I am sharing time with Deputies Carty, Cregan, Eoin Ryan, Killeen, O'Donovan, O'Keeffe and Cooper-Flynn.
Private Members' Business. - Equity in Society: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Gregory on Tuesday, 14 October 2003:
That Dáil Éireann:
– regrets the imprisonment of Deputy Joe Higgins and commends Deputy Higgins for his unswerving stand in the pursuit of equity in Irish society;
– condemns this Government's lack of fairness and equity as seen in:
– the cutbacks devastating community employment schemes throughout the country, undermining resource centres, crèches, after-school projects, services for the elderly and disabled, and voluntary groups working with the disadvantaged;
– the deliberate and unjustifiable winding-down of the Whole Time Jobs Initiative resulting in the loss of important community services provided by the workers and their local organisations;
– the removal of child care allowances for participants in VTOS, Youthreach, and FÁS funded training schemes, preventing the most disadvantaged achieving second chance education;
– calls for an end to cutbacks directed against the most vulnerable section of society; and
– further condemns the parallel introduction of inequitable stealth taxes which disproportionately hurt the lower income groups.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"– calls on Members of the House to fully respect the laws enacted by the Oireachtas and to respect the institutions of the State;
– notes the significant reductions in unemployment and poverty since 1997;
– acknowledges the valuable contribution which community employment, the job initiative programme and other labour market measures have made to reducing long-term unemployment in recent years;
– recognises the important contribution that community employment and the job initiative programme have made to services for local community groups and organisations throughout the country;
– notes the ongoing restructuring of community employment designed to maintain an adequate number of places in the context of the much improved labour market for job seekers;
– notes that a number of reviews in relation to community employment and the job initiative programme are currently nearing completion and that a decision on the future funding and structure of these programmes will be taken in the context of the Estimates provision for 2004, having regard to the outcome of the current review process; and
– commends the Government for ensuring that the tax burden on low income workers is the lowest in the EU and that maintaining this is essential to maintaining a low level of unemployment."
–(Minister for Enterprise, Trade and
Employment).
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Every voter must decide whether he or she wants protest or policy, speeches or decisions or a so-called "unswerving stand" against the law or a firm stand in favour of the law. Most want the country to be governed well. They want holders of public office to adopt realistic policies which they expect to be implemented. They accept the rule of law and want it applied to everyone. However, the motion opposes what most demand and expect because it is not about governance, policies or the law. Instead, it invites the House to commend high and mighty moralising and low down, unlawful actions.
The issue has revealed a weak kneed attitude on the part of the Labour Party to anti-democratic protests from the hard left. The Labour Party wants the Government to cave in to this dirty protest. What sort of backbone is that? The party wants the Government to undermine the councillors, management and staff of local authorities by rescinding orders in order that bins that have not been paid for will not be collected. It does not want to appear offside on the left wing of the pitch. It is afraid of what might happen in the local elections.
The Deputy will find out. The noddies will get their answer.
The Labour Party would reward unofficial pickets that prevent council workers doing their jobs, a Member for defying the court and agitators who are preventing the collection of bins belonging to law abiding individuals.
The people will reward backbone. It is time for politicians and others to stand up and be counted.
The people I represent in Galway and those in every other area in Ireland would be furious if the Government caved in on this issue. Is this the thanks we get for paying charges and reducing waste? Are we to subsidise a small group in Dublin who refuse to pay and prevent the collection of bins?
The issue has also lifted the lid on murky tax thinking in our largest trade union. A SIPTU spokesman stated earlier people should pay higher income taxes in order that services could be supplied "free". Going down this road would lead to disaster for workers and the economy. The SIPTU spokesman's proposal would mean a return to the worker's paradise of high tax, high unemployment and high emigration. It would put in danger everything that has been achieved through low taxes on employment.
And low social protection.
The message to workers is, "You can pay more tax and lose your job, but at least the bins will be free."
The House should not support this nonsense. Let us stand up for ourselves. We would make fools of ourselves to commend one among us who breaks laws passed by the House and defies our courts. We should no more commend a Member for defying court orders than a soccer team should commend its full back for scoring an own goal. Our votes are cast, our laws are made and our courts operate democratically. Every public representative with an ounce of responsibility and a gramme of sense will uphold the law. Sadly, a number of Members have become weightless and witless by inflating their own importance above the law. Most Members and the vast majority of the public have no truck with this.
Most pay waste charges. In most counties in Ireland and most countries in Europe householders have been paying for public and private collection of waste for years. No one likes paying charges but who ever likes paying bills? We pay for buses, television, electricity and gas. Waste disposal is essential, not optional, according to objectors. However, that is also the case with electricity and transport. We all pay for services and, at the same time, exempt or help the less well-off to pay.
Through the Department of Social and Family Affairs, we provide support by expending €175 million on free travel, a fuel allowance, an electricity allowance, a free television licence, a telephone allowance, a national gas allowance and a bottled gas allowance. In addition, there are, rightly, waivers for bin charges. Most are responsible and know that paying for waste disposal is a key part of dealing with our waste problem. They are also aware that it is part of a package of policies to tackle waste and that we will protect the environment with policies, not protests.
They want to know if the Deputy is still against incineration.
For example, in my own city of Galway, we have made tremendous progress in recycling, while at the same time people pay a bin charge of €320. A total of 50% of waste has been diverted from landfill sites. I congratulate Galway City Council and Galway County Council for the lead they have given and the practical solutions they are putting in place.
