Deputy McHugh was in possession and has ten minutes remaining.
Book of Estimates, 2003: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Finance on Tuesday, 19 November 2002:
That Dáil Éireann commends the 2003 Estimates for Public Services (Abridged) published by the Minister for Finance on 14th November, 2002.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"rejects the Book of Estimates for 2003 which have failed to initiate any serious reform of public services to deliver value for money but have simply targeted the easy options for cutting spending without heed to their impact on the economy or the community."
–Deputy R. Bruton.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Ferris and Eamon Ryan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Young people are a nuisance. We must not provide them with any facilities to receive a proper education and we have to ensure that if they have notions about buying a house, they will be put in their respective boxes. We must remove any assistance on which they have relied to put in place the last few euro to clinch the deal. The same can be said for rural Ireland and its inhabitants. They are a drain on the economy. We have never given them any recognition and that will continue.
Let me hasten to add that the foregoing is not my view but, from my perusal of the Book of Estimates, it certainly appears to be the view of its author, the Minister for Finance, and the Government collectively. The totally unacceptable conditions in which young people are educated are set to continue. The deplorable standards of our national schools, some of which were sub-standard 30 years ago, are being allowed to continue without improvement. The cutbacks in the provision for the national school building programme amounts to a real reduction of 8%. The Government parties should bow their heads in shame for allowing terrible conditions to prevail in our national schools, which would cause a revolution in Third World countries.
The abolition of the first-time new house buyer's grant is the most evident attack on young people that has emanated from the Estimates. It means that such people will not now be able to purchase new houses and will end up on local authority housing lists. Unfortunately for them, the prospect of obtaining local authority houses has also been hit because there is a reduction of 9% in real terms in the finances available for local authority and social housing. The Government backbenchers who are now in revolt can stop going through the pretence of making representations to the Taoiseach and his Ministers because I can tell them what the outcome will be. It will be a fudge, a pretence of replacing the grant by increased mortgage relief or some similar concession. Those backbenchers should start claiming the credit immediately.
The contempt in which rural Ireland and its inhabitants are held by the Government is obvious from the anti-rural bias in the Book of Estimates. Under the provisions included in the Estimates, the condition of rural roads in particular is set to decline. A 25% decrease in funding under the CLÁR programme will strike an enormous blow to areas of the country that have witnessed the greatest decline in population in recent years. The CLÁR programme was hailed two years ago as the saviour of rural decline but the shambles that is the Government's rural development policy is exemplified by a cut of 29% in that programme.
A cutback of 11% in the finances available for water and sewerage services will impact on small villages and towns that have been on the waiting list for such facilities for years. Any hope such towns had of enjoying prosperity is totally dependent on adequate services being provided. The savage cutback in a budget which was already inadequate is an indicator of the Government's lack of concern for rural areas.
The Minister is sharing time with Deputies Ferris and Eamon Ryan.
According to the programme for Government, the current Administration has a vision of rural Ireland in which young people will have a choice between attractive options. It is committed to developing radically the social and physical infrastructure of rural areas. If the cuts signalled in the Estimates are anything to go by, however, the only options on offer will be the old ones of emigration and poverty. That is because the only radical change to be made on foot of these cuts will be detrimental and will undo whatever benefits have occurred over the past few years.
The proposed cuts in the area of forestry plantation are a disgrace because they target the most vulnerable section of our community and go against the grain of rural regeneration. The rural affairs budget is being slashed by 26% and this will have serious implications for programmes such as Leader and CLÁR, which should be expanded to attract increased participation instead of being subjected to these restrictions. Other areas to suffer include installation aid for young farmers, which is down by 75%. It is bad enough that rural communities should have to suffer the effects of the overall cutbacks in public spending, without also being subject to the isolation and deprivation that will inevitably follow the cuts in funding for rural development.
I contest the Government's current claim that it must introduce these cuts because revenue sources are not as lucrative as had been envisaged. In recent weeks we have seen joyous announcements from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on new gas finds and new exploration licences. Yet, the State is not guaranteed a single cent in revenue or royalties from hydrocarbon reserves because any downstream benefits have effectively been given to the multinationals. This amounts to a scandalous give-away of our natural oil and gas resources.
Future generations will shake their heads in wonderment at how a Government that pleaded poverty as it attacked the most vulnerable in society could at the same time be delighted that our oil and gas potential, worth billions of euro, was left in the hands of unscrupulous and dishonest multinationals who in other countries would have to stage a military coup to secure the operating terms they receive here. The revenue from our oil and gas reserves could have funded an economic golden age, as it did in Norway. All the multinational companies have to do, however, is pay for a tent where their Fianna Fáil friends can donate money to the party at the Galway races. That is all we are aware of at the moment, although the role of Ray Burke in charging for licences might make one think otherwise.
I was very moved yesterday to see one Minister after another coming into the House to boast proudly about how they had increased departmental spending over the past two years. They failed to realise, however, that the central criticism of the Government is that it allowed current spending to get out of control. They blew the boom for the purpose of getting re-elected and, while no one wants to cut spending coming up to an election, they have had to apply the brakes since. The Government has crashed the economy with Lord knows what long-term consequences.
I was amazed by the Taoiseach's response yesterday when we sought time to debate the Estimates. He said he thought it was strange because there had not been such a debate over the past few years. The lack of any critical analysis of the previous Government's spending is possibly the greatest problem. The Progressive Democrats, the so-called watchdogs, sat at the Cabinet table, yet they did not analyse Government spending. Do they know so little about economics that they were able to watch Ministers throwing money at their respective Departments, at a growth rate of 20%, and not realise that it was madness to do so?
One of the reasons there was no such debate – it is one of the broad issues we need to address – is the lack of analysis of how we should spend public money in a developing society. It is increasingly clear that the partnership process, which was originally designed to bring about peaceful industrial relations, has taken over the role of this House in analysing budgets and the legislative way forward.
Another reason there was no critical analysis over the past two or three years of Government Estimates is that most political parties bought into the partnership process. My colleagues in the Labour Party were probably getting a line from ICTU that said, "All is well, we've got the wage increases we want, keep things quiet, we are happy enough with the way things are". Meanwhile, my colleagues in Fine Gael might well have been getting a line from IBEC that said, similarly, "All is well, in our case we are doing particularly well, thank you very much, we have halved our capital gains tax liability and have massively increased our profits so we would prefer if you didn't rock the boat too much".
The Deputy should read our scripts.
It is about time this House started debating exactly what the Government is spending and it is about time the Government itself came up with some vision as to what it stands for and how it wants to develop the country. I get no sense of that, however, from the Book of Estimates. In every area, it is not just the amount of money we must question but also how we are spending it.
Much attention has been paid in this debate to forestry and I regret the cuts in that budget sector, but it depends where the cuts are made. I do not want to see isolated communities covered with Sitka spruce at the lowest possible cost, just to produce low quality timber. I want to see investment in the highest quality of wood-producing plantations. I am, therefore, not just querying the amount of money that is being spent, but also the development strategy involved.
