Private Members' Business. - Public Services: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Rabbitte on Tuesday, 17 June 2003:
That Dáil Éireann:
– noting that this month marks the first anniversary of the election of the current Fianna Fáil-PD Government;
– deplores the failure of the Leader of Fianna Fáil, Bertie Ahern TD, and the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Mary Harney TD, to honour the many commitments made by their parties in their manifestos and election campaigns, including, among others:
– the pledge to eliminate hospital waiting lists by May 2004;
– the promise to recruit an additional 2,000 gardaí;
– the undertaking to extend medical eligibility to bring in another 200,000 people;
– the individual and specific commitments to parents, teachers and pupils regarding urgently needed improvements to dilapidated schools;
– the assurance that funding would be provided for an additional 40,000 child care places; and
– the promise to prioritise the needs of disadvantaged sectors and communities through programmes such as CE and RAPID;
– condemns the series of cutbacks over the past 12 months in many vital public services, which have been imposed despite the written statement of the Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy TD, on 13 May 2002, just four days before the election, that ‘there are no significant overruns projected and no cutbacks whatsoever are being planned secretly or otherwise';
– acknowledges the unprecedented anger among the electorate at the manner in which they were misled by the Government parties;
– calls on the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to:
– acknowledge that the electorate has been seriously misled;
– set about honouring commitments made in regard to improved and extended public services; and
– particularly in the light of the damning report from the Institution of Engineers of Ireland highlighting serious failures with regard to the implementation of the National Development Plan, bring forward specific proposals to address the serious infrastructural deficit and undo the damage done to the social and economic fabric of society by their policies.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"– noting that this month marks the first anniversary of the election by Dáil Éireann of the current Fianna Fáil-PD Government;
– acknowledges the contribution made to date by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Harney, in working to honour the commitments made in An Agreed Programme for Government, including among many others:
– working tirelessly for lasting peace in Northern Ireland;
– renewing social partnership as a fair and equitable basis for economic stability;
– listening to the concerns of the people and responding to them by securing the passing of the Treaty of Nice;
– keeping on target our pledge to increase pensions to €200 a week by giving pensioners a €10 increase in the 2003 budget;
– giving priority to our health services by increasing funding by 12% and employing over 5,000 new health care workers and professionals, including 2,000 new nurses, who are delivering care to patients, resulting in over 100,000 more treatments being carried out this year than in 1997;
– investment in education increasing this year to almost €6 billion, a 94% increase on 1997 with much of the additional funding being targeted on tackling disadvantage, as well as the €343 million schools building programme for 2003 and pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools at less than 19:1; and
– ensuring unemployment remains at an historically low level of 4.6%, comparing favourably with the 10.3% rate back in 1997 when the parties in Government formed their first Administration or the current eurozone average of 8.7%,
– commends the Government for its prudent handling of the public finances and reaffirms that it is a key objective of An Agreed Programme for Government to sustain a strong economy and ‘keep the finances of general Government close to balance or in surplus.;
– acknowledges, in particular, in this regard the achievement of the Minister for Finance in keeping spending within target and achieving a budget surplus in 2002 at a time of global uncertainty, when many of our neighbours in Europe are experiencing deficits, serious economic setbacks and, in some cases, negative economic growth;
– accepts that while there will inevitably be public concerns given the international downturn and the consequential slowdown in the Irish economy, only by acting sensibly now, and refusing to take the short-term option of massive borrowing, can the Government secure Ireland's fiscal and economic future and so ensure that we are in a strong position to accelerate rapidly when there is an inevitable upsurge in the international economy;
– reaffirms that An Agreed Programme for Government is a five year programme and that both parties in government will do their utmost to honour these commitments within that timeframe as the record shows they did during the last Administration; and
– rejects the Opposition criticisms regarding the many measures taken to improve Ireland's infrastructure and acknowledges the strong record of the Government in addressing Ireland's infrastructural deficit in a coherent, determined way through policies which will enhance the social and economic fabric of society including:
– the establishment of the National Development Finance Agency to finance major public and infrastructural projects;
– the total investment in the national roads programme in 2003 of over €1.26 billion, the highest provision for national roads in the history of the State;
– the multi-stranded approach to addressing housing needs right across the spectrum which has resulted in 287,000 houses being built nationally since the parties in Government formed their first Administration with 2002 being another record year for new housing output, surpassing the previous year's record of almost 53,000 new homes;
– the putting in place of open access broadband infrastructure on a national basis with the roll-out of a new €65 million national broadband scheme which will deliver high speed Internet access to 19 key towns around the country; and
– the publication of the national spatial strategy, which will help to ensure that all regions develop to their potential and that infrastructure is delivered in a co-ordinated and strategic way that will complement balanced regional development."
–(The Taoiseach).
Since last night I took some time off to think of excuses why the Government could be pardoned for letting the people down so badly and so sadly in the past 12 months. I tried to think of various reasons which they might be able to tender to the public for committing such an atrocity on people who were under their power, who were listening carefully to them and were under their guidance to such an extent that the unfortunate people were almost hypnotised in the run-up to the general election. Not a day nor an hour of a week went by from 1 January that there was not some item in the post explaining or implying how beneficial it would be to continue as we were. The mothers of Ireland received a promise in the post and then a cheque in the post just before the general election with a large sum of arrears. Recipients of various social welfare payments received arrears of payment to create a feeling of well-being and to create the impression that this would continue into the future.
Various pundits have expressed surprise that the Opposition, the media and the European institutions did not do something about it. The European institutions had attempted to raise this issue two years previously. They had indicated that Government spending was going out of control. They had indicated well in advance that we were overstepping our guidelines. The Government at the time chose to ignore it and told the Europeans to get lost, that we would look after our own affairs, and so it continues.
It was indicated by the leader of Fine Gael in the House this morning and on "Morning Ireland" that a certain Dublin hospital might have to treat patients in the car park of the hospital while at the same time hospital beds were closed inside the hospital. I know that we are capable of many great fairy tales in this country but how can it transpire that a year after a ten year plan for the health issue was unfolded and a few days after a new plan has been unfolded – which we have not seen yet but we will in due course – it is now being contemplated that patients may have to be treated in the hospital yard. This is extraordinary. In no other country that I know of, even in banana republics, does that happen.
One year ago, before the election, 200,000 extra medical cards were promised. Where are they now? They have vanished like last year's snow. They were never there anyway, like last year's snow.
The question of crime was to be addressed. Where are the 2,000 extra gardaí who were promised? Not a day nor a night, nor a week, goes by that there is not some major incident such as a stabbing, a gangland shooting or serious crime not being reported. Why is this so? Because the people no longer have confidence in the system. Just a year after all the hype and promise, why did that happen? Consider the damage done in the mind of the public. Consider the damage done to the confidence which the public has a right to have in the institutions of State. Consider the CE schemes, some in health areas and others in education areas, and the provision of personal assistants. Where have these schemes gone? The confidence of the public has been shattered again. What did these people do wrong, if anything? Did they not vote the right way? Was there not a supposition a year ago that everything would continue as it was? Was there not every indication that things would continue as they were?
I will not talk about the situation regarding carers because I know it must be very embarrassing for the Government. Clearly in regard to schools, there was an attempt to create in the public mind the impression that a vote in a particular direction would mean that the needs and aspirations would be met and people would be looked after. Specific information went from specific candidates and Deputies to individual parents' bodies and school management boards indicating what would happen. Nothing happened. The curtains were pulled down immediately after the election.
There is one area where the Government emerges with flying colours. In the area of housing there was no promise, nothing was done for five years and nothing is being done. The public were not let down in that instance. It was quite clear that after five years of inaction the Government proposed another five years of the same, and it is not letting the people down. There are 47,000 families on a housing list. Hundreds of millions of euro are being spent on temporary accommodation. There are more homeless people in the city of Dublin than in the city of London. Suggestions are being made that if they were counted less often there would be fewer of them. This is crazy and I ask if it is a fairy tale.
The Government or the country will reap the negative rewards of the housing policy now being pursued. It is an absolute disgrace that the younger generation is being deprived of a basic need such as a house.
I will conclude by saying that the people were conned. They were led astray, not for the first time, by a well-calculated strategy for which the plans were laid down in advance. The plans were put into effect and executed with military precision in 1977 and were repeated for a new generation 20 years later. I hope the Government is ashamed of what it did, because it should be.
I thank the Fine Gael Party for allowing me to speak for five minutes. We could all trot out our version of how the last election was fought by the Government, which, it has to be said, won handsomely. I do not think it is necessary to restate the litany of promises that were not delivered on, but one or two issues should be highlighted from a Cork city perspective.