I favour the move towards payment for waste by weight, as is the case in Cork. It will encourage waste minimisation and recycling but, if waste disposal was free and unlimited, it would do nothing to encourage minimisation and recycling. People throughout Ireland are not amused or inspired by protestors in Dublin refusing to pay bin charges. Instead, they are baffled and annoyed. We, in provincial Ireland, are often accused of being parochial. However, in this case, Dublin bin protestors and their leaders are being parochial and small-minded. While we are cleaning up Galway, they have embarked on a dirty protest. While we are recycling 50% of our waste, they are leaving rubbish on the street. While we are protecting Ireland's environment, they are defying Ireland's democracy. It is farcical that a number of those protesting and blocking depots qualify for waivers and, therefore, do not have to pay bin charges. This is sharp practice and brings their credibility to a new low. One might understand a citizen protesting against a charge levied directly against him or her but he or she is physically blocking services and demonstrating on the streets against something that has no impact on him or her, financially or otherwise. This is stubborn arrogance backed up by hypocrisy.
Anti-bin tax campaigners are also calling to the homes of bin truck drivers and refuse collectors. This is a sinister development and smacks of intimidation. The House should give no comfort to the Dublin protestors. We would do well to stay true to the mandate of a law abiding democracy given by the vast majority of the electorate.
With regard to other matters mentioned in the motion, my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, set out last night the full facts about the Government's record on community employment and a fair tax system. The motion invites us to forget recent economic progress and how we built up the massive additional public resources generated from our low tax, pro-enterprise, high employment economy.
Under the fair and radically reformed tax system, the more money one earns, the more tax one pays – that is how it should be. I am confident that we will continue to build our health, education and social services with the resources generated in this country by enterprise initiative. If actions are taken that slow down the engine of wealth, our power to reduce poverty and inequality will also stall. Every possible indicator and international comparison shows that we have hit the right formula in Ireland in recent years. We have the lowest rate of tax on ordinary workers, the lowest unemployment rate and the highest level of growth. Let us not relinquish these gains to humour one Deputy and let us not join a weak-kneed cave-in from the left wing of Irish politics.
The 2003 budget for community employment schemes is €274 million. This will provide for an average participation rate of 22,500 and a year end figure of 20,000. Funding of €45 million has been provided for the job initiative scheme in 2003. This will provide for an average participation rate of 2,446 and a year end participation rate of 2,200. A number of participants in the JI scheme, which was designed as a three-year programme, continue to find it difficult to progress from the programme to employment. A review of active labour market programmes is being undertaken by the standing committee on the labour market. Consideration is being given, in the context of this review, to addressing the needs of a number of JI participants who are unlikely to find employment. New supports are being provided. I have spoken to the Taoiseach and several Ministers about this matter and I am hopeful that my concerns will be addressed. Wholesale cuts in CE and JI schemes in deprived areas can only lead to increased feelings of marginalisation. As a Government party, Fianna Fáil has a responsibility to address such issues in a compassionate manner.
Good man.
I thank the Deputy. FÁS is seeking to implement significant cuts in the level of participation in these schemes, which provide an essential service in many marginalised and socially deprived areas. Important services such as child care, meals on wheels and school maintenance will be affected by these cuts.
It seems from the Deputy's contribution that he should be on this side of the House.
I would not like to be on the Deputy's side.
It is my view that such cuts will not benefit the wider community. Many of the participants in these schemes will find it difficult to find jobs, while the State will not benefit greatly from the cutting back of vital services. Estimates show that keeping a CE post costs the State just 10% more than allowing the person to return to the dole. This small saving to the State contrasts with the enormous social cost of cutting the schemes, which have an immeasurable value for participants. Tremendous work has been done under CE schemes in County Mayo. Entire villages have been enhanced by the construction of stone walls, the planting of flower beds and the renovation of old buildings, among other things. The participants have great pride in their work and their skills have been put on show. These positions are providing an alternative to life on the dole for many people throughout the country. As well as providing important services, the schemes also give people a sense of purpose and belonging. The benefits of these schemes far outweigh any small cost savings for the State brought about by their abolition.
I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. CE schemes have become quite topical in recent months, for the right reasons. I acknowledge the contribution of the schemes to the reduction of long-term unemployment in recent years. I agree that the primary purpose of CE schemes is as a transitional labour market programme to provide work experience and training for the long-term unemployed, with a view to reintegrating them into the open labour market. Participation levels have been gradually reduced in accordance with the Government's 1997 decision to restructure community employment schemes. This reduction reflects the significant decrease in the number of long-term unemployed persons and the shift in emphasis from work experience programmes to training, from which there is a greater level of progression to employment. The programme's average participation rate in 2003 is about 22,500 participants, but it is intended to reduce this number to 20,000 by the end of the year. This constitutes a phased reduction of 5,000 places over the year.
I first became interested in CE schemes mainly because I saw the benefit of employing personal assistants for persons with disabilities. A person with a disability who has a PA available to him or her will benefit from the trusting relationship he or she builds with the assistant. I feel strongly that this bond should not be broken after three years but that is happening, unfortunately. I am glad that the Government has decided, following a review of the scheme, that PAs will continue to be employed through CE schemes in future. All CE projects relating to the health service have been ring-fenced to protect them from the reduction of the CE programme to 20,000 places. When CE places were reduced in 2002 from 38,809 to 25,000, FÁS ensured that the designated health sector CE places were maintained, as agreed.
We must prioritise when we reduce the number of places on a scheme and I think we are getting our priorities right. I fully commend the participants on the scheme who have maintained cemeteries and GAA and soccer grounds and built stone walls, as they have made a major contribution to society. At a time when 40,000 work permits are being issued, we have to be sensible enough to say that able-bodied young people should participate in the work place, as they are employable. I firmly believe that participants in CE schemes who are over the age of 50 or 55, or who have disabilities, should be prioritised. We have to ensure that such people can continue to participate in CE schemes. They should not be given three-year contracts, but instead offered permanent or renewable contracts. We should ensure that people between the ages of 50 or 55 and 65 can make a valuable contribution to society and to their communities. The Government should look after such people by giving them the dignity of employment. I am glad to note that the review's findings seem to suggest that the Government will look after such people. It is very important.