In yesterday's debate, the Taoiseach was asked why we had not invested in broadband technology, and he replied that it would be a great idea if we invested in broadband but, unfortunately, the private sector does not seem particularly interested. He said it is a terrible pity, but that is the decision of multinationals. We have to take a lead because the State has a role in developing the country's infrastructure. The Estimates provide the blueprint for that but the Government does not seem to have any interest in or vision of how to develop the country – it believes the market should decide everything.
As the Minister is aware, the Green Party takes a strong position on the issue of transport. The one area in which the Government seems to have vision is in the provision of motorways. A massive budget of €1 billion per year is being spent on building motorways that the National Roads Authority says we do not need. We are therefore pouring money into the provision of motorways at a level of capacity which is not required.
Money has also been poured into health without really questioning how we are mixing our public and private health services. We need a much longer debate on the Estimates. The House needs to start analysing exactly how the Government is spending our money and on what. Such analysis has been lacking so far but I hope that, given the renewed criticism both here and in the country at large, we will be able to hold the Government to account for its complete failure to manage the economy.
My constituency colleague's contribution was refreshing in that it had clarity, which I welcome. If he says the country does not need more motorways and I say it does, then there is a certain clarity in that which I appreciate. Perhaps we need more of this in politics. That is where we stand and if Deputy Ryan's party is prepared to say on the 9 o'clock news that the country does not need more motorways, that is fine.
We need public transport.
It is refreshing because it is clear.
The Minister without interruption.
I also admire Deputy Ryan's clarity on another issue, even if I do not agree with it. He has made it clear that he disagrees with the level of spending for the past two years despite the fact that all parties opposite, including his own, called for additional spending on health, social welfare and education in motions on successive Wednesday nights – the Green Party signed many of those motions and as Government Chief Whip I was close to what was going on.
It was misspent.
I do not recall a single resolution in five years from the Opposition side asking for value for money or reduced spending. I do not take from Deputy Ryan's sincerity but if all of us spent a lot of money then all of us in the House did it. Every single Member, in speech after speech, called for that spending and I can show the Deputy the speeches in the Library. Maybe that can be explained by saying we had money. It was there and we were trying to catch up as a country. The health service needed a huge boost from €3 billion to €9 billion. The public service needed to take on 30,000 extra people and it did. We were trying to catch up and that additional spending was necessary. In any case we had it and the Opposition side was right to call for all of that. It is important to be clear on this.
It was meant to be 14% and ended up at 20%. That is where it was misspent.
I take the Deputy's point. I am not allocating blame but I am making the point that money was spent and the economic growth was there to sustain it. Everyone in the House called for it with no exceptions.
The Minister is admitting the €8 billion was recklessly spent.
In the five years I sat here every resolution from that side of the House called for additional spending.
That is progress. The Minister is saying the money was recklessly spent.
How can the Deputy say that?
The Minister said there was no question of value for money—
The Deputy is not listening. I said that in the Opposition resolutions asking for value for money—
The Minister is in Government. It had €8 billion and what is there to show for it?
Order, please. The Minister without interruption.
The people have been conned.
The Opposition called for that spending and agreed to it.
The Estimates for the new Department of Transport highlighted for the first time the significant investment being made in the provision of transport infrastructure and support for services. The Estimates for 2003 provide for expenditure of over €1.8 billion in this area in the coming year and is confirmation of our continuing commitment to delivering infrastructure projects which will be the foundation of future expansion and economic growth.
The Estimate for this year shows an increase of 3% over the comparable 2004 Abridged Estimate figure. This will enable me to progress the development of key projects in the roads, public transport and aviation sectors, all of which require investment. Approximately €1 billion of this funding will be used to continue the national road development programme. To put this funding in context, since 1997 some 60 major projects, covering approximately 400 kilometres of national roads, have been completed or are under way. In that time the level of investment in new road construction has risen from €330 million to €1 billion for 2003. That is a threefold increase in a couple of years.
Did the condensing of the roads programme into a short period of time lead to construction price inflation that almost halved the value for money we are getting from that roads budget?
The Deputy has a point. The huge investment in roads and the speed at which they were being constructed did add to construction cost inflation. I acknowledge that. There was a big push to get more roads and enormous funds were being put into this, which obviously pushed up prices. That is not going to happen in the coming year because construction cost inflation is down considerably.
During 2001 alone some 50 major projects, with a combined length of 106 kilometres, were opened to traffic. Those included the Dunleer to Dundalk stretch of motorway in Louth and the bypasses at Croom and Adare in Limerick, as well as Mountcharles in Donegal. At the beginning of 2002 work was under way on some 20 major projects covering 200 kilometres of national roads, including nearly 130 kilometres of motorway or dual carriageway standard. New stretches open to the public included the Enfield relief road in Kildare on the N4, the N7 parkway in Limerick and the N18 Newmarket-on-Fergus bypass. The provision of €1 billion for the national roads in 2003 will allow for funding of major construction works, including work on the Dublin port tunnel and the south eastern section of the M50 motorway. Work will also continue on the M1, including the Drogheda bypass in Louth, the N7 in Limerick and Kildare, the N11 at the Glen of the Downs in Wicklow and the Ashford-Rathnew bypass. Funding will also be provided for the Youghal and Ballincollig bypasses in Cork as well as for work on the Knock-Claremorris stretch of the N17 in Mayo. Progress on these projects will be carefully monitored in the course of the year and I will consider whether additional projects can be commenced within this financial allocation. I will also be looking for public private partnerships and other funding mechanisms to increase the level of development in the roads sector.
The other significant allocations include the provision of €53 million for national road maintenance and almost €41 million for the Dublin Transportation Office. The latter allocation funds measures such as quality bus corridors – more of which are needed – the strategic cycle network and the implementation of traffic calming and street improvement projects. These include pedestrian routes, facilities for the mobility impaired and the development of local integrated land use and transport framework plans.
Despite the welcome reduction in road deaths, which are down 13%, and serious injuries, which on the basis of Garda figures are down 40% on the last few years, I am progressing initiatives aimed at lowering what is still an unacceptable level of deaths and injuries on the roads. Financial support for these initiatives is included in the Estimates in the provision of €5 million under roads and related services, while €2.7 million is provided for the National Safety Council. These allocations include funding for the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, which undertakes analysis of alcohol content of samples and approval and supply of equipment to the Garda. Support for the penalty points system is also included. The Road Traffic Act, 2002, provides for penalty points to be applied in respect of a wide range of offences, the commission of which have a potentially negative effect on road safety. These include excessive speed, running red lights, poor lane discipline, non-compliance with stop and yield signs and a number of other offences related to vehicle safety, driving licences, seat belts and so on. Excessive speed is still recognised as the most significant contributor towards road accidents and I have therefore asked that the highest possible priority be given to the introduction of penalty points for speeding offences on a stand-alone basis initially. This has been operational since the end of October and I thank the Garda and everyone involved in getting it off to a good start. We must keep the pressure on. Extension of penalty points to all the offences in the Act will be pursued in the course of 2003.
The National Safety Council is a key player in the promotion of road safety and delivery of the goals in the Government's road safety strategy. The council undertakes various awareness and educational activities including radio and television advertising, promotional and educational literature and support for local authority activities.