I would like to remind the Government Members who are present that the disabled person's grant was introduced by the Government so that persons with disabilities, particularly elderly people, could stay in their homes. We have all heard the rhetoric. If one surveys the elderly, one will find that their preference is to stay in their own communities and homes. Certain adjustments need to be made to allow this to happen. Very few of us live in houses that will be suitable for us for our entire lives without needing to be adjusted. Some 100 homes in Cork city are on a list of houses that need to be adjusted and altered so that those living in them can continue to do so for at least another ten or 15 years. An elderly woman who is quite capable of living in her own home if certain adjustments are made is living in a nursing home, at huge expense to the State and her family, and cannot return home because the necessary adjustments have not been made. Some 100 such cases are found on Cork City Council's list and 250 people are waiting for prioritisation in that respect. The council has not issued an order to proceed with the necessary works since last October. It is an absolute disgrace that those whom the Government continues to tell us have benefited most under its reign are being hit hardest.
I am glad the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, is here tonight. As someone who lives in County Kerry, which is quite close to County Cork, he will know that Cork's application for city of culture status in 2005 contained very specific proposals. One of them related to the Cork School of Music, which was a central part of the application for the title of European City of Culture 2005. Everyone seems to have forgotten the St. Finbarr's Vision Centre, which was the other focus of the application. I do not want to use the argument that things do not happen if they are outside the pale—
—but it appears to those of us who live in Cork city that projects will not be progressed if they are outside the Dublin region. There seems to be an attitude that such projects do not matter.
They matter in Cahirciveen.
More than anything else, we should be worried by the fact that of the ten elected Members of this Parliament from the city of Cork, six are members of Fianna Fáil. It is quite worrying.
It is a great achievement.
Fianna Fáil is so overly represented in Cork city—
—that its Deputies are under the impression that their positions are invincible, but that is not the case.
They can count on it because there will be another day.
Yes. If they do not deliver for the people who delivered for them, the consequences will be dire.
We know what happened to Deputy Lynch.
A reply to a question put down by my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, about the school of music contains the greatest amount of blather I have heard in my life. The reply mentions the stability pact and the Maastricht treaty. Did we ever think we would see the day? We are talking about the Cork School of Music. The Minister's answer also refers to the EUROSTAT group. The school of music is not going ahead because of restrictions placed on it by the European Union.
Exactly. About two years ago, when we had reason to be worried about over-spending, the Minister for Education and Science told the EU clearly to mind its own business. We can borrow to build the Cork School of Music – we are not precluded from doing so. I suggest that the Fianna Fáil Deputies who represent Cork city should inform the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, who is here tonight, and the Minister for Finance that a school of music cannot operate from a hotel. One cannot renege on commitments one has made in order to attain a certain title. I suggest that the Deputies opposite take my advice.
I wish to share time with Deputies Cowen and Brennan, with the agreement of the House.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Debates in this House on economic and political policy are always welcome, particularly as they present the full kaleidoscope of fiscal fragmentation which shimmers from the Opposition benches. Such debates are also welcome because they focus public attention on the cost of promises made by Opposition parties. They give time to the Government to analyse the performance of the Opposition and to see if it measures up to its rhetoric. It is regrettable that the Opposition does not speak with one voice, advance one policy or present a coherent alternative. It is clear that there has not been discussion, let alone agreement, on an alternative economic policy which might be put before the people. Perhaps this is not surprising in the first year of a five-year Government, but it is disappointing. It is particularly disappointing to see the two numerically large Opposition groupings – Fine Gael and the "Green Féin" alliance – so splintered on economic policy.
Did the Minister bring the fellow who writes his scripts with him from his former Department?
The numerically challenged Labour Party has reverted to a policy of spend, spend and spend again. Before I turn to the extravagant promises made by the Labour Party in the past ten months, I want to address—
What about zero tolerance?
—the economic stance of what would be one of the four planks of any future kaleidoscope Government, the Green Party.
Has the Minister ever heard of zero tolerance?
The Deputies opposite should listen in silence and have a bit of cop on.
Since entering this House, the Green Party has opposed every economic initiative undertaken by the Government. Its political existence is perched on twin pillars, the first of which is that its members are ethically above reproach and can be trusted in their business and political lives more than supposedly lesser politicians. The party would have us believe that supposedly lesser politicians are in need of scrutiny and supervision by their superiors in the Green Party. The second pillar of the Green Party's existence is that it can be trusted to do the right thing environmentally. It is not interested in the greedy grab at capital accumulation which drives lesser mortals to deal and speculate in the fetid pond of corporate sludge.
The Minister has the same scriptwriter he had in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The revelations of the past ten days have shown that the so-called twin pillars of the Green Party's integrity have the substance, rigidity and moral consistency of jellied sausages.
Is this supposed to be a defence of the Government's record?
The twin pillars of its existence are a sham.
Is this an indication of the Minister's pride in the Government's record?
The Green Party has shown itself to be ethically two-faced and economically promiscuous.
The Arts Council will be very impressed.
It is the latest "do as l say but not as l do" party to enter Irish politics, tut-tutting at the perceived ethical failings of their supposed lessers—
The Minister could tut for Ireland.
—while secretly snorkelling in the fetid mire they feign to disdain. The wailing lamentations and the half-considered explanations "I only had them for three years and I did not have time to react" are patently ridiculous. Are we expected to believe that a Green Deputy's reaction and stopping time is several thousand times slower than that of the several thousand tonne ocean-going tankers they profess to detest? The further protest and defence "he did not really know what was going on" which we have heard emanating from the Green Party over the past ten days could not be less credible if it emanated from a bishop in a brothel.
Will the Minister name the bishop?
The Green Party warriors who publicly pose as environmental icons, but who privately practice as kings of the worst type of capitalism, have resolutely opposed every job creation measure, economic initiative and inch of infrastructural development proposed by the Government. The Green Party proposes nothing in place of the solid economic proposals initiated by the Government, other than woolly blather about eco-friendly initiatives.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I raise a point of order?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
I will allow the point of order.
If they ever choose to leave their gilded retreats—
The Green Party has five minutes to contribute to this debate, which is supposed to be about the House's confidence in the Government.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
It is not a point of order.
The debate is on the Government's shortcomings. The Minister is not addressing the substance of the debate and I would like to know when we will have an opportunity to respond.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
The Deputy should resume his seat.
The Minister may wish to give way.
The Green warriors who publicly pose as environmental icons and privately practice as kings of the worst type of capitalism have resolutely opposed every job creation measure, every economic initiative, every inch of infrastructural development proposed by the Government. In place of the solid economic proposals initiated by the Government they propose nothing other than woolly blather about eco-friendly initiatives.
Did the Minister write this himself?
No, of course he did not. It was written by a professional.
If they ever choose to leave their gilded retreats and engage with ordinary people, people who work today for the money they need this week, they will find that the produce of their eco-friendly initiatives will put neither food on the table nor heat in the house, but presumably those are secondary considerations, just as long as their plump personal portfolios prosper. A Government adopting any of the Green Party's stated initiatives in relation to the curtailment of the national development plan would inevitably lead to mass unemployment, economic stagnation and curtailment of essential services. This country needs Green Party economics like lettuce needs slugs. The same Green Party nihilists who oppose every economic initiative under the spurious banner of eco-liberal concern would visit mass poverty on this country. Its economic policies are as false and anti-people as its ethics are elastic and two-faced. Yet these icons of spurious propriety never miss an opportunity to haughtily harangue and hector the people whose policies have ended forced emigration, the people who have delivered the highest level of employment and job creation which this country has ever seen, those who, by their industry, initiative and labour, have built the economy of this country.
I am not disposed to accept criticism on economic or ethical fronts from "Chemical Ciarán" and his allies in the Green Party. Anyone who manages to turn a €3 million inheritance into a €1.3 million political millstone in little more than one thousand days is spectacularly ill-positioned to lecture anyone on economics, economic management, fiscal prudence, or for that matter simple arithmetic. The losses in "Chemical Ciarán's" portfolio averaged €1,500 per day. Is it really the case—
Like the €1 billion in the national pension fund.
—that someone suffering economic losses of such a staggering nature could be unaware of the composition of their own portfolio?
The Minister should not lecture anyone about losing money. There was €1 billion in the national pension fund.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
If, as Deputy Cuffe appears to assert, the answer is "Yes", then the case for Green economic incompetence is comprehensively established. Had the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, attended to the nation's finances with the same care that Deputy Cuffe did to his own—
He did. That is exactly what he did.
He might as well have put it on a nag. The Minister has to support his brother.
—we would now be at the stage of switching the lights off and giving old age pensioners the type of miserly increase last experienced when the rainbow Government was at its most florid. To achieve levels of losses that only the most intoxicated of punters at a race meeting could envisage is one thing, but to do so while feigning ignorance as to the name of the horses on which the bets had been placed is quite another. Where were the Green guardians when they were needed? Where were Deputy Cuffe's Green Party colleagues? Where were those so quick to offer criticism to others? Where were those who would berate the Minister for Agriculture and Food for not having full details at his fingertips of a sheep sneezing on the Beara peninsula when their fellow eco-icon—
It was not a sheep sneezing.