I recently encountered a 60 year old gentleman who left a CE scheme last May, having finished his three years. He has been on unemployment benefit since last May and he has tried might and main to get a job since then. He has no hope of being employed. I encourage the Minister and the Government to look after him and his ilk, who are making a valuable contribution, particularly in health-related schemes. I refer to personal assistants to people with disabilities, people working in respite care centres and people working in day care centres, all of whom should remain on CE schemes.
I am sensible enough to admit that the previous level of CE scheme places could not be maintained. CE schemes were initiated at a time when we had a serious unemployment problem in this country. That is no longer the case, thankfully, as a result of good Government policy. We are at a stage when we must prioritise. I appeal once more to the Government to prioritise in the right way, particularly by giving priority to those working on health sector CE schemes and others who have made a valuable contribution. I look forward to the completion of the review. I trust the Minister and the Government to ensure that when the review is completed, those over the age of 55 and persons with disabilities will continue to be employed. Such people are making a huge contribution on schemes at present.
Can I inquire if another Deputy proposes to speak in the remainder of this time slot?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Four Deputies are listed to speak but they are not present in the House at the moment. The Chair is unaware of whether they will turn up.
They are at a benchmarking meeting.
The motion moved by Deputy Gregory last night refers to Deputy Joe Higgins's "unswerving stand in the pursuit of equity in Irish society". When I listen to him in the Chamber, I frequently find it difficult to judge whether Deputy Higgins's contributions reflect such a stand or are merely colourful rants of old-fashioned eastern European socialist gobbledygook. However, I have no difficulty in assessing his position on the issue of refuse collection charges.
No element of current taxation in the State provides for refuse collection. Much less is there provision in the income tax code for any such charge. As the Tánaiste pointed out last night, the tax burden on low income workers is the lowest in the European Union. While it remains so, we will maintain our competitive advantage over our rivals, particularly in the area of job creation and attracting inward investment, and will be in a far better position to protect employment. If we were to adopt the taxation model favoured by Deputy Higgins, we would drive jobs out of the country. We had that difficulty for long enough and must ensure we do not return to it.
The final element of the Opposition motion refers to inequitable stealth taxes. There are no stealth taxes in the State. Each and every tax or charge is introduced publicly and transparently, whether by vote of Parliament in a budget or Finance Act, ministerial order or a local authority or other agency. No one can point to a charge which has not been introduced in accordance with the correct legal procedures. Our taxes are legal, open and visible. They are not stealth taxes.
Refuse collection charges can be waived for low income families and other provisions facilitate the use of weekly stickers or bags. Similar schemes apply to a range of other charges across several Departments and agencies. We must examine the alternatives to such charges. The one frequently urged on the Minister for Finance is an increase in taxation on employment. Such an increase would drive low paid workers back into the ranks of the unemployed. The close connection between unemployment and poverty is well documented in many reports and studies. The State finances would suffer the double blow of lost income tax and increased unemployment benefit payments. We must take care not to support failed economic models. I am in no hurry to pursue Deputy Higgins down the road of transforming the country into another Albania, Romania or Bulgaria.
The remaining elements of the motion refer to the various community employment type schemes sponsored by FÁS. The schemes were introduced as labour market measures when the rate of unemployment stood at 17%. It is now around 4%. It is clear that the focus of the schemes must be altered to take account of changed circumstances. Some worthwhile work has been done by participants and a substantial number have managed to move on to full-time employment. This year's allocation is €274 million and the schemes provide more than 20,000 places. While the motion criticises the Government, it does not advance any constructive proposals for the future development of the schemes. In the context of the changes that have taken place, there is no doubt that they need to be modernised. There are lessons to be learned. Some were pointed out by speakers last evening and others were pointed out this evening by speakers on this side of the House. Changes are required to and we must look carefully at how we can improve the schemes and ensure their valuable work continues.
I commend the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, for the tremendous work he has done in his Department in devising new models. That is the challenge which faces us.
Is that what he has been at?
The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provides for a review and reappraisal of the schemes. Besides the internal review being conducted by FÁS, further work is being done under the aegis of the standing committee on the labour market.
A minority of participants in job initiative schemes have had difficulty in progressing to employment. There is a view that some participants at that level may never be able to make the move into full-time ordinary employment. There is a clear need for their future to be charted and set out. I commend the Minister of State for facing up to this. Deputy Cregan referred to people of 55 or 60 years of age who have participated in schemes for three years. If such people are living in rural areas, they are likely to have difficulty in finding employment opportunities. Some of them have wonderful skills and do invaluable work around villages, in graveyards and so forth which adds considerably to the quality of life in rural areas. I understand the Minister of State proposes to make provision to allow a substantial number to continue to participate in schemes for quite a long time.
One of the elements which needs to be looked at in this area is an audit of skills and experience available in various communities among those who continue to be unemployed. That is a difficult task but I understand it is being done. We must also take account of the fact that many of that age group who finish their participation in schemes return to unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance at a considerable cost to the State. I suspect that officials in the Department of Finance would argue that the difference between maintaining someone on unemployment assistance and having them participate in a scheme is substantial. Even so, the value of the work being undertaken should be taken into account. Any reasonable and reasoned appraisal would take account of such value and find that the benefit of continued participation in schemes far outweighs the alternative which faces so many participants. I hope the Minister of State will be successful in persuading other Departments to support his ideas for this area.
