of the plan and these higher costs have absorbed resources. Additional costs have also arisen in some cases as a result of respecification of projects as they moved from conception to planning, design and construction. Finally, delays have been encountered as a result of disruption due to foot and mouth disease and compensation of land owners. The programme for Government and the NDP are predicated on the continuation of stable macroeconomic policies and sound public finances. I am confident that if we adhere to this policy the resources will be delivered to enable the Government accord the necessary priority to progressing the infrastructure investment programme in the plan and in the programme for Government.

I am proud to have established the National Pensions Reserve Fund and I welcome the positive support given to this initiative by the Fine Gael Party. In common with other industrialised countries, Ireland is set to experience a significant ageing of its population over the coming decades and this will give rise to a serious financial burden on the State. It will put a severe strain on the capacity of all Governments to fund social welfare and public service pension liabilities on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. The purpose of the National Pensions Reserve Fund is to move from sole reliance on "pay-as-you-go" and to introduce part prefunding of our future liabilities. It is a long-term project from which we should not be deflected in the early years. The establishment fund will help to smooth the Exchequer burden arising from our additional pension commitments and introduces a new strategic long-term element into budgetary planning. This is our nest egg for the future and we should not deploy it to meet short-term priorities. The ageing burden is an inevitable cost, not something we can avoid or dispel or over which we have any real measure of discretion, which is why the Government in its programme will continue to provide for it. That is a clear and firm commitment.

The new programme for Government regards the delivery of improved public services as a priority. In particular, over the next five years the Government will focus its attention on health, education and social inclusion within the context of an effective public expenditure management regime. To achieve these goals will require delivery of key results and a close look at the amount of input required to secure the desired outcome. The single biggest input in the public sector is staff and the cost of such staff resources. Obviously, we need a balanced way of relating output to input and pay systems in the public sector are not noted for such rationality and have exhibited many rigidities.

Over the years Government sought ways of getting away from the rigidities of this system and at the time of the negotiation of the current Programme for Prosperity and Fairness the Government was determined that we could not continue with a system of dealing with pay claims on a piecemeal basis with groups attempting to leapfrog each other. A more orderly way of determining public service pay was needed. Arising out of these concerns the Public Service Benchmarking Body was established as an independent body to examine public service pay and to place the rates for the job in the public service within the context of the private sector and the economy as a whole. Importantly, from our perspective, the parties concerned agreed that historical, cross-sectoral relativities were incompatible with this initiative. This process represents a totally new approach. It is an independent examination and has been the most extensive examination of its kind ever carried out in this country and, indeed, would be regarded as comprehensive by international standards.

When the Public Service Benchmarking Body was established in July 2000 it was asked to report by end-June 2002. The report, I understand, will be delivered on time. The implementation of the report is to be the subject of negotiations between the public service employers and trade unions. These discussions will take place in the context of whatever arrangements emerge to succeed the PPF. The Government will also have to consider the cost implications of the recommendations in the report in determining its approach to those discussions. At this stage we do not know what these will be. Benchmarking will establish appropriate levels of pay and the budgetary outcome will determine the levels of increase we can afford in any one year.

If the public is to get maximum value from their taxes which pay for the increases, ongoing modern work practices and flexibilities must be part of the resultant package. We have to proceed on the basis that a euro devoted to higher pay rates is a euro not available otherwise to improve services. Unless public servants can deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness, the taxpaying public will rightly ask why should they pay more unless they get more in terms of the quality of public services.

Any five year programme is dependent on the medium term outlook for the economy. We have the capacity to deliver healthy growth rates provided we continue to secure our competitiveness. This will be an important challenge, made all the more relevant by the recent appreciation of the euro. As a small open economy with a very large reliance on trade and foreign investment, our fortunes depend very much on the international outlook. They also depend on us maintaining a competitive economy in terms of wage costs, productivity, quality of goods and reliability of services. It also means having a competitive and efficient domestic sector providing services and inputs for the more internationally exposed sector of the economy. One important area of that domestic sector is insurance costs and the programme for government proposes specific measures to address the problems that have arisen, which can affect our growth performance. I expect that growth this year will live up to expectations after a slow start in the first half of the year. Achieving this relies on sustained expansion in major international economies. Despite the continuing uncertainty on the part of some commentators, the consensus view is the US economy is in recovery and first quarter US GDP data supports this.

In the final analysis the Government will be judged on its record. The programme for Government will provide the means to make this judgment and the electorate will once again in five years time have a clear basis on which to exercise its judgment, the only one that counts in the end. I urge the House to support the amended motion.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and to comment on the Government's programme. I listened with great interest to the Minister's contribution and he was wrong on most things. He began by invoking a mandate he claims he got from the people. The public gave Fianna Fáil 81 seats while half a dozen independent Fianna Fáil Members were available to form a Fianna Fáil Government but the Taoiseach decided to surrender that mandate from the people to a small group known as the Progressive Democrats and offer its members positions at Cabinet and junior ministerial level. It is a curious version of a mandate to go to the people, secure enough seats to form a Government and then decide to give them away unless one is like Deputy McCreevy, the Trojan horse for centre right thinking in the outgoing Administration, who was able to deliver Fianna Fáil, the republican party, once again to the Progressive Democrats.