There is a total public transport allocation of €668 million for 2003. This allocation provides €400 million for investment in capital funding for public transport. The Exchequer investment will also be augmented by EU funding amounting to approximately €90 million next year, which brings total capital investment for next year to approximately €491 million, which compares favourably with the level of funding provided in 2002. This will allow for major expansion in capacity on mainline, suburban and DART services. It also facilitates completion of the upgrading and expansion of Heuston Station and continued investment in a comprehensive railway safety programme.
This continues the unprecedented level of investment in public transport which started in 1999 and it will ensure that the development and expansion of the public transport network in Dublin and the regions is maintained. I am committed to achieving a greater use of public transport, to providing extra bus corridors and additional cycle and pedestrian ways and to bringing the public transport service to a high level. I will leave the discussion of investment in airports and aviation to another time.
These Estimates for the Department of Transport, which show a 3% increase over the 2002 Estimates, will allow for a strong level of investment activity in roads, railways, public transport and aviation for the coming year.
I wish to share my time with Deputy McManus. Public debate has, understandably, focused on the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant because that is the first cutback in the Book of Estimates to be implemented by the Government. Opposition to the abolition of the grant has been led by this side of the House and I am glad to say it has been enjoined by several Deputies from Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. Deputies on the Government side have, justifiably, expressed their concerns at the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant and its impact on young people attempting to buy a home for themselves.
However, I draw the attention of Government Deputies to the Labour Party amendment to this Estimates motion. There is no point in voicing opposition to the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant in their constituencies unless they are prepared to vote with the Labour Party on the proposal. If Government Deputies vote for the Estimates they are, in effect, voting for the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant and no amount of talking around the question will change that fact. They would be wrong to think the dust will settle on this controversy.
I draw Government Deputies' attention to another cutback being implemented by the Government in the area of housing. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs has announced that she is putting a cap on the amount of money a health board can pay in rent allowance and rent supplement to low income tenants. Health boards pay rent supplements largely to tenants in the private rented sector who are in receipt of social welfare payments. The Minister herself estimates that approximately one third of all tenants in the private rented sector – between 50,000 and 60,000 tenants – are in receipt of rent supplement. Arising from these Estimates the Minister has decided that this rent supplement is to be capped and the tenants concerned exposed to the full impact of rent increases, of which many landlords have already notified them, to take effect on 1 January next.
To add insult to injury the Minister has issued a statement saying this is being done to curb increases in rents and control inflation. If the Minister and the Government want to do something about curbing private rents they should cap rent and not cap the rent allowance which is paid to the poorest tenants.
There are three major cutbacks in housing arising from these Estimates: the first-time buyer's grant; the capping of rent allowances by health boards; and the financial cut in local authority and social housing programmes in the Book of Estimates itself. These programmes are to be cut, in money terms, by 5% but when one takes construction inflation into account this amounts to a 20% cut in the social housing programme for next year.
That cut itself comes on top of other cuts in important infrastructure. There is to be a cut of 3% in water and sewerage services, at a time when the country is being taken to the European Court because of our failure to protect the Irish environment. The grant to the Heritage Council is to be cut by 17% and the grant-in-aid to the Heritage Council by 10%.
Most importantly for many Members of this House and for people who value local services, the local government fund is to be frozen. No increase is provided in these Estimates for local authorities. We saw what happened following the flooding last week. Local authorities are unable to maintain drains and surface water systems as it stands but no additional resources are being provided for local authorities which must now set about addressing their own estimates in the next couple of weeks. This will, in turn, result in direct cuts to local services.
In the early hours of this morning I accompanied an elderly woman to my local hospital. As we speak this 90 year old is still lying on a trolley in the accident and emergency department. She has received excellent care from people who are working extremely hard in the most appalling conditions, which are more appropriate to a Third World country. The conditions are dilapidated and, in ways, unsanitary. If St. Colmcille's Hospital in Loughlinstown were getting its entitlement a new hospital would have been built in its grounds. Maybe if it were in the Minister for Health and Children's constituency a new hospital would have appeared by now. Situations such as this, when a 90 year old woman lies on a trolley in an A and E department because there is no space for her in a ward, are a constant daily reminder of the Government's failure to address the problems in our health system.
The Book of Estimates tells a sorry tale. The deepest and biggest failure for which the Government is responsible is its failure to live up to its own promise to deliver medical cards to the 200,000 people who are struggling to live just above the GMS income limit and who need them most. This promise was made clearly by Fianna Fáil and I have no doubt people voted for that party on the basis of that commitment being honoured.
I listened with horror today to the Taoiseach deflecting blame away from himself and placing it, as usual, anywhere but on his own desk. In his usual fashion he said the money was not available and that the general medical scheme was very costly. That is not true and the Taoiseach should know better. The GMS is one of the few areas of the health service which the value for money audit found to be good value. The audit did not find the Department of Health and Children or the health boards good value but it did find the GMS was such.
Since then, because of Government decisions and its gross incompetence, the costs of the GMS have gone up and a new inequity has been introduced into the system. When the over 70s scheme was being negotiated, the Minister for Health and Children was guilty of a cowardly capitulation to the doctors and paid over the odds for the extension of the GMS card to people over 70. He did not even know how many people over 70 there were in the country. His Department miscalculated the figure at half the true number. The responsibility for the failure of the Government to deliver a health service to people on low incomes lies with the Taoiseach and his Cabinet. We now see people suffering as a consequence because they are unable to pay their family doctors.
Drug bills, as the Minister constantly tells us, have gone up. There are issues to be addressed in relation to international pharmaceutical companies but Government intervention has also contributed to the rise. Government intervention determined that many treatments to prevent heart failure are now excluded from the drug budgeting scheme which applies to GPs. It is a very good thing that Government decision was made. GPs are now in a position to provide costly treatments for patients to keep them out of hospital and to keep them healthy. However, that decision has a cost attached. It has a cost that should have been assessed and estimated by the Government and should not now become a mysterious increase meaning that the Book of Estimates has to be drawn up in a way that denies proper funding, for example, for hospitals. In this regard there is a 5% increase.
The major Dublin hospitals are currently operating with a shortfall of €100 million for this year, which they will have to carry off and will be the first to be paid off next year. We will see major cutbacks and a reduction in resources and services to patients. The Taoiseach will come into this House and try again to deflect any responsibility from himself and his Cabinet.
It is deeply regrettable that an opportunity that existed to ensure people could have decent health care has been squandered by a Government that had five years to deal with the issues that need to be addressed and is not only failing to deal with them at present, but is deepening the crisis in the health service because of a right-wing bias in respect of its political outlook.
I am very pleased to be making a contribution to this most important debate. In May of this year, the people rewarded competence, ability and a strong track record of delivery by returning the same Government to power for the first time since 1969. They cast clear verdicts on the main opposition parties – Fine Gael was brushed aside, while the Labour Party was frozen in its tracks. Fianna Fáil and our partners in Government, the Progressive Democrats, were returned to the helm of Government because the people responded to what we had achieved since 1997. Our mandate was greatly increased because the people had faith in an Administration that would guide them through the harder times ahead.