Many community employment scheme jobs have been mainstreamed. In some cases this has been reasonably successful but in others the experience has been negative. Mainstreaming in the health service has been attempted and, in some cases, has been found to be possible but considerable problems have been thrown up. I accept that personal assistants build up a relationship with an individual and become hugely important in that person's life and that the lack of continuity under the banner of FÁS did enormous damage. Nevertheless, mainstreaming has not always addressed the difficulties of continuity seen under FÁS.
This area is the responsibility of the health service but one where considerable advances have been made, almost all of which are due to the success of individual programmes introduced by FÁS with bodies such as the Irish Wheelchair Association. Some of the success in this area has been lost in the transfer to the Department of Health and Children and, in the case of schools, the Department of Education and Science. It is a pity that has been the case but the problem can be successfully addressed.
There is no doubt that considerable work, including voluntary work, remains to be done in and around local communities and schools and in the area of health. It can continue to be done usefully by these people. It is a matter of urgency that the Government implements a scheme that effectively develops the current community employment schemes in a meaningful way.
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has a very valid point when she tells us that the fall in unemployment should naturally necessitate a review of community employment schemes. We have to take account of the fall in long-term unemployment, from 5.6% in 1997 to under 2% today. This represents a drop from 90,000 to less than 30,000. It is only natural to revise and re-evaluate a scheme that harks back to the days when we had an unemployment level of 17%.
The motion tabled by the Technical Group seems to be rooted in what one can only term an outdated ideology that holds that in order to improve people's welfare, someone has to suffer or be penalised. This is a pernicious and dangerous philosophy. The Government has shown that by providing incentives and encouragement, we can raise everybody's status. In a newspaper today, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer – hardly a man at the forefront of right-wing politics – cautioned against forgetting that to abolish poverty we must create wealth. The Government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary investment it made in social inclusion and I am happy to support its amendment.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Higgins.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Joe Higgins should not be in prison, nor should his councillor colleague or the 13 other protesters. The Labour Party does not support the tactics which have been adopted by anti-bin charge campaigners, who have blocked bin lorries and blockaded council depots, thus depriving the people of this city of a refuse collection service for the past two days. Moreover, we do not support or condone their refusal to abide by orders of the court. We support the right of people to protest, but such protests must be within the law and, as a matter of good campaigning strategy, they should avoid disruption of public services and the consequent alienation of public support.
However, the continued imprisonment of the protesters does not guarantee an uninterrupted public service, nor does it necessarily add to respect for the law. As we have seen over the past two days, and over the past month in some parts of Dublin, the imprisonment of the protesters has led to an escalation of the protests and to the denial of the bin collection service in Dublin to householders to a far greater extent than would ever have been achieved by the Minister's order or by the county managers.
While I understand the difficulty presented to the courts by protesters who refuse to comply with court orders and while I respect the independent right of the courts to apply the law, I have to question if the continued imprisonment of protesters does not ultimately lead to a reduction in public respect for the rule of law.
Many law-abiding citizens, including some who agree with the bin charges, wonder why scarce prison places should be used to hold bin protesters rather than drug pushers, joyriders and other anti-social elements who inflict real criminal harm on local communities, not to mention some of the high-rolling tax evaders who have never been sent to prison or those responsible for the large-scale illegal dumping of waste in County Wicklow and elsewhere.
The people of Dublin have, for the past two days, been denied the waste collection service for which most have paid. They are now caught between two sets of protagonists, both of which are wrong in their approach to this issue. On the one hand, extreme protesters are blockading council depots and preventing bin collections. It is ironic that a protest which started out to ensure that every household's bin was collected has directly caused everybody's bin not to be collected. There is no mandate for the blockading of council depots and it should stop.
On the other hand, the order the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has given to council managers not to collect bins from charge defaulters has triggered these protests. There was no need for the order and, as the Labour Party predicted, it has led to conflict and health and environmental hazards from uncollected waste. Local authorities already had the power to take court action against defaulters.
The Labour Party believes that in order for normal refuse services to be restored, the organisers of the protests should call off the blockading of council depots and the Minister should suspend his no collection order. Failure to do this will lead to increased conflict, continued disruption of the service and possible further imprisonment of protesters. This problem cannot be resolved by continuing resort to the Garda and the courts.
At the beginning of these protests I called on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to intervene. His failure to do so to date has contributed to the worsening of the problem, as has his tough-talking stance. Neither grandstanding by some protest leaders or tough talk from a Minister who wants to prove his political manhood on this issue will help resolve the problem for Dublin's householders.
Real leadership is now required and the Labour Party is proposing a way forward on the bin charge row. A number of steps should be taken. The blockades should be called off. No protest group has the right to decide unilaterally that an essential public service should be denied to the public. If this were an industrial dispute, for example, the workers would have had to be balloted, industrial relations procedures exhausted and notice given of strike action. In this case, neither refuse collectors nor householders have been asked whether the service should be withdrawn. Moreover, this tactic has deflected attention from the core issue of waste management and bin charges and has allowed the Minister to masquerade as a champion of the environment.
The Minister should suspend the no collection order. There was no need for it in the first place. As the Minister has said repeatedly, most were paying their charges. Every local authority has a charge, and local authorities had a number of sanctions available to them to encourage defaulters to pay up. The order to deny collection has led to conflict, but it would have led to serious health and environmental problems in any case. If waste is left uncollected for some weeks in back gardens – even in a small number of houses in a neighbourhood – it will cause obvious problems for all who live there, including those who have paid their charges. If the no collection order is suspended and the blockades are called off, local authorities should return to the High Court and apply for the release of the protesters who have been imprisoned.