There is nothing very republican about the programme that has been published and it does not refer to the concept of citizenship. The Minister referred to his five previous budgets, which he is hoping to publish together as a personal testament of his contribution to society, and in each one he deepened the inequalities in society. He gave as much to those at the top of the tax net as he did to those at the bottom. There was an interesting little omission in his contribution as he never referred to housing.

After five years during which the country experienced the largest budget surpluses in its history, the health service has moved into crisis, not solely for financial reasons but for administrative reasons as well, while in regard to housing the combined income of a couple who both earn the average industrial wage, and who are forced to enter the economy and cannot stay at home to become involved in child rearing, is still not sufficient to purchase a house. When the final statistics are published by the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the total number of people on housing lists will probably be between 50,000 and 60,000.

There is an interesting scenario in the private rented sector where tenants seek the same rights that Michael Davitt sought at the end of the nineteenth century, including security of tenure, fairness in rent and the right to pass on a tenancy. Two years ago a report on the housing market was published, which dealt with the issue of tenants but it was not addressed by the previous Government. The legislation promised in the new programme has not been brought forward. However, the Minister adopted the first Bacon report, which addressed the issue of speculation in housing to an extent. Outside opinion suggests it was a factor in house price inflation but the Minister decided to reduce capital gains tax on speculative gains on house sales, the most crucial area of all. Wave them off in one report and then wave them back again.

I have spent 24 years as an academic but what I have to say is not academic at all. It is a scandal in a republic to have allowed the heart to be torn out of the economy by allowing speculators to destroy the housing market. I am not elected to the House to stand up and make a contribution that is a cross between a racing analysis and a weather forecast on the economy. I am asked to speak about political economy and I challenge the Minister on the assumptions that guide his thinking and that of the Government.

Are all matters to be decided by supply and demand in the marketplace through a commodified and depeopled version of the economy, such as in health where public private partnerships fill gaps the State cannot or where people are permitted to enter one sector of the housing market and write off their tax liability because of the number of houses they own? The Minister introduced these measures and it is not something of which to be proud. People who owned ten or 12 houses when the previous Government took office now own 20 and 30 and on it goes. Is that something of which to be proud? Is it very republican? What does it tell us about citizenship?

It tells us something interesting about the Government's approach to housing and health, which is its antipathy to a rights-based approach to legislation. Centre right Ministers believe everything can be commodified. It is a case of the commodified version of the economy ruled by the marketplace in terms of supply and demand. Is there anything that is not a matter of such commodification and laws of the marketplace?

For example, Ireland signed up to various United Nations covenants and in some there is a discussion on the forward movement of human rights thinking, which is to add social and economic rights to civil and political rights. Ireland's performance in this area was discussed recently at a UN verifying committee meeting in Geneva. The Government was asked to report on its view about such thinking. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution reported negatively in 1996 on the inclusion of social and economic rights beyond the right to shelter, housing, health and so on and argued that such rights interfered with the property provisions of the Constitution.

The Labour Party attempted to introduce a Bill in 1998 which would have merged social and economic rights with civil and political rights. When Ireland was asked to report in Geneva recently the UN verifying committee flatly rejected the Government's case against social and economic rights. The Government repeated the argument it used in 1999 for the second periodic report this year and this was bluntly rejected by the committee, which "took pains in its concluding observations to point out that when a state voluntarily ratifies an international human rights instrument it, thereby, assumes the legal obligation to give the relevant international law full effect in the domestic legal order".

The programme for Government, therefore, does not accept rights in terms of housing, health, disability and international covenants to which Ireland has appended its name. In 1999 and 2002 the verifying committee of the UN in Geneva criticised Ireland for its approach in this regard. The programme of Government for the next five years does not accept rights and, therefore, is not based on a theory of citizenship but on a depeopled version of the economy. According to the Government anything good that has happened is an achievement on the part of the Minister while anything negative is the achievement of the international trade winds that are blowing.

I have heard of all of this previously and there is nothing new or original in the programme. However, the agreed programme does not have a title. It has a little demented harp with the republican party written underneath on one side of the cover while the Pairtí Daonlathach is printed on the other side. It has been described by the Minister as a model of clarity. However, for example, on page six it contains aspirational "stuff", as a younger generation would call it. The programme states "Within the next 12 months we will publish a specific programme to ensure the expansion of social, cultural and economic co-operation with all the countries that are joining the European Union". This is coming from a Government that abolished the post of Minister for culture, is unable to say which Minister of State responsible for mushrooms or fish will attend the Culture Ministers Council in Brussels and was so committed to opposing the very concept of culture that it regarded broadcasting as a commodity as well. It takes neck, with which I have always credited Fianna Fáil and for which I admired it. When I think of the "McDowellisms" that will now be at the heart of the Fianna Fáil thinking, many decent Fianna Fáil people should be asking questions.