It is worth restating just some of what this Government has achieved over the past five years. Over 300,000 additional jobs were created, with unemployment reduced from 10% to 4.5%; long-term unemployment was reduced to 8%; annual growth levels reached highs of 8% to 10% and the national debt was reduced from 74% to 36%; there was €5 billion in personal tax reductions, with tax rates coming down 12 points over the period; old age pensions increased by almost 50%; and over €8 billion has been invested in the national pensions reserve fund to support our social welfare and pension needs for the future. This legacy, when set against any measurement, signifies genuine social progress and achievement. It is uncomfortable reading for the Opposition, which never came close to implementing policies that have had so positive an impact on so many of our people.
Even those with only a scant interest in economics knew the downturn in the economy was coming long before the general election. In fact, our Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, was heavily criticised for not holding the general election a year earlier. For some strange reason, certain media and political interests have forgotten the foot and mouth crisis, 11 September in America, the downturn in the IT sector and the thousands of jobs lost towards the end of last year. To suggest that the people knew nothing about this is absolutely preposterous.
They certainly have not forgotten the manifesto or the promises on the health strategy.
We now face more challenging times, especially in the context of a global recession. Time and again during the general election, the Taoiseach and other Ministers made the point that we had come through a sustained period of economic prosperity and that, through no fault of our own, we now have to chart more difficult waters.
We must not fall into the trap of talking ourselves into a recession. Despite what is thrown around by a floundering Opposition, the Irish economy remains one of the most robust in the EU. Most of our fellow countries still look with envy on our progress and strength. Our projected growth rates will still be a multiple of the EU average. The challenge now is to bolster these gains and make the choices that will allow our country to fully avail of the benefits that will accrue when a global upturn begins.
The Government is only five months into a five year programme of Government, which will build on what has been achieved since 1997. We face tougher times and tough decisions have now to be made to secure our prosperity going forward. We stated clearly in our election manifesto that our strategy for the future was "predicated and dependent on continued economic growth". Put simply, this means that to ensure our commitments are delivered, we need to ensure continued economic growth. This in itself is a strong and necessary argument for reining in public spending. This means prioritising and being prudent.
We now know that these prevailing conditions are less optimistic than we would like them to be. We are not in recession and must not talk ourselves into one. There will be no return to the bad old days of the 1980s and the purpose and resolve of the Government will remain strong.
The Estimates we are debating are a road map that will guide our country carefully and competently through more difficult times. Good government is not about pretending that everything is possible at once: it is clearly about making hard decisions when required.
That was good electioneering.
We were re-elected on a strong record of achievement and have pledged ourselves to deliver on An Agreed Programme for Government, just as we delivered fully on its predecessor. Our programme is a blueprint for progress over five years, not five months. These Estimates will allow us to order our priorities and ensure that the plans we have set before the people can be delivered upon fully over the coming years. Were we to plough forward without some restraint on public spending as set out in the Estimates, we would be guilty of gross irresponsibility.
We could take the soft option and borrow at unsustainable levels as before, but this is not the way of this Government and this Taoiseach. To do so would be to betray the people and place us at a disadvantage when the inevitable upsurge comes in the international economy. As a Government, we will be spending €36.7 billion next year, which will allow us to largely sustain the services we have built up over the past five years.
We have made our priorities clear and will continue to concentrate our focus on the main areas of social inclusion. Next year, over 64% of our resources will be concentrated on health, social and family affairs and education, representing increases of 6%, 3% and 3%, respectively. We are spending over €1 billion on housing and will also not be neglecting our roads and transport system, which is so vital to future economic development and in respect of which over €1.5 billion has been allocated for next year.
In my own area of defence, the Estimates agreed for 2003 will allow us to build significantly on what has already been delivered from the White Paper on Defence. We have prioritised our requirements for the coming year and will be proceeding with major equipment purchases, which will include a further 25 armoured personnel carriers, a replacement anti-armour weaponry system and eight new turbo-prop trainer aircraft for the Air Corps. We will also continue to deliver on our refurbishment and modernisation at barracks, on which we have spent over €150 million since 1997.
Our country is at a critical crossroads and the wrong choice of direction would have serious consequences. The Government has chosen the direction of maintaining spending at a sustainable rate without resorting to borrowing. We cannot spend what does not exist, and to fall into the trap of reliance on borrowing to shore up short-term benefit would undoubtedly see us on the slippery slope of lengthy dole queues and emigration, which so blighted our country in the 1980s.
These Estimates are an expression of responsibility and strategic thinking by this Government. In the face of the downturn in the worldwide economy, we have taken the hard choices now to secure our prosperity for the future. This Government, and the Fianna Fáil Party that leads it, have a strong track record of delivery and competence. We will not fail the people now at a time of critical importance for their future.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Deenihan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Chair might tell me when five minutes have concluded. I have real problems with the fact that Opposition spokespersons in different areas are now being given five minutes to make their case in respect of the Estimates. It is a total nonsense that the whole country is talking about Estimates and cutbacks, or adjustments as Fianna Fáil Ministers like to call them, and Opposition spokespersons who are supposed to be the critics are given only five minutes to make their case.
In the four or five minutes I am allowed, I want to make a few brief points. I am surprised to hear the Minister saying we all knew long before the election that there was an economic downturn on the way. One would not think it reading the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. These cutbacks just confirm for people that the election manifesto we saw and which has resulted in giving this new Government a mandate was a lie. It was a lie to 200,000 people who thought they would get medical cards and now will not get them. It was dishonest to companies which were given assurances that the Government would ensure a quick and efficient roll-out of broadband technology, but it now appears that will not happen.
There will be also cutbacks in the primary schools building programme and increases in third level fees. Some 10,000 first-time buyers each year will be affected by the removal of the first-time buyer's grant. There will also be cutbacks in the national development plan affecting capital programmes across the country. The Government secured a new mandate by deceiving the people.
I am responsible for overseeing the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It has been hit hardest by the cutbacks and adjustments. For economic reasons the Government is making the biggest mistakes in this Department.
According to surveys Ireland has become the most uncompetitive country in Europe in terms of telecommunications infrastructure with the result that the country is rapidly becoming uncompetitive in terms of attracting foreign investment. Foreign companies, which are the cornerstone of our economic prosperity, will not invest here unless they are provided with the telecommunications infrastructure they expect. However, the Government proposes to cut the regional broadband and technology programme by 27%. Multimedia developments will be cut by 87% and telecommunications infrastructure investment will be cut by 57%. What message does this send to European and American companies who look to Ireland as a place to invest because of its quality workforce? We cannot provide them with the infrastructure they require and which they can get elsewhere. It is short-sighted, blinkered economics that makes no sense in the interest of securing relatively small savings. We should not be afraid to borrow modestly for capital investment and infrastructure because it is an investment in the future.
The marine faces potentially difficult times as negotiations commence on the Common Fisheries Policy, which will be crucial to the country, especially to coastal communities. The Minister has cut funding to BIM by 12%, supports to the fish processing industry by 31% and developments in fisheries harbours, some of which are perhaps in the constituency of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, by 3%. It is not a vote of confidence in the fishing industry.
The decisions on forestry are perhaps the most extraordinary. The Minister has decided to cut investment in forestry by 22%, or €23 million. For every euro that is cut from the planting programme the rural economy loses at least €2 in direct investment because cuts in the rural planting programme mean the loss of matching funding from the European Union. The savings envisaged in this area will not only put approximately 1,000 people out of jobs, some of whom will have to join the dole queues, but the Government will lose from the tax they pay and matching funding from the European Union. It makes no sense economically. I strongly protest at these cuts.