The refuse charges system should be changed by relating all charges to the volume of waste presented by the householder. In my council of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, for example, no distinction is made between an elderly householder living alone, who generates very little waste, and a large household that produces a lot of waste. Both are charged €275. The levels of charges should be banded to reflect ability to pay. The present charging system is unfair to low-income families. Increases in charges should be capped and limited to the consumer price index. It is clear that the Minister intends that the charges should be increased. This is one of the major fears many have about charges, and it is well-founded. County managers, seeking the finance with which to meet benchmarking commitments, will be tempted to raise the charge in forthcoming estimates and, in any event, section 43 of the so-called Protection of the Environment Act, introduced by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, earlier this year, provides that local authorities and the operators of waste collection facilities will be statutorily required to increase the charge to the economic cost of providing the land, operating the facility and carrying out the subsequent clean-up.
The power to make charges should be restored to the elected members of local authorities. It was undemocratic to give these powers to un-elected county managers and, in any event, unnecessary given that every local authority, regardless of its difficulties, had managed to adopt a charge. A national waiver scheme should be introduced which would apply to private and public collection services. Currently, no waiver scheme operates for private collections.
The Labour Party calls for this way forward because the current conflict will not lead to an efficient service for the public or a reform of the refuse charges, but to continued disruption of the public bin collection service and, possibly, its ultimate privatisation. Such an outcome would not be in the interests of householders, council employees or the environment. Common sense must now be applied to this issue and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should show the kind of leadership set out in the Labour Party's proposals. The Labour Party will support the motion expressing regret at the imprisonment of Deputy Joe Higgins and condemning the Government for its lack of fairness and equity in its social policies.
I wish to address the Government's response to the motion. It was interesting that the only two Government speakers who presented yesterday evening were the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, who were joined this evening by Deputy Grealish, also a member of the Progressive Democrats Party.
Deputy Batt O'Keeffe also spoke on the motion.
I am aware that Deputies Batt O'Keeffe and Killeen, both of whom I respect, spoke this evening. On this issue the Progressive Democrats Party appears at last to have found the voice it had apparently lost during the past 15 months in Government. Deputy Grealish and the Tánaiste, in particular, were concerned about people breaking the law. It is, therefore, a surprise that they did not seek the advice of their colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, or explain to the House the reason it was acceptable for him, in a previous incarnation, to support a blockade of meat plants, for which nobody was arrested, charged or imprisoned, while it is not acceptable to blockade council depots. Perhaps they will explain the reason it was acceptable to refuse access to land to roads engineers and subsequently negotiate a large compensation settlement for the group in question. If we need political proof that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, the contributions made on this motion by representatives of the Progressive Democrats Party are ample evidence.
I support the motion tabled by the Technical Group. It should never have reached the point at which Deputy Joe Higgins and others find themselves in jail. They should not be in prison because their imprisonment came about as a result of the transfer of authority from elected representatives nationally and locally to un-elected members of local authorities, who have taken a decision without having to take into account the consequences of taking this matter to the courts for a ruling. This has been an unfortunate chain of events, from which we should learn that every time this House cedes authority, it also cedes the capacity to deal with the consequences of actions.
What is the background to the public reaction to these events? A man from Sligo wrote to me with 2,200 signatures he had gathered on the streets objecting to the jailing of Deputy Joe Higgins. The perception is that people who take a particular view of society – they disagree with me on many matters but agree with me on many more – now find themselves in jail when many others who have ransacked this county's wealth are flaunting it.
Hear, hear.
The speech in which my Galway West colleague, Deputy Grealish, described his version of society would have done justice to the latter days of Franco's regime in Spain. What is so admirable about a society in which one can be non-resident for the purpose of paying one's taxes, but perfectly free to bid for assets of the State built up with public money?
The Deputy's party stands for greed. He has a neck to use the word "hypocrisy" in light of his statement to the people of Galway that he opposed incineration and the solemn declaration he gave in my presence at another meeting that he was in favour of rights-based legislation on disability. This was his position until he came to Dublin when he adopted the attitude that he was only one of a small group. He has discovered his voice and, to borrow his words, the people are waiting to give their opinion on him and his ilk next June.
The Tánaiste's speech last night perpetuated an outrageous version of this country. The reality is we had an enormous boom which was squandered. Documents such as Achieving Inclusion by CORI show that every one of the previous budgets resulted in a massive transfer to those who were wealthy and could, for example, afford to save the maximum amount in an SSIA. The CORI publication describes statistically the groups to which the transfers have been made and shows that the people on the lowest incomes benefited least from recent budgets, while those on the highest income benefited most. This is the reason the motion is correct to include the word "equity".
Perhaps we have all been too polite in putting up with the spokespersons for the housing speculators who have made it impossible for people to put a roof over their head. Members of the Progressive Democrats Party who gave us lectures on productivity for benchmarking could improve their performance by turning up in the House or doing a little work on committees. They represent the speculating class, many of whom, in any advanced society, would be in jail for what they have brought about.
In the city in which Deputy Grealish and I live, 80% of those on the housing list would not qualify for affordable housing because they are on social welfare. Is it right to take lectures on how we should respect the law from people such as the Deputy? While the law must be respected, it must also be based on justice.
This House established a tribunal chaired by Mr. Justice Morris, who has taken it upon himself, in his appeal to the Supreme Court, to state that the law must be seen to apply to everybody, including Members of the Oireachtas, as if any Member of the Oireachtas had sought to put himself or herself outside the remit of the tribunal Mr. Justice Morris chairs. He then stated it was heinous to suggest that the Garda Síochána was guilty of something without giving one's source. Would it not be more heinous if gardaí did what has been alleged or if a person who was aware of what they did remained silent and failed to communicate this knowledge to anybody? It is time Mr. Justice Morris reflected before issuing press releases on the basis of his appeal and time Members began to speak with greater directness.