—was panning for gold in the waste ponds of corporate sludge? Why did they not apply to one of their own the level of ethical scrutiny that they so glibly demand of others? Are we really expected to accept that the Leader of the Green Party, Deputy Sargent, was sufficiently indifferent to the statutory declarations filed by the five Deputies under his charge that he failed to even read the details? Was his oversight due to indifference or to incompetence on his part? What does he propose to do about it? What leadership does he propose to give? The departure of Deputy Cuffe as environment spokesperson is the moral equivalent of taking the fox out of the hen-house. The people are entitled to ask in regard to the Green Party inaction on Deputy Cuffe's predicament: "Is that all there is?" Is it really acceptable to the party which urges others to plant carrots, foster lentils and blow at windmills to have one of its bicycled public representatives trawling the tailings of corporate sludge in the pursuit of personal profit and in manifest breach of that party's proclaimed policies—
The Minister should make up his mind? Is he making a profit or a loss?
—while remaining within the parliamentary party?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister cannot have it both ways.
It seems it is. It appears to be established that unlike charity, for the Green Party, ethics do not begin at home. The past ten days have taught the Irish electorate that Green ethics are for external application only. The Green Party sits comfortably on the Opposition benches with its allies in the "Green-Féin" alliance – Sinn Féin, a party well used to the economics of nihilism. No political grouping on this island has sought to foster economic devastation as a political weapon as comprehensively as Sinn Féin. There is something richly ironic in being lectured on job losses by a party whose political philosophy not alone condoned but encouraged the destruction of economic life on this island, but they have not gone away. What was started with the bomb they aim to continue through the ballot box. Revolutionary socialism of the type now proclaimed by Sinn Féin requires economic devastation to thrive. Its economic policies are designed to bring about that devastation. Its philosophy of spend, spend, spend, regardless of whose money it is, at least has the benefit of consistency. For the past 30 years many a hapless bank manager can attest to its implementation. It is a policy it shares with its not-so-revolutionary-these-days colleagues in the Labour Party. Its answer to every economic ill, every social issue, every societal challenge is to spend, spend, spend.
Just like the Minister at the last election.
The Labour Party has become known as "The answer is "Yes", now what is the question" party of Irish politics – just so long as the question is not coming from the Flood tribunal.
The Minister was €28,000 over budget. Big spender.
If the Government proposes spending, the Labour Party will spend more. If the Government says it cannot fund a particular initiative—
How much did the Minister spend?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
—the Labour Party will say it will. The economics of "whatever one is having, the Labour Party is at the bar", now dominates that party. It is a policy as irresponsible as it is false. Deputy Rabbitte, in the quest for political relevance which has afflicted and stagnated the Labour Party since Sinn Féin started to squeeze it on the left and the Green Party started to squeeze it in the stockbroker belt has sought to turn itself into a four seasons Father Christmas. The politics of ho-ho-ho, here is a blank cheque, was tried in the 1980s. The Labour Party, during the last period when it was in office for anything close to a full term, doubled the national debt.
It took years of prudent fiscal management of this country's finances to dig us out of that Labour Party-sponsored hole. Now, in the hope that the people have forgotten, Deputy Rabbitte has gone to the policy wardrobe and taken out the spend-and-borrow suit in the hope that his wide lapelled and bell-bottomed policies of the 1980s can be passed off as 'nouvelle economics' in the fashionable eateries and cappuccino bars of south Dublin. The reality is quite different. Ordinary people know that one cannot spend what one does not have.
The Minister did. He was €28,000 over the limit.
They know that one cannot borrow more than one can responsibly afford to repay. They know that the answer cannot always be "Yes". Political leadership requires political decisions. It requires the courage to say "No". It requires the selection of priorities and the phased implementation of policies. For some time I believed that Deputy Rabbitte was feigning ignorance of this basic fact of economic and political life, but I no longer believe that. Having carefully listened to his recent economic pronouncements, I now believe that he is genuinely ignorant of rudimentary economics. No other explanation can account for the health policy of this so-called socialist party.
Its proposal is to hand the health service, lock, stock and barrel, over to private insurance companies.
Clearly, the Labour Party has studied the operation of the motor insurance market and it liked what it saw.
We cannot afford the expensive consultants the Minister has.
It has decided that those wonderful folks who bring us premiums should be given upwards of €9 billion per annum to look after all our health needs. This is the Labour Par ty's Emmental model for the health services, full of holes and half finished in some Swiss finishing school far removed from the real world. It is a promise on which the Labour Party knows it can never deliver—
The Fianna Fáil Party must really be worried about us.
—but, it is not an isolated promise.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
The Minister should conclude.
For the past year, since its lacklustre absence of policies leading into the election brought about its electoral stagnation, the Labour Party has made promise after promise to the people of this country. They have pledged to spend tens of billions of taxpayers' money.
It refuses to state the amount by which income tax for ordinary taxpayers will rise—
How much of the people's money has the Minister spent?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
The Minister should conclude.
—in order to fund the profligacy of its promises. It is time the Labour Party came clean.
That is sweet coming from Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Rabbitte has criticised every increase in indirect taxation imposed by the Government. Does he really believe that the Irish people are fooled by his "Mr. all things to everybody" act? It is time the Labour Party came clean on its costings. It is time it admitted to the electorate that it has been writing policy cheques that only taxpayers' money can cash. It is time for the people to learn the cost to them of Deputy Rabbitte's populist profligacy.
They are really afraid of us.
It is time for the Irish taxpayers to tell Deputy Rabbitte to get his hand out—
The Minister is not paying that man enough.
The Minister took enough out of their pockets. Big spender.
Under Deputy Rabbitte, the Labour Party has become the party of spurious promises. It is time to confront the cost of this phase of Labour Party lunacy.
No economic debate in this House is complete without reference to Fine Gael. In fairness to the Fine Gael Party, it has been remarkably consistent on the issue of the economy. It is well over ten years since it has had a policy and this debate has conclusively established that it still does not have one. In terms of presentation it has swapped Mr. Nasty for Mr. Nice, but it still does not have a policy. Fine Gael is a party that desperately wants to be something.
The Minister will find out soon enough.
It will not tell us what it wants to be because it does not know. Fine Gael has become a singer without a song and the electorate will not call for an encore. It saddens me to say it but Fine Gael has placed itself beyond criticism; economically and politically it has crossed the frontiers of relevance. It may be time to say farewell.
Does the Minister not have anything to say about the public services?
The Minister would love that.
The Minister should bring in a few tourists.
That sounds like a good number for Listowel Writers Week.
How much time is remaining?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
There are 17 minutes left for two remaining speakers.
The Minister does everything but what he is paid to do.
No wonder the tourists are staying away.
I welcome the opportunity—
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
—to address some points which have arisen in this debate on the motion which has been put down by the Labour Party. I support the Government motion counteracting it. From what one can garner from the contributions of the sponsors of the motion that is before the House, they seek to promote their analysis on the basis that the Government was elected simply in respect of the commitments it made before the election. The Labour Party seeks to suggest that we have breached faith with the electorate since then.
If one harks back to 12 months ago, the reality of the last election is that the people made a clear decision as to who had demonstrated an economic performance which was rewarded with the return of the same Government to office for the first time in 33 years. That was based on average annual GDP growth of 10%, an increase of 370,000 in the number at work and unparalleled prosperity. That was brought about, not only in a domestic and macro-economic policy framework embedded into the social partnership process and supported by the social partners, without whose commitment it would not have been successful, but also in a benign international economic environment in which we were, for the first time in many years, in a position to take up the economic advantages emerging from the type of policies we were pursuing. We followed responsible budgetary policies.
People also supported the Government in the last election, having seen its performance over the previous five years on the basis that, for every budgetary statement we made, we were in a position to confirm, in the following year, that we had adhered to the strategy outlined in our annual Budget Statements. That demonstrated a level of competence in our economic management which differed from the experience of the previous incumbents and, perhaps, even previous Governments. That is the reason we have been re-elected to office, not solely but in the main.
People asked what alternative there was to this Government, or if, indeed, there was a credible alternative. They saw the manifestos of the Fine Gael Party, which, obviously, would not have had an ambition to become a single party Government. They saw the manifestos of the Labour Party which was seeking to restore its fortunes to 1992 levels. They considered what the Green Party had to say in economic terms and they looked at the Sinn Féin Party. It was clear to the public there was no synergy available in the policy positions put forward by the parties in Opposition to suggest that the formulation of an alternative Government would, at the very minimum, maintain the level of economic competence which people ascribed to the Government, let alone any idea of an available alternative economic model, based on the manifesto commitments of the various parties, which would bring forward a coherent alternative Government programme.