I will confine my comments to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, which I oversee. The cuts in investment in the film industry will have severe consequences. The cut of 12% in the capital income of the Irish Film Board will affect what the board will be able to do in 2003. Internationally, film financing faces great difficulties, as demonstrated by the closure in the United Kingdom of Granada Films, Film Four and Sky Pictures, all of whom financed Irish films. This cut will make it even more difficult to finance Irish medium and higher budget films.
A number of €1 million feature films have been made by the Irish film industry this year in addition to one big United States film, "Rain of Fire". However, if the Irish Film Board is not properly financed it will mean that major films will no longer be made here and the industry will be confined to making low budget films. That will have a major impact on the industry and will also impact on Ireland's recognised reputation for film production. In addition, a recent survey by Bord Fáilte indicated that 14% of Americans cited Irish films as the reason they visited Ireland. The Minister is also responsible for tourism and he should note that the cuts envisaged for the film industry will have a knock-on effect on tourism.
The arts plan, 2002-2006, forms part of An Agreed Programme for Government. The plan calls for funding for the arts in 2003 of €53.7 million, a €6 million increase on this year. However, the Estimates propose a reduction of €4 million. It will mean that much of the plan will be long fingered. Will the Minister indicate if the Government has now abandoned the plan? It was launched before the general election and promised much to the arts world. It is now a non-event and has no credibility. I call on the Minister to clarify the Government's position on the plan.
With regard to forestry, a recent economic analysis has indicated that the Government will lose €1.1 million in revenue if it implements the cuts outlined in the Book of Estimates. They will also result in the loss of €44 million to the rural economy and the loss of 1,000 rural jobs. In addition, if the cuts are implemented over 20 million forestry transplants will be destroyed, resulting in a loss of revenue of over €4 million. The rural economy will be devastated by these cuts and I appeal to the Minister for Agriculture and Food to use his influence to stop this madness as soon as possible.
The Book of Estimates proposes a cut of 41% in the funding for the provision and renovation of swimming pools. The previous Government gave a commitment that every child would have access to a swimming pool and would be given the opportunity to learn how to swim. Despite the fact that approximately 41 applications involving major swimming pools have been made, each averaging €5 million, the Estimates only provide for funding of €9 million. This is another major U-turn by the Government. It means that many swimming pool projects will not proceed, including some in the Minister's constituency.
The funding for SFADCo, the only regional authority in the country, is to be cut by 13%. This will affect the type of service SFADCo will pro vide for the tourism industry and small indigenous industries in County Kerry.
These Estimates are framed against a background of changing economic and budgetary circumstances and after a period of unparalleled growth in the economy and in public expenditure. In relation to my brief, it is worth recalling that agriculture remains more important to Ireland than to most other EU member states. Evidence of the ongoing commitment to the sector can be seen from a series of special actions undertaken over recent months for the benefit of this sector in recognition of the particularly difficult market and weather conditions. These actions included obtaining EU agreement on a number of occasions to strengthen significantly market supports for dairy products, securing EU agreement to allow the use of set-aside land for grazing and fodder, negotiating the removal of the Russian county ban on beef exports and obtaining EU agreement to allow an increase by up to 30% in beef export refunds to assist the beef industry in agreeing contracts for exports to Egypt. There are some reductions in this year's Estimates but we must recognise the gross Vote figure for 2003 will allow us to continue the Department's various schemes.
I welcome the enhanced control and accountability measures proposed by the Minister for Finance. In the case of my Department, we have a well developed control system and I very much appreciate the advice on control and risk that I receive from my Department's audit committee, which comprises five members who are external representatives. My Department strives to be at the forefront in developing best practice in corporate governance. It also has a well resourced internal audit unit of 19 staff and is subject to a high level of external audit from a number of different sources, both nationally and from the European Union. It has also implemented a new financial accounting system which will both drive the development of the management information framework and further enhance financial reporting and control.
Next year's overall provision for animal health, disease eradication and related measures is €228.5 million, which is lower than the projected 2002 outturn of €268 million. Nevertheless, it reflects a positive outlook for improvements in this sector which is to be welcomed. For 2003, €67 million is being provided for the operational costs of the TB and brucellosis eradication schemes. While the present position regarding both diseases is encouraging, it is imperative that the stringent regimes in place are continued for some time yet, notably the carrying out of regular TB and brucellosis testing on all cattle in the national herd. As regards TB, the number of reactors this year is expected to be down compared to 2000. The ongoing improvement in the brucellosis situation in recent years is, I am glad to say, con tinuing with new restrictions so far this year down by 55% on the comparable date in 1998.
In 1996, when new arrangements for the TB and brucellosis programmes were put in place it was envisaged that annual receipts from the bovine disease levies would contribute at least 50% of the cost of compensation to farmers. In reality, the annual return from these levies has fallen far short of projections. The Estimates provision envisages a doubling of the current rates of levy and I will be bringing this proposal before the Oireachtas in due course. It is further intended that some of the costs currently borne by the Department in relation to BSE testing and the disposal of meat and bonemeal will be transferred to the industry.
BSE has been the focus of major attention over the past decade or more. In this country we have put an enormous amount of time, effort and money into protecting consumers of Irish beef at home and abroad against the threat posed by BSE and into eliminating the disease from the national herd, and we are increasingly seeing evidence that our efforts are now paying dividends. The most noteworthy illustration of this has been the significant shift in the age profile of animals showing up as positive for BSE. As I have said, the measures which we have put in place throughout the 1990s, particularly since 1996, worked well. However, our battle against BSE is not yet over and we must be vigilant at all times. It may never be the case that we will know everything about all aspects of the disease, and we can realistically expect to get the odd surprising case, as evidenced by a very small number of animals born in 1997 which have to date turned up positive. However, we are on course to meet our objective of eliminating BSE from our cattle population.
The food industry has made significant strides in recent years. State funding has enabled it to keep up with ever-changing consumer trends and demands through investment in research and development, training, marketing and promotion, as well as in plant and equipment. In 2001, our food and drinks industry was valued at €16 billion of which almost €7 billion was exported to over 130 countries worldwide. Having been instrumental in forming a dedicated food promotion agency, I take great personal satisfaction in the achievements of Bord Bia since 1994. Bord Glas has been promoting and developing horticulture since its establishment in 1990. Over the years it has made a considerable contribution to the development of horticulture in this country and has established a record of which it can be justifiably proud. The allocation this year for Bord Glas is €2.330 million. Both Bord Glas and Bord Bia have performed extremely well, fulfilling their statutory roles in an exemplary manner. However, there is always the need to look ahead to new challenges and the food sector might be better served by pooling expertise and amalgamating these bodies. In the interim, the boards of both bodies will have to consider changes to some of their respective schemes and activities.
Given the tight budgetary situation this year, an allocation of €82.819 million for Teagasc general expenses, which includes a grant for capital purposes, is a measure of the Government's continuing commitment to supporting it as the provider of a wide range of research, training and advisory services for the agri-food sector and rural communities. While the allocation is a reduction on the 2002 allocation, it should be remembered that it is an increase of almost 30% on the 1997 allocation of €52.97 million.