The motion is correct to use the word "equity". We regularly hear those who care for the elderly, provide a home help service, help people with a handicap or sit alongside lonely people in our communities described by the Tánaiste as not having real jobs in the real economy. Her worry is that one will not be able to drive people into the real economy, which is the reason she suggested we should all have to work beyond the age of 65 years. She stated we would have to consider keeping the elderly at work because the economy required it. The philosophy of the Progressive Democrats Party is "Live and die for the economy", an economy based on individual greed.
I defy the Progressive Democrats Party to disprove an interesting statistic on our position in the European Union for spending on social protection. According to EU figures, we spend least of the member states. It is interesting that Sweden spends 32.9% of gross domestic product on social protection, which includes items such as child care, housing, access to public parks and so forth. The equivalent figure for Ireland is 14.7% and the gap is widening.
When these people look at a country like Sweden, where there are high taxes to pay for good social protection and a civilised society built on principles of equity, it becomes a misery index. All the money one earns, according to the Progressive Democrats philosophy, is one's own and one should not spend a penny on solidarity. That is the party that would lecture us on the inappropriateness of one of our Members being in prison, other people being in prison and the absence of a waste management strategy even though it delegates powers to people who are not accountable. That is what this is about.
It is interesting to see what has happened across every social indicator while our great economic miracle took place. I have heard from every Member of the Progressive Democrats that one must create wealth to reduce poverty. However, the figures show that the gaps in society have widened. Compare the chances of education for any child living in a city council house in Dublin, for example, with those of our children. Compare the chances of somebody who is dependent on the health services with those who can top up their contributions to private health.
I wonder at the neck of these people. I hope when they go to the doors throughout Ireland that people will take a good hard look at them and tell the Tánaiste, who asked them to live and die for the economy, what they think of how she squandered the surpluses by giving money to the rich. She refused to tax speculators and allowed immunity for non-residents. In addition, she took €1 billion and gave it, through transfer systems and the social saving scheme, to people who have the capacity to fork €250 and more per month into their savings. They will now get even more. Is it not great that the Government is giving it to them?
This is interesting for somebody who once served in Government with the Fianna Fáil Party. That party has been taken over by these apostles of greed and their notions of the economy. They are the people who will now turn to somebody who was relying on a person to visit them, not to physically help them but to listen and talk to them and reduce their loneliness, and tell them it is not a real job. The same will apply to a person who needs assistance with meals or who is organising a scheme for young people addicted to drugs or for former prisoners. Those are the 10,000 jobs that are affected – 5,000 in one batch while there are 2,500 each in the other two batches. What are those communities being told? They are told that when the great Progressive Democrats wagon rolls in and they have all gobbled at the trough, there will be something there for the people who have been left behind.
I take no lectures from Deputy Grealish and that little, miserable, individualist bloc in the Progressive Democrats or from the party they have contaminated, Fianna Fáil.
I wish to share time with Deputy Gogarty. I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion before the House. I visited Deputy Joe Higgins in Mountjoy. He is a champion of the most deprived in our society and has fought valiantly for greater equity. However, I made the point during my visit that I disagree with his stance on the bin charge. A protest should affect the people against whom one is protesting, not innocent bystanders. In the current protest there has been too much collateral damage, to use the terrible euphemism of the US military. Non-collection of bins can be a negative experience for people with large families and for older people. In view of the number of phone calls I have received, I believe it has not left people well disposed towards the protest or the protesters.
I believe in the polluter pays principle. The tax should be fair and we should know how the tax will be used. It should be used exclusively for environmental purposes. The flat rate is unfair. It does not encourage more recycling. What we call the PAYT – pay as you throw – is better. In other words, it should be a volume or weight-related tax. That encourages people to recycle and punishes the polluter or the waster. Thus far, the only response from the Minister has been a token one. This is where Deputy Joe Higgins is correct. He has quoted figures from the EPA which clearly show that in 2001, of the 302,000 tonnes of paper disposed of by households, over 92% went to landfill and only 7.4% was recycled. With regard to commercial waste, and notwithstanding the efforts of Repak which simply gets industry off the hook, 71% went to landfill and only 28% was recycled. The figures for glass are similar. Only 29% of glass from households went for recycling while over 70% went to landfill.
This situation will continue as it is. The Minister might get the levels increased slightly to reach EU targets but after that incinerators will be in use and the waste will go into them rather than landfill. We will substitute incineration for landfill. That will be our waste management strategy for the next 30 years because that is how long an incinerator will last. The Minister claims the Ringsend incinerator will be perfectly safe and will function well. I do not know how he can give that assurance. The incinerator will be massive at 750,000 tonnes, which will require over 360 journeys a day by trucks trundling through the Ringsend and Sandymount areas. It has to operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 30 years and it has to operate perfectly. I do not believe it can do that and there are good reasons for that belief. The sewage treatment plant in Ringsend is a state-of-the-art plant. We know it is there because we can smell it. The citizens of Ringsend and Sandymount know all about it. The problem is that if the incinerator malfunctions, we will not smell it. We will not know because there will be so many hidden poisons around us.