I reject the rather arrogant suggestion that the people are fools and can be conned. The people made the decision, based on their own discernment and experience and on the fact that, for very many people, the previous five years had brought unparalleled prosperity and progress in their individual, family, economic and community lives. That is the reason they voted for these parties, restoring this Government to office.
While one can find many reasons for an informed economic debate, to which I look forward and welcome, we do not serve public discourse well by suggesting, as the leader of the Labour Party did last night, that the Government has not got the moral authority to govern, or that it has, in some way, a flawed capacity, based on the electorate's decision. We must accept democratic decisions. It appears that some wish to continue an economic debate for the next four years on the basis of re-running an election campaign when the empirical facts are self-evident. Perhaps we will have another opportunity to go into the matter in greater detail – I do not wish to base my entire contribution to this debate on this issue alone.
These parties in government went before the people on the basis of manifesto commitments which promised to spend less and tax less than the Opposition manifesto commitments, taken collectively or individually. Those are the facts on the basis of which the people have decided. This is confirmed in the social partnership agreements to which I ascribe the basis of our success. The social partners and the National Economic and Social Council subscribed to the economic model which we have devised for ourselves, based on responsible economic policy, social progress, social inclusion, a recognition that we must work together, having a tax system which incentivises and rewards entrepreneurship and business capacity and has benefited ordinary workers to a greater extent than ever before.
The economic model will not give an absolute imperative of delivery, given the nature of our economy. Ours is an open economy in a globalised world. Our country lives on its exports, depending on buoyancy elsewhere for those who buy our products and services if we are competitive and supply quality products. If we wish to make a living as a people and an economy, the international economic environment is, clearly, an important component in the success or failure of our ambitions. I believe all of us in this House wish to improve public services, to have the maximum number at work, to have a vibrant community life, economically, socially and culturally.
Let us have a debate on the model people may wish to adopt. I contend that there is a false ideological debate taking place. It is suggested that those who seek to tax less are, in some way, not committed to public services, by comparison with those who wish to tax more as an index of their commitment to developing public services. The facts are against those who want a high taxation rate, as I will explain. In 1996, the rainbow coalition Government was collecting €106 million in capital taxation, or 0.7% of total tax take. We reduced the rate of tax from 40% to 20%. Last year, 2002, we collected €628.2 million, an increase by a factor of five in that area alone. We are prepared to ensure we have a taxation regime which puts assets in the marketplace in a way which will bring back revenue to the State.
I recall a contribution to a budget debate, prior to the last election, by former Deputy Derek McDowell who was then Labour Party finance spokesperson in this House. He criticised the Government for failing to bring about total tax exemption for workers on the minimum wage – only 90% of such workers were tax exempt. He suggested we had focused on corporation tax and capital tax, to the neglect of those on low incomes. I had some respect for the former Deputy, who at least put forward a coherent analysis based on his own ideological approach. However, what he did not take into account was the effect of reducing those tax rates. In 1996, corporation tax constituted 11.4% of total tax revenue, or a total of £1,810 million. No doubt, the then Government would claim it was getting the maximum yield in that regard. In 2002, the tax take from corporation tax was €4,803 million or 16.4% of total tax revenue, as a result of our economic and fiscal policies of reducing corporation tax from 36% then to 12.5% in this year's budget.
If the argument is that we need to derive a greater contribution from the corporate sector or the capital tax sector, as part of our total tax revenue, the empirical evidence confirms that the way to do that is to provide the type of fiscal structure we have provided. Those are the facts. Having achieved a model which has derived far more, in volume and percentage terms, of capital taxation as a component of total tax take, it is totally fallacious to suggest that one should now double the tax rate by taking it back up to 40%. In the past, we already had that model of high tax rates and high borrowing which brought about generational emigration and endemic unemployment of a structural nature.
I stand over the revenue powers which the Minister for Finance has assigned to the Revenue Commissioners during the past five years, which have brought about greater tax compliance. His simplification of the tax system has greatly improved tax compliance, and the tax take from all those sectors, the profile of tax revenue, has increased. Those are the facts. If we are to have an economic debate, as we should, let us not come forward, as some of long experience in this House have done, with arguments suggesting we can throw out the Growth and Stability Pact, now that we are in the euro zone, that it does not have any relevance and that one can go ahead with billions of euro in borrowings. If, as has been suggested—
What is the view of the Minister's colleague, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney?
Having listened to this debate, I wish to reply in so far as I can. If Deputy Bruton has a contribution to make, he can do so.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
It is only fair to refer also to the income tax changes we have made. The tax on labour in 1996, as a total percentage of tax take, was 36.6% and £5,818 million was collected. As a result of reducing tax rates to 40% and 20%, of having the best tax wedge for ordinary workers in terms of disposable income once revenue tax and PRSI were reduced, we collected €9,062 million in 2002. The total percentage of tax take on that tax on work is down to 30.9%. A reduction of tax on labour has brought 370,000 more people into the workforce. A reduction in corporation tax has increased the tax take by a factor of four in volume terms and by 50% in overall terms. A reduction in capital taxes has brought a greater contribution from capital taxes now than was the case in the past. Capital gains tax take as a percentage of the total tax take this year has increased fourfold over what it was in 1996.
If we are going to have a debate, let us have a debate on the facts. What we now know about the health service, if we are prepared to face up to it and we have responsibility to do so – we can debate the issue and disagree on aspects of it – is that if resources were the only requirement needed to bring about a European standard health service in this country, we would have the problem solved by now. If this or any other Government was to have increased the payment into the health service from €3.2 billion during my time in that Department to €9 billion which has been invested in it now and if money was the only issue, the problem would have been solved. What the social partners, who represent all sections of community – farmers, workers, trade unionists, employers, the Government, public servants – say in the social partnership agreement, to which they have signed up—
—for the next three years, is that if we want sustainable improvements in our public services, as we all do, we must match resources to what we are taking in. We must match resources to the ability to take the necessary revenues to meet the requirements of the situation.
We must also recognise that reform in the system's delivery of services is critical to taxpayers, whom we all represent, in getting the value for money that they deserve.
The parties in Government have had six years to do that.
We have had six years and there have been improvements in the health service. If we want to run it down we can do so.
The people are not running it down.
If we want to talk about waiting lists, which represent 4% of total hospital activity, and regard that as an informed and comprehensive debate, we can have that debate, but we do not serve the taxpayer or the patient well by having that sort of debate. To deal with the magnitude of the problem we face – I am making a sincere contribution – we need to stand up—
—to the vested interests who will seek to hold back reform of the health service to ensure that the patient gets the necessary service. In terms of the debate that will ensue, we do not need a requirement of unanimity regarding the nature of the reforms but at least an acceptance that we will have reforms. The €9,000 million we are putting into the health service has provided more health care workers, more services and more procedures, but no Member suggests that the nut has been cracked. The Government and the Minister are determined to go forward based on what we have decided. We are determined to show our commitment to bring about the necessary reform so that everyone will have better access to the health service and that public service workers in the health service, who work hard, as I know having been a former Minister for Health, get the opportunity to deliver services in a way which makes more sense and which brings about a greater uniformity of service than we currently have.
If one considers the education system and social services, anecdotal information and individual cases can be put forward by the Opposition during this debate and on other occasions of where we have not yet met the necessary requirement in terms of the level of service, but let us not suggest that we have not had improvements.
As a member of my party, it is important that I make this point. We said before the last general election that the achievement of strong growth is dependent on renewed world growth and no adverse economic shocks and it also depends on the right policies continuing to be pursued domestically, particularly on maintaining competitiveness and sensible budgetary policies.
Prior to the last general election Fianna Fáil said that its commitments are predicated and dependent on continued growth in the economy. Fundamental to its successful implementation and the benefits it will bring to our economy and society is the management of budgetary policy in accordance with the EU Stability and Pact Growth and as such we will maintain the budget close to balance or in surplus.
The Minister said there would be no cutbacks.
In other words, every economic plan that is worth the name is predicated on certain economic assumptions. On the basis of average GDP growth of the previous five years of 10%, we brought forward a proposal of average GDP growth going forward of 5%. The social partnership agreement makes clear that the assumption in it is based on 3.5% growth and the point is made in it that if we go beyond that, we will make sure that we distribute the increased revenue that would derive from it, consistent with the agreement.
The Minister was planning the cuts when that was being written.
The social partners have said that if we do not meet those assumptions based on the international climate, that we must reprioritise The ordinary people know in terms of their own budgets, as with national budgets, that we must deal with the realities as we find them.
The Minister did not discuss the cuts with us.