Many of the Department schemes are demand led and in the past few years participation in some schemes has fallen below initial expectations. However, despite this, provision has been made within the overall 2003 Estimates allocation for additional funds, over and above the 2002 projected outturn levels for the rural environment protection scheme and on-farm investment programme expenditures. In the case of the national development plan's agricultural measures, €31 million is being provided in 2003, which represents a 19% increase on the 2002 expected outturn. The measures involved include on-farm investment and the development of equine and cattle breeding infrastructures. A total of €503 million is being provided for the three agricultural measures contained in the CAP rural development plan. In the case of the agri-environment programme, REPS, the 2003 allocation of €190 million represents an increase of 10% on the 2002 expected outturn. I fully recognise the importance of this measure in assisting compliance with Ireland's environmental commitments. I have commenced a consultative process on the scheme with a view to determining possible improvements and changes. The outcome of that review will be considered in tandem with the independent evaluation of the CAP plan to be undertaken in 2003.
The overall allocation for the agriculture sector is substantial. This allocation follows events such as foot and mouth disease and BSE, when the Exchequer, and by definition the taxpayer, provided substantial support to the sector at short notice. The Government has stood by the industry in times of difficulty and provided support when it was needed most. As I said, the Estimate for my Department must also be looked at alongside the €1.6 billion in EU spending on agriculture, which is not included in these figures. In 2003 we will spend a total of about €2.8 billion on the sector, and that is a huge commitment in anyone's terms. We are entering into a period when we will have to exercise restraint. It seems our critics want to have both sides of the argument: criticise if action is not taken and criticise the impact when action is taken. Being in government entails taking hard decisions and we are prepared to do that, not in a way which undermines the fabric of our internationally sound economy, but in a way which protects our com petitiveness and secures our future growth and prosperity.
I will share my time with Deputy Wall.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am glad to be able to contribute to this debate for a few minutes although any Deputy could go on for hours. As a rural Deputy, I detect a clear anti-rural bias in the Estimates. One has only to look at the savage decrease in the allocation for non-national roads and the negative consequences of that for the highways and byways where people live in rural Ireland. The implication of that for county councils will be savage and it will be interesting to see how it is managed. There is apparently no real increase in the equalisation fund for local authorities. In addition there is a failure to honour the commitment to increase the income limit eligibility threshold for medical cards for the 200,000 people to whom it was promised and a reduction of 5,000 in the community employment schemes which are vital to many tidy towns associations and local clubs throughout rural areas, particularly in my constituency of Westmeath. I want to focus today, however, on the proposed abolition of the first time buyer's grant.
Of all the cutbacks proposed by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the removal of the grant to first time buyers is the most savage. At a time when people earning even reasonably good incomes are struggling to buy any kind of house or apartment, and when the local authority housing waiting lists are at their longest since the 1960s, the Minister has put yet another barrier in the way of people on low to average incomes wishing to acquire even the most modest homes.
The Minister must be aware that many people rely on this grant as part of the funds they have to provide to obtain a mortgage. People on low incomes who qualify for affordable housing will be very badly hit because the first time buyer's grant is factored into the amount they must pay from their own resources.
An example of that is Westmeath County Council which has been to the forefront in the provision of affordable housing. Affordable housing comprising of 31 houses has been developed in Grange Park, Mullingar, where the benefits of the new house grant can be seen because all the applicants have availed of the grant. Westmeath County Council affords the applicants loans on the basis that they will receive the first time buyer's grant. If the grant is no longer available, that will have a significant impact on the scheme.
A further scheme of 55 houses for Ashe Road in Mullingar is proposed for 2003, and 60 houses at Lissywoollen in Athlone. All those people who otherwise would be dependent on Westmeath County Council for rehousing were in a position to surrender their houses and get a loan with the help of the €3,800 grant, thereby giving somebody else an opportunity to get a local authority house. Those people will now be deprived of that opportunity which means that even the other schemes the Minister lauds and asks the local authorities to implement will be impacted in a negative fashion by this savage imposition affecting many people in the lower income category. Those people will now be pushed out of the owner occupier sector and on to local authority housing waiting lists. Is the Minister aware that there are now more homeless people here than in the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and Bradford combined?
The Government has been boasting about the increase in house completions over the past five years. While the number of new houses completed has increased, the Minister is well aware that many of those houses are either holiday homes or luxury homes aimed at wealthy purchasers. What the auctioneering profession rather dismissively call starter homes are rarely featured in the property supplements and those seeking them must be prepared to spend up to three hours per day commuting to and from them. Every week in the property supplements there are advertisements for holiday homes, all of which are constructed under tax relief schemes. Such is the shortage in the greater Dublin area that some people are driven to buying houses up to 60 and 70 miles away, some even as far away as Deputy Harkin's constituency of Sligo-Leitrim. I recently met a taxi driver who works in Dublin but who lives in Ballymahon, County Longford, and the only way this man can survive is by working at night. He has to drive 70 plus miles to and from his home at off-peak times. That is the current position.
What about the quality of these starter homes? I listened to a discussion on "Five Seven Live" in the past week which outlined the appalling experience of many people buying new homes who find they are poorly constructed, with many of the regulations being flouted with impunity.
Does the House recall the rapid abandonment of the threat from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to deal with the hoarding of building land? Could this reversal of policy have anything to do with the fact that the largest owners of building land in Dublin are also among the largest contributors to Fianna Fáil?
It is very revealing that the area of housing the Minister first targets for spending cuts is the first time buyer's grant. Why did he not target the tax breaks available to the wealthy to buy investment properties? As many as one third of the houses and apartments in new developments are being purchased by investors since the Minister restored interest relief on borrowings for such properties. The rationale for this reversal of policy was that the supply of rental accommodation had been reduced by the restrictions imposed in 1998. As returns on rental properties are now falling, there is no shortage of rental properties and therefore little reason for continuing this subsidy to the very well off. The only justification is that the Minister is determined to protect the interests of the wealthy at all cost and so ensure that all cutbacks hit only those who have benefited least from the economic boom.
We are all aware that the wealthy have the easiest access to the Minister, whether they are entertaining him in their villas in the south of France or in their tents at the Galway races. What many people seem to realise is that the Progressive Democrats, in addition to having the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in Government, also have, if not in fact at least in spirit, the Minister for Finance. The Progressive Democrats have an explicit and unapologetic programme to redistribute resources to those who are already well off by reducing public expenditure and ensuring that the tax burden on the well off is minimised. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has been their faithful acolyte in doing so. I have much more to say on this matter and I intend to return to it.
I thank Deputy Penrose for sharing his time. If it were not so serious it would be funny that the Opposition Members have a variety of items to choose from in the Book of Estimates to raise in this debate.
I live in south Kildare where a number of builders have decided that their market is for people on low incomes. They have set out to obtain and develop lands in that regard and, as such, the shared ownership scheme is of major significance to the people concerned. The maximum loan available under the shared ownership scheme is €139,000. The Minister for Finance appears to be able to abolish the first time buyer's grant at will but I am sure that the many people in Athy and south Kildare who are involved in the shared ownership scheme would be glad of that €3,800. If the Minister was trying to buy a house in Athy or in south Kildare, where the builders have put together magnificent developments to facilitate these people, he would realise that €3,800 is a lot of money and is necessary to obtain the cherished aim of so many people, that is, a home for themselves and their families.