I do not trust this Minister, the EPA or the city council to be accountable on this issue. That is the problem. The Minister says he wants to fast track major infrastructural projects. When it was put to him by John Bowman that he might want to fast track incinerators, he was non-committal and typically evasive. Deputy McDowell is my constituency colleague. Will he support the infrastructure Bill if it includes incinerators? This politician and the Progressive Democrats campaigned here and in Galway against incinerators. They have reneged on their promise. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, has not even raised the matter in Cabinet. They can pontificate at length in this House but when it comes to keeping their election promises they are worse than Fianna Fáil. They are the whited sepulchres of Irish politics.
I wholeheartedly support the motion. I regret the imprisonment of Deputy Joe Higgins and commend him for his unswerving stance on behalf of the less well-off in society. Deputy Joe Higgins deserves full credit. Nobody can say he is not an honest person who is trying to help his constituents and the wider community.
I disagree with the anti-bin charge campaign and the tactics of the Socialist Party members in providing misleading information about elected representatives to favour their own little election campaigns. They are very much afraid to put themselves forward as Socialist Party candidates. They would rather be insurance candidates or bin tax candidates. That is a mistake on their part, because if the rest of the members of the Socialist Party had the commitment and intellectual capacity of Deputy Higgins, they might go a very long way. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the cream has very much risen to the top. I regret the fact that Deputy Higgins, Councillor Daly and the others were incarcerated. I do not think breaking the law and being in contempt of court should go unpunished but it sends out the wrong message when others have received far lesser sentences for far greater crimes.
I also want to say, as Deputy Gormley did, that a fairer system whereby those who recycle are rewarded and those who do not are penalised is the way to go. It is something that the representative for the Environment Commissioner said to me at the National Forum on Europe. A flat tax is the worst option. One is better off having an income tax system than a flat tax but the best option is to allow each household a certain amount free, obviously with waivers for those not in a position to pay and free tags for those who are less well off. However, ultimately it should be based on rewarding those who wish to recycle and making those who throw everything into their bin pay for the privilege of polluting.
Regarding the rest of the motion, my constituency is shared with the Tánaiste, and it is in north Clondalkin, in particular, that the cutbacks in the job initiative and community employment schemes have hit the hardest. I understand the Tánaiste was due at a meeting organised by Actions Against Cuts in Community Services on Friday. She cancelled that meeting or was not able to attend. As a result, none of the other Deputies was able to go to it. I tabled God knows how many questions about Neilstown, Quarryvale, Rowlagh, Ronanstown and all the areas in north Clondalkin affected by the cuts. The response was that they were not in order, that it was a matter for FÁS. Who the hell passes the buck to FÁS except the Tánaiste? She has the power to say what community employment schemes will be like in the future. She is passing the buck and hiding behind an organisation which clearly does not want to have community employment schemes but in its actions has provided a much needed, even vital community service.
I will sum up because of the time factor and say I also agree with the motion regarding the effects on those on vocational training schemes such as Youthreach. Last but not least, if there is to be a tax, the Minister should ensure it is equitable and that income tax is shifted towards taxes on the user and polluter where possible and that the poorest of our society are not penalised. We currently have a situation where those at the very top, the tax evaders and tax exiles, are the ones who make the money, while the ordinary PAYE worker has to suffer and struggle on. That is the reason we have the bin charge protest. It is not because of the bin charge itself, because there is a fairer system which the majority favour, but because there is huge anger and outrage about this uncaring and incompetent Government which has been focused on the bin tax issue. The Minister should cop on.
I send greetings of solidarity to all those incarcerated for non-payment of the waste charge, especially my constituents who have been forced to spend time away from their families, one party colleague and her daughter being in that group. I will concentrate on the ridiculous situation in which the Government is landing many disadvantaged communities, areas such as my own, which the Government has designated RAPID – in need of rapid help. In those very areas where people need the most help and encouragement to rebuild after years of neglect, being disadvantaged and suffering a drugs crisis, they are now being hammered once again. Just as they are starting to get on their feet, the Government has taken the ground from under them.
I can list many examples of CE schemes, job initiative and social economy programmes which have been decimated because of cutbacks, including theatre workshops in Ballyfermot and two community centres, one of which was just about to be fully opened, but which, despite €7 million being spent on it, cannot open because the CE scheme is about to collapse. Another in the Cherry Orchard area, which is totally dependent on CE workers, also faces closure at night and weekends because it does not have enough staff or any other type of funding on which it might keep open. Those most disadvantaged benefited from the CE and job initiative schemes over the years, including the elderly, youths, the disabled and those most at risk in society – those most in need of our encouragement. However, the Government cut back on the very services and supports on which they are dependent.
Let us examine the profits of banks in Ireland. If one raised the tax on them by 1%, it would be enough to ensure all those services and CE schemes could remain intact until such time as the Government produced the alternative which it keeps promising. It is cutting back on CE places without any alternative being put in its stead. Perhaps we should have full-time CE schemes. That is fine but the Minister should not close down the schemes until that programme is in place. He should not send the community back to where it was five or ten years ago. We must encourage and invest money in it, and that must be done now. We need the opposite of cutbacks, namely, greater investment.
Like my colleagues, I too wish to show my solidarity and support for those currently imprisoned for taking a principled position on the bin charges. Last Monday in my constituency office in Tralee two young women – single parents – came to see me. They were distraught because they had just discovered that their rent allowance, as a result of their being involved in a CE scheme, had been cut. The fact of its being cut made it impossible for them to continue with the scheme, meaning that they had to give it up. It is ironic also that just a week before, five women, VTOS participants, came into my office. Having signed a contract a month before, they found out that the child care provisions available to them then had now been cut, again making it impossible for them to continue. The fact that they were tied into a contract created a great deal of unnecessary worry and hardship for them. It is also very important that the two women who came to see me with their children last Monday morning told me that, as a result of their involvement in the scheme, they now had the confidence to stand up.