We made assumptions, which were sensible at the time, and which we stand over.
The Minister was planning the cuts when he was making promises.
I say this with all sincerity, I take exception to the vocabulary which refers to a lie and deceit. I reject it. Public servants should not be underestimated. I deplore those who seek to arrogate to themselves the idea that public servants are fools; they knew precisely that this Government had performed in a way that no predecessor had. For that reason we obtained a mandate and over the next four years we intend to honour it.
I propose to share my time with Deputies Boyle, Connolly and Cowley.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
The Government claims in its so-called progress report that the people gave it a mandate, "not for what we have done but for what we have yet to do". The reality is that the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil have secured their mandate for what they promised to do in 1997 and in 2002 and those promises were broken and have been broken yet again. The Government cannot disguise the broken pledges and the flawed policy decisions of the past year. It would like us to forget that it has been in office not for one year but for six. The Government has been in power for far too long.
We have been in power for only a year.
It began as the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition, but it rapidly evolved into the PD-FF Government with the Progressive Democrats clearly the dominant element. It has become like the Tories in Britain after repeated terms in power. In their case it was the hard right led by Norman Tebbitt which set the agenda, in the case of this Government, the agenda is set by the Progressive Democrats with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, as the standard bearer of the right in Irish politics.
Deputy Cowen was right on one point he made before he left the Chamber. However, he showed little awareness of it when he was Minister for Health and Children. Fundamental reform of the health services is needed. In their six years in office, the parties in this Government have failed to act on that fact. Today's announcement of the so-called health service reform programme represents administrative change, not fundamental reform. While new bureaucratic structures are being set up, public patients will continue to suffer and sadly some will die on waiting lists. Hospital beds will remain closed and 200,000 people will be left without the medical card cover promised by the parties in Government in the run up to the last general election. The Fianna Fáil promise to end hospital waiting lists within two years has now been consigned to history. Neither the package announced today nor the national health strategy recognised the need to end the two-tier system – the health apartheid which ensures that private patients receive privileged access while public patients must wait. The real test will come when the Hanly report is published and the Government has to confront the disgraceful abuse of the public health system by the consultants. I see no sign that the Government is determined or prepared to take on this body. The ideological and policy direction of this Government is set by the Progressive Democrats. Fianna Fáil was once a party with a commitment to the central role of the State sector in the economy, to the provision of social housing and to upholding Irish neutrality. Those values have been shredded by the Progressive Democrats and their allies in the right wing of the Fianna Fáil leadership, chief among them the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. What do we have now? We have ideologically driven privatisation. That is the reality offered by Fianna Fáil today. Housing provision is totally reliant on the developers' drive for profit, regardless of social need, and we are seeing the destruction of Irish neutrality. The right wing agenda of this Government is set by the Progressive Democrats who have contributed to the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in Irish society.
There are a number of areas on which I could reflect: The failure of the Minister for Education and Science to follow through on the commitments made before the election; the cuts in the school retention initiative; the failure of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to follow through on its promises of increases in a whole raft of areas, including child benefit where it has failed by €8 per week to meet commitments made in the past budget. That would be a substantial sum for those who depend on it. The Government has missed the targets set in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness on the minimum welfare payment and there is no increase in back to school allowance for primary students. The child dependant allowance remains frozen since 1994. The programme for Government states: "We support the positive role of the community employment scheme to meet the needs of both the long-term unemployed and communities," but CE places were cut. It is to CE places that this Government should be confined.
These are desperate times indeed for a desperate Government which has to resort to the Cahirciveen chancer routine.
I am glad that at last the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism understands the meaning of zero tolerance. I am glad he finally realises his shortcomings and understands why he finds himself in the Department he is in after the one he was in previously, with Ireland suffering as a society from the decisions he made as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am glad that he begins to understand his ignorance of economics, which is as broad as his ignorance of horticulture. I am also glad that he is prepared to defend his Government's record by not mentioning a single item of what this Government has been prepared to do, what it stands for and what it intends to do. If anything, the Minister's speech was the bankrupt statement of a Government that does not know what it is about.
I will not repeat much of what he said, nor will I claim any moral high ground for my party.
The Deputy would not want to, following his party's performance last week.
There is no need to. As it stands, my party has not been guilty of any sins of commission – none of its members has committed illegal acts. Neither is it guilty of any sins of omission. We have not been dragged screaming to tribunals to release information that should have been released day by day on the floor of this House. We have perhaps not lived up to our own standards, but those standards are far, far beyond the place to which many people in Deputy Lenihan's party still have to travel. Ours is not the party of blank cheques, of meat and bone meal being fed illegally to animals, of creditor farmers, or of Liam Lawlor. The contribution of the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism this evening suggests that the Government is floundering. It is not prepared to make positive statements about itself but only to strike out at others. It will grab hold of the most insignificant issue in an effort to reclaim some credibility from an electorate that, as of now, is not prepared to give it anything.
The Minister engaged in the usual scare tactics about Green economics. My party was the only party in the last general election that predicted that we would have a growth rate of no less than 3%, which is incredibly irresponsible. My party was prepared to point out that this is the country with the lowest level of social protection expenditure in Europe, something in which the Government can take no pride. My party has been prepared to say that in the practice of government in other European countries there have been Green Party Ministers with responsibility not only for the environment but also for areas such as health and public services. In those countries, one can go into a casualty department and be treated in an appropriate time. One can go into a hospital and receive surgery within an appropriate time. One knows that if one is part of a society, even though one may not belong to the most cosseted, rewarded and wealthy sections, one will be treated no differently from anybody else.
The Government holds up the present state of this country as some kind of economic miracle, something to which other countries might aspire. However, it has been a con-trick and the Government has run out of time. It benefited from international conditions that no longer exist and is now being asked to use its own resources to provide policies to benefit this country, an area in which it has been shown to be sadly wanting. The tragedy is that the Government will be in office for another four years, but during that time the Minister of State and his Government will be exposed to constant opposition in this House and on the streets.
Regardless of what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has just said, no one has argued that the people were fooled. We will argue, however, as we have argued in the past, that this Government has acted and continues to act as if the people can be fooled. This is the saddest indictment of the Government. Come the time, to a certain extent next year in the local and European elections, but mainly when we have another general election in four years' time, it will be shown to be a bankrupt Government – one that had opportunity, that could have brought about real social change, but chose instead to sit tight, to make decisions on behalf of those who most supported it and to make it difficult for those who will follow it to try to bring about a better and more equal society.
There is no new way of expressing what has already been said about the performance of the Government. It would be an understatement to say there has been an unprecedented level of dissatisfaction with the Government. It was far from frank about the economic circumstances facing the country in the run up to the general election. The dissatisfaction was largely evident in four different areas: health, education, housing and security.
We were promised world-class hospitals. Now we have people being treated on trolleys. It is common to read about patients waiting for up to five days on trolleys, some of them dying there – not a very dignified way to exit this life. Accident and emergency patients are being treated in body storage areas. Things are getting worse – this morning I heard about patients being treated in car parks. Monaghan General Hospital has been off call for more than 12 months. Somebody injured outside the gates of the hospital must spend up to two hours in an ambulance being brought to another hospital. This is completely ignoring the principle of the golden hour. When somebody is put into an ambulance after having a heart attack, every minute counts. Lives are being lost. At Cavan General Hospital the training status of junior doctors was recently discontinued. Within my own constituency, two hospitals are in major crisis.
We were promised 3,000 extra hospital beds. Now we see hundreds of hospital beds closing down in the eastern region. Some of these hospitals, we are told, are the future regional centres of excellence. They are telling us that they will only treat people from the eastern region. They do not want to treat people from rural areas, despite the fact that they have been funded to treat people from these areas. Our own maternity unit in Monaghan closed some time ago; now there is the threat of more closures of maternity hospitals nationally. This is in spite of the fact that services are needed locally and an obstetrician is not always required. Accident and emergency units are also under threat. Some 22 hospitals nationally are under threat of closure because training facilities in the Royal College of Surgeons are deemed more important. This is more important that saving the lives of people in local general hospitals.
The charges in accident and emergency units have increased to €40 and VHI charges have increased by 20%. Overnight hospital charges have increased and the drugs refund threshold has increased to €70 per month. Hospital waiting lists are at an all time high. The only effort which is being made is the treatment purchase fund, which is wrong. Surgeons and consultants are more than willing to work in places such as Monaghan. Patients with varicose veins are being sent to other areas.
They cannot find an insurance company.
They can find an insurance company. I would like to see that in writing. They have no difficulty in this regard. They can do the work if they are allowed. They worked effectively with Craigavon to perform hernia operations under the cross-Border programme. That would give Monaghan viability. We must look at these areas before purchasing services from outside the country which often cost 40% to 60% more.