The changes in the community employment scheme are disastrous for rural Ireland. The telephone has not stopped ringing since they were announced, with local groups concerned about their future. Everyone wants to know if the changes will affect their area because these people know the value of community employment. Community employment has put them back into the workplace where they received the necessary training and gained confidence in themselves. Reducing the number of places by 5,000 will have a negative impact on the confidence these people gained, the training they received, the work they were able to do and the benefit to the local community. These places were reduced with the stroke of the Minister for Finance's pen, as anyone involved in voluntary organisations across the spectrum knows to their detriment.
In regard to medical cards, the Minister tried to defend that cut on a television programme last night, but he could not do so. Anyone who saw the programme would have to admit that he had no defence to the argument being made. The people affected believe they have been hoodwinked by the Government because they are being deprived of their medical card, which is a basic necessity. The Minister had no answer to that last night. He said he cannot do all things at once but before the election the Government was able to do everything. It was amazing what could be done before the election but the pot now has a hole that cannot be plugged. The Minister for Health and Children, who is present in the Chamber, bears responsibility in terms of the changes to the medical card scheme and many people are disappointed with that aspect of the Estimates.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline for the House the broad details of the Estimate of health spending for 2003.
The increase of €694 million for the health services announced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, in last week's Estimates represents a 9% increase year on year in current spending. It also represents a significant proportion of the net increase in the overall Estimates, taking up the majority of the additional spending. This demonstrates more than anything else the Government's commitment to the health services and our determination to protect them and resource them adequately, even in an economically tougher year than we have become used to. I acknowledge to the House that 2003 will be a difficult and a much tighter year than previous years because the rate of growth is not similar to the extraordinary rates of growth in spending in recent years.
The additional €694 million allows us in 2003 to continue the roll-out of services in some key areas identified in the National Health Strategy. Bed capacity is one of these. The Estimates provide €53 million to complete the programme of 709 additional beds already undertaken this year. This was a target that exceeds what was provided for in the strategy. Together with the 2002 investment, this means a total of €118 million is being invested in bed capacity in just two years. I am confident this additional funding will bring substantial benefits to the acute hospital system.
The improvement of primary care services is also a key strategic issue for the health services. Six weeks ago I announced the 12 pilot projects to which we are committed in the strategy and which are to develop the new multi-disciplinary team approach to primary care. I am pleased the funding in the Estimate allows me to allocate an additional €10 million for the development of primary care, including general practitioner co-operatives. There has been tremendous progress in GP co-operatives in recent years. They provide a 24-hour GP service thus reducing pressures on accident and emergency departments. Patients now have an alternative service and can be more appropriately treated by a GP. There has been a virtual transformation even in a short space of time and this has not always been acknowledged. General practitioner co-operatives are a concept which were not regarded with enthusiasm by doctors a few years ago but that has changed. Doctors across the country are now queuing up to establish co-operatives. Two years ago the base funding was less than €5 million or €6 million and last year it was €17 million. We are now adding up to €27 million to €30 million and that is significant progress in a key area of preventative medicine.
The additional funding in 2003 also allows me to provide for a range of increases across other key areas. I am allocating a further €29 million in additional funding for cancer services. This will enable us to continue to address demands in this area and in particular to respond to the increasing cost of oncology drug treatments which has been a media topic in recent weeks. There has been tremendous developments in cancer treatment in recent years, compared to earlier in the decade. We have appointed up to 76 additional consultants. Additional oncologists mean significant drugs bills and other developments. These are to be welcomed because it represents more internationally accepted application of protocols in terms of the treatments. The National Health Strategy identifies the need for a national health information equality authority. It is envisaged that the authority will become the lead agency to advise Government and practitioners and hospitals about the best evidenced-based protocols for the application of new drug therapies and new health technologies. That is the best and most effective way forward and is the policy framework within which we intend to provide both oncology and all other drugs.
The Estimate also makes provision for €31 million for the treatment purchase fund in 2003. We were not in a position to spend €31 million last year but we will do so this year. The contacts have been established with the hospitals here and overseas. The focus of the fund is on those waiting for low-acuity treatments such as cataract operations or orthopaedic treatment. Some cardiac operations have already been carried out. The funding being provided in 2003 means that more than 7,000 people currently on waiting lists can be treated, in particular those who have been waiting longer than a year. This will result in a significant improvement of quality of life for many people.
It is an important statistic to note that over the past three years it is estimated that an additional 139,000 people are being treated as in-patient or day cases in acute hospitals. These are phenomenal activity levels and demonstrate this Government's commitment to the public hospitals sys tem. In 2000, 870,000 people were treated and in 2001 it was 920,000. I hope 960,000 will be treated by the end of this year. Those levels of increases in hospital activity were not experienced in previous years. This has obviously created pressures on the acute hospitals but it is important to acknowledge that fact.
The staff in the acute hospitals have increased productivity significantly. There are increased numbers of people being treated and discharged. In 2003, the €31 million provided for the treatment purchase fund is in addition to €43.8 million being provided for the waiting list initiative to enable hospitals to pursue continual reductions in waiting lists and waiting times. Waiting lists have been reduced by 22% since 1997. In specific specialities such as cardiac surgery, there has been a reduction of 41% over the past two years and that is a dramatic improvement. Children's cardiac surgery has seen an effective reduction because of the use of overseas hospitals for operations while the capacity at Crumlin is being developed.
Another key achievement is in relation to the reduction of group C meningitis. In 2001, 35 cases of group C meningitis were reported compared with 139 cases over the same period in 2000. This represents a 75% reduction overall. The most dramatic reduction in the age groups targeted by the vaccine was in the five to nine age group, which recorded a 93% reduction in the number of cases. That vaccination programme costs an enormous amount of money. In the initial year it cost €50 million. Some of that cost was a once-off cost because of the huge catch-up element involved. It is the kind of expenditure that is often forgotten about in debates about health but it makes a significant difference to mortality figures and to quality of life for children. An additional 340 consultants have been appointed since 1997, an increase of 26%. In the four years to 2001, the number of individual nurses and midwives employed in the public health system rose by 5,788 which is a 19% increase. The number of nurse training places is up to 1,640 and the number of people applying for places on nurse training courses is up by 35% this year.
While much has been made of the increase in the level of administrative staff, it is well recognised within the health service that about two thirds of that number are involved in front-line services for patients. The appointment of a consultant also involves the appointment of a team of workers and general administrators are involved in that team. They are the people who arrange appointments and organise schedules. We require a more informed debate on that issue because a certain class of worker is being scapegoated to a certain extent in terms of health spending. Many of these administrators are not on high salaries and that should be noted. I acknowledge the need for organisational and structural change. The year 2003 will be a significant year in terms of structural change. That process is under way in the context of the con sultancy study on the health structures. We are expecting a report in early February.
Between 2000 and 2001, additional revenue and capital funding for intellectual disability and autism services has provided around 840 new residential places, 296 new respite places and more than 1,500 new day places, in addition to the enhancement of other services. Funding for 2002 for services for people with intellectual disabilities and autism was €38 million, and an additional €13.3 million is now being provided for 2003. From 1997 to 2002, more than €175 million in total was provided for physical and sensory disability services. In that period, we provided an additional 51 long-term residential places, 95 residential respite places and 400 new day care places. An additional €13 million in revenue funding has now been announced for 2003.