Another piece of clarity appears on page seven: "We will vigorously pursue actions to ensure that everyone is tax compliant." That is about on the level of saying we will take steps that will astonish you. The language in this programme, this mish-mash thing of bits and pieces, gets worse. It blatantly tells untruths on page eight where it suggests "we support the positive role of the community employment scheme", when the Tánaiste already abolished more community employment scheme places by 2002 than was agreed in the cutback for 2004. It moves on to the question of the statutory redundancy scheme in relation to conditions of employment. It states: "they will be examined with a view to implementation." Why else would they be examined? What does that mean? I do not wish to bore the House but on insurance and road safety it states: "Work on the penalty points system will be completed to ensure its implementation at an early date." Like hens laying eggs, they are hoping that some day it will happen.

There are very interesting points in relation to Iarnród Éireann. It states: "We will establish Iarnród Éireann as an independent State company in its own right with full management autonomy." There is no reference to the disposal of the assets of CIE. This can be deconstructed to mean "We will break up CIE." On the issue of the sale of State assets, the sale of what the people own, to private speculators who have always known to which party to go, there is obvious disagreement. There is a curious statement that: "It will be considered on a non-ideological basis", but what could be more ideological than grabbing what you do not own and selling it, which is the Progressive Democrats view? Then, in order to keep the Fianna Fáil punters happy and to keep the common blushes, if there is such a thing, from reaching a dangerous level, "Each proposal will be examined on a case-by-case basis."

Incineration is in. I love the idea on litter. The programme states: "We will ensure that all Government and other State agencies fulfil their obligations under the Litter Pollution Act." What else would they be expected to do? Break it? This is like saying Wednesday usually follows Tuesday with a good expectation that Friday will be two days later. This was described by the Minister for Finance as clear, specific and targeted.

I like that. On page 17, there is a commitment to the up-to-date nuclear emergency plans, and I believe the iodine tablets have arrived so I suppose that should be noted as an instant success. It states: "We will implement a full package of reforms in rented accommodation arising from the report of the Commission on the Private Rented Sector." Where is the legislation in relation to any of the certainties that people were looking for?

There is a kind of seediness in relation to other areas, including education. On page 23 the programme states: "We will ensure that every pupil participates in a programme designed to increase understanding of the value and role of enterprise." This is in a 34-page document that does not contain the word "music" once. It offers a prospect of that kind of mentality that children could not be safe from the notion that everything had to be commodified. There is no reference to the huge need for music education. It would have been a simple old Fianna Fáil value in the past. It would have said something such as that every child would have an opportunity to learn to swim or to play a musical instrument. That is all gone. It is a huckster's charter rather than a programme for Government. There is the grandiosity of the line such as, "We are committed to moving forward on the basis of implementing our highly ambitious children strategy." I ask the Lord to save us from their ambitions.

I imagine the Minister for Finance is very happy because there is not a single commitment in this that could mean anything or that could embarrass him in the slightest. The Department of Finance will be happy. He will be well able to say that there was nothing in the programme that was not delivered because it was not included from the beginning.

It is time we debated economics and the assumptions that are underlying these policies and programmes. It is becoming more urgent as there has been a shift in the political spectrum in France to a centre right Government. What have centre right Governments to offer?

It is the will of the people.

Of course I accept the will of the people and the Minister knows that at least I have said he has always held the same kind of populist views. He knows where I stand on this. I challenge him to say if he is accepting a basis of universal access or rights in any area – education, health, environment, safety or participation. If he does not accept the rights-based approach, how will the Government implement the Good Friday Agreement when that agreement will carry many of the rights from the British legislation which are flowing directly from a rights base?

Does he really believe in the commodification of everything in relation to the housing market? Is the Government not concerned at what is happening in relation to housing ? A recent housing survey from the Department of the Environment and Local Government produced figures on the number of people who would be regarded as not qualifying for affordable housing. In Carlow, the figure was as high as 27% to 28.9%; Cork, 33.9% to 36%; and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, 53% to 57%. In a case where speculation has been allowed to put more than half the population in a particular area out of the category of earning affordable housing, how can the Minister say that he is running the economy properly? Housing is a social good and is a critical element in human community and social development.

An assessment of housing needs should be carried out by an independent multi-disciplinary body. Land is the central resource required for housing and the State should move through public land banks and give constitutional support to that if necessary. Housing policies should be tenure-neutral rather than biased in favour of single options. Legislation should be enacted to ensure that housing is a universal right without qualification. If we had an acceptance of a rights-based approach in health and housing and in the basic matters of citizenship from a republican party, I would be perfectly willing to debate with the Minister to what his conversations with the Minister, Deputy McDowell, had led him. I believe that the arrival of this rump in the Government represents a disaster for the next five years. It will be disastrous in several different areas. The way in which they can turn their faces against social need is something that fills me with horror. How can the Minister keep describing the economy in terms of European performance and GDP when the economy can appear to be doing well at a superficial level while people are doing badly? Even those whose tax burden has been reduced, which I acknowledge, have been put into a prison from early morning until night in which they must find child care. They are leading deeply unhappy lives in a depeopled economy. That is why this programme for Government is a disastrous mishmash and a continuation of previous policies.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share