Work regarding children's dental treatment has been deferred for weeks. The Minister spoke earlier about an increase in numbers in the health service. There has been an increase in numbers in the health service but the fact is that we are bloated with senior executives. They are tripping over each other, going to meetings and not making decisions. This aspect must be addressed. It has been suggested that taking political representatives off health boards will make a difference. I believe that will not make a substantial difference to the health service because the core issues must first be dealt with.
Obviously the Department of Health and Children realises that it is in deep trouble. It recently employed Brian Dobson and pointed out 100 faults that should be addressed and the answers that should be given. It wants the chief executives to become spin-doctors and not be caught in a position where they cannot give answers. When in deep trouble the policy is to do some spinning, give out some good news and let people know about patient satisfaction surveys.
Before I speak on the motion, I want to give an example of a group of people in my area who are very deprived. These are the driftnet fishermen in the Achill area. They are trying to eke out a living but they are being squeezed out slowly. In 1997, the salmon task force report reduced their fishing area from 12 miles out to six miles. Their season was reduced from 28 March-25 July to 1 June-31 July. Their day was reduced from 24 hours to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday and 4 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, with no fishing on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. This group of people are being squeezed out and I hope the Government will do something about it. It would take very little to sort out these fishermen.
We heard the other day about the partial collapse of a school roof. It was a terrible sight and gave me a shiver down my spine. I recently raised an issue in the Dáil about a school in my village which is falling down. It is being held together by some type of wire mesh and it is the grace of God that it is not falling down. This is due to Government neglect. The school is in need of repair but funding is not being made available to carry out the work.
Prior to the election extra medical cards were promised. If the cost of extending the scheme to the over 70s had not been so great, 250,000 people could have been taken in. This would make great sense because people would be kept within the primary care system. This would be cost-effective and very efficient, instead of pushing them into the acute hospital services at a major cost. If one has two machines, it would make much more sense to use the machine that runs at a much lower cost than using the machine that costs a lot to run. This scheme was a big mistake.
Hospital beds have been cut back by 534 so far this year. The real problem in the health service is lack of capacity and funds. Money has been invested in recent years which equates to other countries in Europe but prior to that services were totally run down. We keep hearing that health boards must make cutbacks because there is not sufficient money to run the service, which is the problem. The other day the Minister for Health and Children said that he will cut capital funding for the next four years. How will matters improve if capital funding is cut back? How will things improve if sufficient money is not made available to run the service? What is this doing for the 100,000 people who are not even on the waiting list? When the waiting list was being calculated these people were not taken into account. As a general practitioner, I know of these people.
People in my area are waiting four years for a rheumatology appointment. A man who appeared on "The Late Late Show" showed his hands which were totally bent. This happened because he was left for years waiting for an appointment he should have got within weeks. That is criminal. I am pleased he appeared on "The Late Late Show", otherwise people might not know this is happening. I talk about these people whom I come across in my practice. We have fewer consultants than Croatia. People must wait four years for a service they should get within four weeks, which is unforgivable. This man bore witness to the gross neglect which is taking place. Some 1,000 people in my area are waiting five years for an operation that would take 20 minutes just because there is no urologist in the area. A urologist comes from Galway but he cannot cope with the work.
People's lives are destroyed. They must get up five times a night for five years because they cannot have an operation that would take just 20 minutes, which is unforgivable. All the time money is being invested in a private health system to support the building of private hospitals through tax schemes and the treatment purchase fund. We are supporting hospitals at home and abroad at a greater cost. This money should be invested in local services to provide a rheumatologist and urologist. There is a saying, "If you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day, if you teach him to fish you will feed him for life".
The bottom line is that we have a topsy-turvy health service. We have an apartheid health service, which is very clear in the cancer area. The failure of the Minister to publish the radiotherapy report means the real debate cannot continue. It is costing three times as much to bring people to Dublin for a service they are not getting in their own area and, as a result, they are dying. This is not acceptable.
I wish to share my time with Deputies McManus, Howlin and Sherlock.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
There are many areas on which I could concentrate in this debate. Two weeks ago the Labour Party issued a 40-page document entitled Broken Words, Broken Promises, which itemised more than 100 cutbacks and broken promises. I could speak about each of them. In the few minutes I have I want to focus on one of the most appalling and miserly cuts the Government has foisted on the most vulnerable group in society. I speak of those people who rely on home help. Is the Government aware of the dire circumstances of home help provision in the Southern Health Board area?
In my constituency of Kerry South, many people who have contacted me are in a most awful state. Home help is essential to assist families who are caring for the elderly or the ill. Many families who are trying to keep their lives together while keeping a parent or sibling at home need home help. Since the general election the home help hours which were sanctioned for sick or housebound people are not now being sanctioned by the health board. For example, the public health nurse might recommend that a particular person would need home help for four hours per day. However, the health board will say that because of the cutbacks it can only provide two hours. They have it down to such a fine art in the Southern Health Board area that if a person applies for help to get an elderly person up and washed in the morning he or she will be provided with help for half an hour. If one wants help to light a fire, one will be allowed ten minutes. It is a desperate reflection on our society to treat elderly and ill people like this, and it is a worse reflection on the Government. I was recently contacted by a family whose mother is in the final stages of senile dementia. She has a very small family and the members have juggled their lives to keep their mother at home where they want her. She had 21 hours home help service per week and members of the family were recently told that three hours was to be cut. While this might seem small to some people, those three hours meant further juggling. Time had to be taken off work and grandchildren had to be looked after by an elderly grandparent. This is just one example of the cuts that have gone unnoticed by the media and in the corridors of power. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, said that money does not sort out all the problems. However, a very small amount of money would sort out this problem and the Government should provide it. I pay tribute to the staff in the health boards who are at the coalface of telling people they cannot get home help.
At least the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, came clean in the House last night about the letter he sent to Deputy Noonan and Deputy Quinn before the last general election. I call on all the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrat Members to put on the record of the House all the letters of comfort they issued before the general election and we can then decide who made promises and who broke them.
This is an important debate. It is worth remembering that the present combination of parties has now been in power for six years and has presided over the greatest prosperity this country has ever known. Great things could have been done, particularly in our health service, but they just did not happen. We could now have a high quality, easily accessible health service that would be the envy of other countries. While money went in, the improvements that could have emerged did not.
The deep inequality that exists between private and public patients continues. The hospital waiting lists have barely been dented. It is a scandal that not one low-income family has received an additional medical card as happened in the past when income limits were raised. A single person who goes over €138 per week is unable to get a medical card. However, the Taoiseach can state in the House that doctors' fees have increased in some cases to €30 or €40 per visit. It is a tragedy that the Government mishandled the health service so badly.
Prior to the last general election, it was clear that people were concerned about the health service and so the Minister for Health and Children turned magician and conjured up a health strategy that dazzled the public and convinced people the position would improve. He did not tell the people that three weeks before that health strategy was published, the Minister for Finance had informed him that there was no money to back it up. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, also informed the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. However, all four of them went out in collusion and sold a pup to the people. As soon as the general election was out of the way the avalanche of cutbacks and increased charges came down on the heads of the unfortunate people who were trying to access health care. Among so many, the voices of a small group of women who underwent symphysiotomy operations were hardly heard. This morning the Taoiseach yet again told those women to get back in the queue and wait in line, as they would not get the redress they seek.
There are others whose voices are not being heard, those of the children who are trying to access care in the national tertiary hospital at Crumlin that treats very sick children. That hospital now finds that as a direct result of a ministerial directive from the Department of Health and Children it has to cut back and close 25 hospital beds. These beds could be accessible to children who are very sick, but are not. The closure of those beds has a ripple effect right through that hospital. Those caring for the children are desperately worried about what is happening in the hospital. However, the Minister simply says it should not be happening. He abandons all responsibility on his part and that of his Department and simply blames the hospital.
I wish to lay down a marker. Today, we had yet another press conference by the Government. The spin went out saying this is a reforming Government that will put everything to right. Not one additional cent has been allocated to make the transitional or permanent arrangements for structural reform announced by the Minister today. Not one element of local accountability will be retained in the structures that are proposed. Even Professor Niamh Brennan who produced the report did not argue for the ending of health boards and the ending of local accountability. However, unless there is a change of heart, local communities will lose out because the hospital and the community services that depend on them will become more remote and less accessible.
I am very impressed by the seriousness with which the Government has taken this Private Members' motion. In my entire time in the House, I do not recall six members of Cabinet addressing a Private Members' motion. I was impressed that the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Finance all contributed last night, although I was less impressed by what they had to say. They contributed because they know the Labour Party has touched a nerve. While they can argue all they like, in truth the argument is lost. The public have decided and the issue is known. The Government was elected on false pretences. The Government parties laid out a manifesto, on which they had no intention of delivering. They bought their way back into Government and the people know it.