Services for older people received total additional funding of €256 million between 1997 and 2002. We have also established a PPP pilot project to create 850 additional beds in units in the Eastern Health Board region and in the Southern Health Board region. I regret the current fiscal position does not allow me to extend medical cards. Nevertheless, the Estimate provides additional funding of €230 million to meet the increased costs of the GMS scheme in 2003.
Management consultants have been appointed to examine the rising costs within the scheme. Given the escalation of the costs also in the drug payments scheme, my Department is examining a restructuring of the scheme which will involve an increase of the existing threshold. The overarching framework for the development of our health services will be the health strategy. We have already commenced 70% of the actions identified in that strategy and we are committed to its implementation.
When the Minister was announcing these Estimates last Thursday, the roof fell in on a school in my constituency, St. Killian's in Kingswood. I have with me a number of letters I received from schoolchildren and other TDs will have received similar letters. They are basically looking for repairs to be done to their schools or schools to be replaced.
Many TDs would say this is no major issue, that they have the same problems in their own areas. What I suggest we do, however, is send these letters to Charlie McCreevy because it is he who is going to stop these young children from getting repairs done to their schools. He can tell nine-year-old Amy Lawrence why her class has to put up with an asbestos roof that leaks every time it rains. Christopher Byrne wants to know why there is no provision for indoor PE facilities so he can learn to play rugby because he cannot go out to play when it rains. Laura O'Loughlin in fifth class wants gates erected to prevent stray dogs entering and fouling the schoolyard. David Dillon, aged 10, admits he may not be an expert on these matters but believes his classroom's leaking metal roof, damaged windows, graffittied walls and profusion of vermin suggest that his school is in desperate need of repair. Sean Fitzpatrick wonders why politicians can bring relative peace to the North but cannot make a school a safer and nicer place.
Other schools in the State have their problems, and I could go through a whole list of them. The reality is that the Minister is cutting back on repairs to schools and on the building programme. In an address to the INTO, the Minister for Education and Science suggested that 3,200 primary schools were unsafe and posed a health and safety risk. At least he was honest about it. The Minister for Finance is saying the cutbacks he is proposing will not damage anybody or have a major impact on people's lives. Any child in a schoolyard will tell one a bully picks only on those who are smaller. It is clear the people being picked on will be the most vulnerable sections of our society.
Other speakers have talked about cuts in community employment schemes. At a community employment scheme meeting I attended last night in St. Agnes's Community Centre I was told there were 15 people on the scheme 18 months ago and that in January 2003 there will be only two people. The reality is that this centre will close. It is a centre that has everything from FÁS schemes to child minding services. A children's nurse attends the centre and various other services are provided.
TDs and those in the gallery know people will be devastated by these cutbacks. What we are seeing – James Connolly's statue is just behind me – is an example of ruling by fooling. The Government fooled the electorate, claiming there would not be cuts. We were then told they were not cuts, simply adjustments. Now we are told this will not have any major impact. The reality, however, is that those who will be most affected will be from the most vulnerable sectors. The rich will not be asked to tighten their belts. It is clear from the Estimates and previous budgets that the rich will get richer and the poor will have to fend for themselves. This budget is skewed towards the well off, and they will not be affected by these cuts. The marginalised, the poor, the disabled and the elderly will unfortunately suffer from the cuts outlined in these Estimates.
The one thing these Estimates prove is that this Government did not expect to be re-elected because historically there is generally a change in Government—
That is a new revelation.
The last Government, of which the Minister opposite, Deputy Martin, was also a member, spent in a manner reminiscent of the Roman Empire when the patricians in their togas would sit around gorging themselves and getting as full as they possibly could before going outside and vomiting. There is an element of a stink about these Estimates that is reminiscent of those times. The last Government did not know what to do with the money so it threw it around with fairly wild abandon, in a way that did not change the overall inequalities in society to any great extent. It certainly did not make us any more sustainable in terms of long-term thinking and energy use, for example.
Unfortunately the disadvantaged are going to be worst affected by these Estimates. I could go into detail about schools in Swords, Malahide, Balbriggan, Skerries, St. Margaret's, Kinsealy, Portmarnock or small areas such as Hedgestown. The Minister for Education and Science would have received letters relating to all these areas, yet spending on first level education is down by 13% and by 4% on second level. There is a general pain being felt in many of these places now that they realise their hopes are evaporating.
We are all aware of the situation in regard to first time house buyers. Some of these people have contacted me saying they have signed contracts and are now unable to proceed with the purchase of their houses. They are submitting the forms anyway, hoping against hope that the Government might have some degree of mercy on their plight.
The Minister for Health and Children talks about a high activity level. The high activity levels I see in Beaumont Hospital are the trolleys shifting inwards and outwards like a parking lot to accommodate staff and to find privacy for people who need examination. The Minister would know this if he went to see it for himself. The Green Party was not unrealistic, we could see the pain ahead. I hope nobody will say this is to do with prudent management because the Minister for Finance is not being prudent here. He talks about prudent economics and yet he is not able to live within the means of this country.
We are expending more energy and are definitely out of line in terms of our international commitments under the Kyoto protocol, even though they are modest in themselves. When I hear the Minister talk about living within our means, I ask him to please realise that as a country we are not living within our means in terms of energy use or use of resources, and that is where the Minister needs to focus his attention.
I would like to comment on these Estimates from a regional perspective and because of time constraints I shall confine my comments to just two issues. In 1996 it was announced that a western investment fund worth £100 million was being set up to progress western development. When this Government came to power in 1997, that fund was cut to £25 million. Two years later, under threat of resignation from the chief executive of the Western Development Commission, some measures were put in place to set up the fund. After constant delays and foot dragging, the fund became fully operational this summer, with its full complement of staff and confident it could spend its allocation of €6.3 million in 2003.
Last Friday that fund was decimated. It was cut by 68%. What defies belief is that Minister Ó Cuív came into this House last night and said these cuts reflected "the likely demand for funding for next year" when he and his officials know that last Monday, the western investment fund gave approval for projects worth $1.6 million and next month will likely give approval for projects worth more than €500,000. In these two months at the end of 2002, the western investment fund is committing the entire amount of money the Minister has allocated for all of 2003.
The Minister and his Department knew this, yet the Minister could stand up in the House last night and say that even with the cut in the western investment fund it would meet likely demand. This fund is only up and running. The Minister is cutting off its oxygen supply. It is the greatest slap in the face for western development, and that it should come from Minister Ó Cuív is almost beyond belief.
CLAR funding has been cut by 25%. Minister Ó Cuív came to my constituency just a few weeks ago to celebrate the first birthday of CLAR. Did he tell the people there that there would be a cut of 25% last Friday. When Minister Ó Cuív launched the CLAR programme in Leitrim just over a year ago, he described it as the start of the big fight back. As far as I am concerned, last Friday was the start of the big cutback, with a 25% reduction in the allocation to CLAR and 68% from the western investment fund. The Government has given up on balanced regional development.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.