It was an interesting threesome, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance. Each had a different strategy. The Taoiseach believed attack was the best form of defence and attacked the record of the Labour Party. I defend the record of the Labour Party in Government. I remember how hard it was to get money for health, when I was Minister for Health because at the time the man charged with minding the money and giving it out was no less a person than the current Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. I was proud of the achievements of the Labour Party at that time as was Deputy Bertie Ahern and his comments in praise of the actions of Labour in Government are on the public record. I was proud of the record of the Labour Party on every other issue including housing where we reversed the disastrous non-building policies in public housing of the previous Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil Administration.
The rainbow coalition handed on an economy in pristine condition to the incoming Administration six years ago. Never before has a Government inherited such a fine economy with a current budget surplus and 1,000 new jobs being created every week. For the first time in history, an incoming Government made a sow's ear of a silk purse economy.
The Tánaiste's tack was somewhat different. She said the Progressive Democrats made no promises and Ireland is surely turning nicely into PD nirvana, with low taxes and privatised services available to those who can pay. The Minister for Finance, totally in character, introduced into this House a new concept. Pol Pot-like, he introduced the concept of year zero – a new reality. It was different from the old reality in that before the general election there was plenty of money and immediately after the election, in the new reality, there was no money for anything.
Two other Ministers contributed tonight. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism – having dropped "culture"– who overspent in his general election campaign by €28,000 and made a nonsense of the electoral Acts, reduced a serious debate on the economy to vulgar vaudeville. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is obviously a man with ambitions because he has abandoned his old vaudeville routine and tonight was a very serious contributor. He gave us a psychological analysis of the vote of the people last year. He spoke of the lack of synergy between the parties on this side of the House. He made no mention of the PD campaign, whose main plank was that his party, Fianna Fáil, was unfit to govern.
The man who championed that is the next speaker in this debate. He was rewarded by his pole-climbing campaign that characterised Fianna Fáil as unfit to govern alone by being brought into Government to mind them.
The one serious contribution made from the Government benches was the analysis by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of our tax regime. His basic thesis was that since we are getting in more money from our taxes, that is fine. Absent from his analysis was any concept of fairness. This Government is bankrupt of ideas and of moral authority. By the judgment of the people, already given, its days in office are numbered, in that as soon as the people are given the opportunity, the Government will be booted out.
In 1982 I stood on the plinth of Leinster House. The present Taoiseach came before me and said: "Before you came up here, I could earn £10,000 a year more." That was because there was such a Fianna Fáil majority in this House from 1977 to 1981 and 1982. I formed the opinion that I at least was there to represent the people, as is the Labour Party, while the Taoiseach and his contingent are a bit out of touch with them.
That was exactly what the Taoiseach said. Listening to the diatribe from the Government side, from the Taoiseach, Deputy Harney and the Minister for Finance, it is clear they are no different now. They have a majority of people to troop into the lobbies and vote with them. These are the facts.
The Taoiseach when speaking referred only to the national roads. He did not refer to the county roads system. In my own County Cork, there has been a reduction of €3.7 million in funding for the county roads. In the north Cork division, it amounts to a reduction of about 17%. Day after day, people are writing to their insurance companies or to Cork County Council claiming for damage to their cars. That is not an exaggeration.
The Government did not properly estimate the cost of giving medical cards to wealthy people. A week ago, a woman told me she was visiting a pharmacy when a large farmer entered, a man for whom she had once worked. He produced a medical card. This lady did not have a medical card. She could not pay medical bills for her dependent children. At the last meeting of the Southern Health Board, the dental representative said that before long in the southern region, in the Cork area in particular, there would be no dental services because the funds had dried up.
The elderly and those with disabilities have to be recommended for grants by medical people, by their own GPs in the first instance, and also by the county council medical representatives. Those grants are now abolished. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, should go to Listowel and listen to the people who last night spoke on television about there being no provision for their children who were now graduating, to go into any other schools. They were critical of the fact that nothing was being done in that regard by the Government.
I have been working hard at local level with the health board, and at ministerial level, and I am quite sure that elderly people, of whom we have many – which is a great thing – must be defended. If they have not got beds in community hospitals, they are directed to private nursing homes. I know that the Minister for Finance has written to the Minister for Health and Children. I know that they want to change the relevant Act so that this State will not pay a subvention to those people in private nursing homes. I assure the Ministers they will not get away with that.
It is about time that we asked ourselves if the parties in Opposition had managed, just over a year ago, to persuade the electorate to entrust them with the reins of Government, what the priorities of the new rainbow Government would be. Would it have dissipated the hard-won resources of the State on compensating those who, in anticipation of a windfall, invested in Eircom shares? Would it have broken that promise? Would it have provided between €200 million and €400 million in compensating taxi drivers, or would it have broken that promise?
A Deputy:
That was a Fianna Fáil promise.
Would it have delivered on the promise made by the Opposition spokesman for finance at the time to scrap 30,000 public sector jobs? Would it have kept that promise? Would it have raided the national pension reserve fund and put the future pensions of our people at risk, or would it have broken that promise?
Rubbish. The Minister should be a bit honest.
Would it have implemented the Labour Party's spending proposals, which would have increased our national debt by 51%, and have demanded a minimum borrowing requirement of €19 billion, or would it have broken that promise?
The Minister's own leader was breaking promises. The Minister should not be dishonest.
Would the Labour Party have imposed the €750 million extra in PRSI or would it have broken that promise? Would the Fine Gael Party have increased taxes by imposing a 30% tax rate between the 20% rate and the 42% rate or would it have broken that promise?
Would the Green Party have kept its promise to have a 50% tax rate? Would the Labour Party have kept its promise to double the rate of capital gains tax even though charging it at its present reduced rate quadruples its yield? Never mind the revenue implications for day-to-day spending on health: just think of the ideological high that would have given the party.
(Interruptions).
The Minister without interruption, please.
Now that the Labour Party under Deputy Rabbitte's leadership has since revealed that it is again proposing a wealth tax on property, I ask it if that is a promise. Why did we not hear about the wealth tax?
The Progressive Democrats have brought in an annual tax of €1,000 for every house in the country. The Progressive Democrats did that today by stealth.
I am being shouted down. Why did we not hear about the wealth tax just 12 months ago, and would Fine Gael have delivered on that promise?
The Progressive Democrats today brought in a property tax on ordinary dwellings for ordinary people. Perhaps the Minister does not know about it. Perhaps he was in the bar.
Where are the extra gardaí?
The Green Party promised to raise the rate of corporation tax to 17%. Deputy Gormley proposed that in the Irish Examiner in March 2002. Just a month later, Deputy Boyle changed that figure from 17% to 15%. Were those promises which the rest of the Opposition members would have kept? Certainly not.
The Minister should talk about public order.
In May 2002, the Green Party removed from its party website a proposal that local authorities should be allowed to issue their own currencies.
What did the Minister do?
(Interruptions).
Acting Chairman:
The Minister without interruption, please.
Acting Chairman, I must appeal to you. I have five minutes.
The Opposition members are attempting to shout me down. If you will not maintain order among your party colleagues, I will have to wait ten minutes.
(Interruptions).
A Deputy:
The Minister is telling untruths.
Acting Chairman:
The Minister without interruption, please.
The Minister is not in the bar now. He is not able for it.
It is great to see a group of redshirts and blueshirts shouting people down in a democratic parliament.
It is a disgrace for the Minister with his background to say something like that. He should be ashamed.
The deputy leader of the Green Party, its Dáil candidate in Carlow-Kilkenny, said the following, which I would like everyone to hear. She said —
They listen to the Minister in the Law Library but not here.
The deputy leader of the Green Party, Mary White, the party's Dáil candidate in Carlow-Kilkenny, said that she would welcome the collapse of the Irish economy because it would mean that the Irish Government could no longer afford to build roads.
While we are on the subject, Sinn Féin also promised huge tax hikes and it promised to bring about a Marxist workers' republic. Would any of them have kept that promise? All the Opposition parties have success ively and consistently opposed the tax revolution that brought unemployment below 5%, from the 17% level when the main Opposition parties were last in office.
What about law and order?
Acting Chairman:
Your time is up, Minister.
I have been shouted down throughout this debate. Unfortunately, it has been impossible for the Chair to keep order here this evening.
(Interruptions).
Acting Chairman:
I call Deputy Richard Bruton.
When next I hear the Labour Party shouting about vaudeville in this House, I hope the electorate will realise that there is no free speech in this House for somebody who is telling the truth when others do not want to hear it.
The Minister is a disgrace. He should apologise to the Chair for his behaviour.
The Minister has displayed his usual ability for self-delusion in this debate. Here is a Minister who prides himself and his party on fiscal prudence, yet he presided over a period when they increased spending by 40% over two years, six times the growth in the tax base. Where was the Minister when the spending decisions were being made to throw money at every single project?
Listening to the Deputy suggesting that all spending should be doubled.
Where was he when the grandiose projects to build Luas through the mad cow roundabout were being formulated? Where was he when VAT was increased twice in the past 12 months? The Minister's low-tax party is quite happy to preside over tax increases. Where was he when he allowed inflation to erode €500 from every household through income tax? He allowed inflation to take that tax out of people's pockets.
What about the money for the taxi drivers?
The Minister is providing an example of hypocrisy to the House.
(Interruptions).
Acting Chairman:
The Deputy, without interruption. He has only five minutes.
He was put there to do a job, to try to preserve some semblance of fiscal prudence in the economy, yet the Progressive Democrats failed dismally. It is extraordinary to see the OECD offering us advice. It is telling us that grandiose projects should be properly evaluated. Where was the Minister when Stadium Ireland, the metro and the €10 billion health strategy were being hatched? Not one shekel of it has been spent.
The reality is that the Minister failed the people who put him there. He has created the problems in this economy and, like his friends around him, he is bewildered that the motto "Get out and party" should end in tears, as it undoubtedly has. In the past 12 months, the Minister has added 60% to the rate of inflation. When businesses are asked what is causing job losses, they say it is inflation, high insurance costs, traffic congestion and the lack of a waste management strategy. What these things have in common is that the Government is responsible for them.
The Deputy is bumbling and stuttering.
The great reforming zealots who were supposed to transform the economy have presided over a situation where there is no reform. They allowed benchmarking to occur where cheques were written for a 12% increase in public pay but they failed to deliver any reform process.
Is the Deputy against benchmarking?
Benchmarking was a great opportunity to say to public servants "We can achieve best practice and you can fulfil your potential through a process of reform", but the Government would not take that on. They did a quiet little deal in the corner and shredded the evidence afterwards.
The Deputy's party wanted to sack 30,000 civil servants.
They increased spending on public pay this year by 12%, yet spending on non-pay elements rose by only 1%. Why do they wonder that hospital beds are closing, that people with disabilities are denied respite care and those in need of home help cannot get it?
That's right, abolish the public service.
As night follows day, they preserved the bureaucracy and would not deliver the services. That is as a direct consequence of the sort of reckless fiscal strategy the Minister and the Progressive Democrats in general have pur sued. They had a responsibility to ensure there was some semblance of sanity in the way the economy was managed but they have failed the country. We are going to pay dearly for that.
Which public servants would the Deputy sack?
The reality is that exports have collapsed in the first quarter of this year. Unemployment is rising and it will get worse. The Minister knows that.
Some 30,000 public servants were to have been sacked.
The Progressive Democrats in particular are sitting there bewildered and they want to know what happened. The Progressive Democrats leader is telling us that the answer is to go out and borrow more but the Minister's colleagues in Fianna Fáil say "Oh no, we are not going to borrow; we will not go down the Progressive Democrats road of higher borrowing". It is topsy-turvy land. The Progressive Democrats and the Minister's colleagues in Fianna Fáil are literally bewildered about what has happened. The flagship project that typifies the Government's approach to planning is the Luas going through the mad cow roundabout. The Luas, that was to have been delivered on time and on budget, is already 60% over budget. For three years its carriages have been rusting on stilts. We have had just one movement of the carriages to put on a display outside Merrion Square for Ministers to sit in it.
"Next stop 2003". It is typical of the Government's strategy to drive a Luas through the busiest roundabout in the country and expect that people can get on with their business. I despair of the Government whose members are deluding themselves. The sooner they step aside the better for all of us.
The Deputy would want to do a lot better than that. It is sad.
The Minister, Deputy McDowell, is the only one who is sad.
Acting Chairman:
Deputy Rabbitte, without interruption.
I thank everybody who contributed to this Labour Party motion, which quite rightly calls the Government to account at the end of its first year in office. I never expected to have to say this, but the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has reduced himself to the same level of buffoonery as that of his predecessor, and that is a low level. Deputy Cuffe may have been unwise in exposing himself to the charge of being hypocritical about his portfolio. When one is in a glass house, as is the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Cuffe is not a particularly good target. The Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, who passed the legal spending limit by €28,000 to get himself re-elected to this House, purports to lecture a decent Member, such as Deputy Cuffe, whose foolishness is certainly not on a par with that of some of the colleagues with whom the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, shares the Government benches.
The only serious speech from the Government side that I heard in the course of this debate was from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. He took an interesting approach to the debate by ignoring the motion, which matches the promises both Government parties made to get power against their performance since the election. The motion does not purport to be about anything else, but the Minister, Deputy Cowen, wants to shift it to an economic debate. He says that we should have such a debate, and I agree with him, let us have it, but that was not the subject of the motion. The Minister does not think the two parties were returned to Government because of the promises they made but because people had more money in their pockets at election time. I think there is some truth in that and it could scarcely be otherwise. The net point, however, is that the Minister sought to posit the artificial reality of a low-tax Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats economy versus the alleged failures of the Labour Party and Fine Gael in the 1980s. That debate is history.
In June 1997 the Minister, Deputy Cowen, inherited an economy on the up and up from the same parties he now derides, Labour and Fine Gael, when my colleague, Deputy Quinn, was Minister for Finance. One thousand jobs per week – 55,000 jobs a year to be precise – were being created at that time, against current weekly job losses of 500. Inflation was the lowest we have had since that time and growth was heading for a record level of 9%. That was the type of economy the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party handed over to these two parties.
The most disappointing aspect of this debate was that the Tánaiste sought to present to the House the achievements of the past five years as if the economic growth was an achievement of the two parties in government. I would not claim it was the result of the two parties in government which preceded this Government, although it inherited an economy on the cusp of a boom from Deputy Quinn. Everyone in the House knows that the reason for the economic growth of the past seven or eight years is the policies of 25 years standing, such as investment in education and the peculiar convergence of factors at this time. The proposition that it is because of some policies followed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats since coming to power is manifest nonsense. The real question is about the manner in which that boom was wasted.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, sought not only to set up this false juxta position of what happened in the 1980s, but to suggest that we would undermine the basis of industrial strategy. He conveniently allied capital gains tax and corporation profit tax into the one rubric and he pointed out how much it had increased in recent years. It was Deputy John Bruton, Deputy Quinn and myself who negotiated the 12.5% corporation profit tax regime. We have made it clear since then that that is fixed on the industrial landscape.
What about the Green Party?
The Green Party was not in government.
It wanted to be part of the rainbow.
There is no point in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform constantly raising the issue about what a motley of parties would do. That does not arise.
Would it keep the promise to raise it?
This is interesting. The Minister bitterly complained a few moments ago about being shouted down. However, he has not stopped shouting since he sat down.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, tried to suggest that we would do something different on corporation profit tax and on social partnership. We were committed to social partnership. I was implementing social partnership when he was wasting on the backbenches during the days of the great man in Kinsealy. This notion that we would pull the rug from under the economic success we have had is complete and abhorrent nonsense. When he talks about the tax code, he conveniently forgets that it is a carefully calibrated instrument.
The Minister should look at the Combat Poverty Agency figure. Its analysis shows that the Minister for Finance conferred six times as much resources on the top 30% as he did on the bottom 30% during his first five budgets. There is no arguing with that. If he wants to shift the debate to a discussion about the economy, we can have that debate in the future. However, that is not what this debate is about. He is trying to set up a number of straw men to knock them down, but that is not what the debate is about. He put himself firmly into the Minister for Finance's line of economics. He is merely one step away from denying the existence of society. Let us create more wealth and lower personal taxes, and the trickle down effect will deal with social exclusion. That is the position of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I accept it is a serious position as distinct from the type of speeches made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his immediate predecessor. However, it was not part of the debate tonight.
The debate tonight was about promises which brought the Government to office, such as the promise to provide 200,000 additional medical cards, of which not one has been offered, the promise to provide 2,000 additional gardaí, of which not one has been provided, and the promise to transfer €2 billion of resources to areas of disadvantage under the RAPID programme. However, the Government pulled the rug from under the RAPID programme as soon as it got back into office. It has also imposed a raft of charges on the people. The Government accused me of a wealth tax on property when the Minister came in today and imposed between €700 and €1,000 on the home of every family in this State.
The Government introduced the 1% increase in VAT and a raft of charges on everything from ESB to VHI to motor taxation, to €670 on children in education. A raft of promises were made and those were the actions taken in the aftermath.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cowen, Brian.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.
|
Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.
|
Tá–continued
|
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.
|
O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.
|
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.
|
Lynch, Kathleen.McGrath, Finian.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.
|
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Durkan.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