I wonder if the fact that those most in need and most deprived gain such confidence is one of the reasons behind the cynical cut implemented by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, on those most in need. Is it the fact that the working class – single parents and young people with very little education – are gaining that confidence from their involvement in VTOS and community employment schemes? Are they finding themselves penalised because of that benefit to their being?
I also find it absolutely disgraceful that, once again last weekend, 5,000 so-called delegates attended a conference in Killarney applauding and supporting the Thatcherite policies of the Government while those most in need in our community were being penalised and deprived. They also applauded the tax concessions given to multinationals to rape our sea beds. They are not present to listen to what I have to say, but I have no doubt that they will appear at 8.30 p.m. to vote in support of those cuts. Next week they will return to their constituencies and whisper to people that they are opposed to them, that they are doing everything possible behind the scenes and that they are having a word in the ear. What does that mean? It means that the elected representatives on the opposite side of the House continue to support these cuts.
Is it not also a shame that people who are unemployed and trying to obtain meaningful employment by taking advantage of schemes and VTOS courses have found themselves back on the growing list of the unemployed? I have no doubt that next June the people will speak against what has been done to those most in need by this Thatcherite Government and those who keep the ideology of Thatcher alive on the opposite of the House. Those in Fianna Fáil should be ashamed because everything that the party supposedly stood for in the past has fallen by the wayside due to its support for the Progressive Democrats and their Thatcherite policies. The shame is on them.
I wish to use this opportunity to express my support for the motion tabled by the Independent Deputies and to send good wishes and a message of solidarity to all those who have been imprisoned in Mountjoy as a result of their stoic and principled stand of opposition to the bin tax charges in Dublin.
Let there be no mistake that the current situation has been brought about directly as a result of the policy of confrontation created by the Government. It has done so through its instruction and empowerment of city and county managers to carry out specific functions at the behest of Ministers. We are faced with a situation where a demand is not being met by a considerable section in the community and city and county managers have been empowered to impose a "no collect" order. That order is extremely discriminatory and runs against the interests of the entire community on the basis of health and all other environmental considerations.
I will use the time remaining of this opportunity of association with and support for the motion to ask for the no collection clause in the so-called Protection of the Environment Act 2003 to be removed. That is the clause that has given rise to the confrontation and removing it is the only way that a resolution of the current difficulties will be achieved. The clause must be removed, the legislation must be amended.
I wish to discuss the community employment and JI programmes which have made to help reduce long-term unemployment in recent years. The primary purpose of CE is as a transitional labour market programme to provide work experience and training for the long-term unemployed with a view to reintegrating them into the open labour market. In accordance with the Government's decision in 1999 to restructure community employment, participation levels have been gradually reduced reflecting the significant reduction in the numbers of the long-term unemployed and the shift in emphasis away from work experience programmes to training, from which there is a greater level of progression to employment. The average participation rate on the programme during 2003 is in the region of 22,500. The allocation of places and renewal of individual CE projects, both in Dublin and throughout the country, is a matter for FÁS.
Drugs task force activity and child care service provision are ring-fenced from any reductions and projects in RAPID areas are given priority. CE places in the health sector are being maintained at existing levels to ensure continuity of the delivery of these services. However, such places are subject to the normal eligibility requirements for the programme.
I understand that difficulties are being encountered by certain organisations which have problems in replacing participants due to the lack of suitable applicants coming forward for the programme.
That is not right.
All health service-related CE projects, have been ring-fenced from reductions that have taken place as a result of reducing the CE programme to 20,000 places by the end of 2003. During 2002, when CE places were reduced from 38,809 places to 25,000 places, FÁS ensured that these designated health CE places were untouched and that they were maintained as agreed. The priorities proposed – the retention of community employment places relating to drugs services, affordable child care, health-disability services and the high priority for projects in RAPID neighbourhoods – are being recognised by FÁS in deciding the optimum use for the funds available. Many participants have completed their time in community employment and are ready to move on and a number of others have been offered places on other projects. Funding amounting to €274.3 million is available for the administration of the CE programme on a national basis during 2003.
The jobs initiative programme is also a work experience programme for persons who have been unemployed for five years or longer. Its fundamental objective is to prepare participants to progress into mainstream jobs. Funding of €45 million was provided for the programme, which provides for an average participation rate of 2,466 and a year end rate of 2,200, in 2003. Overall, there will be a reduction of 325 places during 2003.
A key indicator of economic performance is labour market change. Employment in the Irish economy actually grew last year by 1.4%. The unemployment situation remains very stable at just 4.4%. A particularly welcome feature of Ireland's labour market performance in recent years is the very low long-term unemployment rate, which fell from 10.4% in 1988 to 5.5% in 1997 and now stands at 1.4%.
That is what is called fiddling the books.
While indicators show a softening in the labour market, there are still substantial employment opportunities. The latter is underlined by the rate of unemployment. The Government is aware of the important contribution that CE has made to the development of services for local communities over the years.
The Minister of State should conclude.
In this context, a number of reviews of CE are currently under way. These were referred to yesterday, but I hope Deputies will bear with me if I again mention them.
The Minister must conclude as there are only 15 minutes remaining.
I take issue with many of the false allegations that were made by Members on the opposite side of the House in respect of increases in social welfare payments and reductions in taxation. The latter were all brought about by this Government and not by some of those who are in the wilderness on the opposite side of the House. It is a pity Deputy Higgins is not present because the people spoke—
I call Deputy Finian McGrath.
I wish to share time with Deputies Cowley, James Breen and Healy. I commend and thank my fellow Independent Deputies on coming together to work as a team on this important motion, which sets out a clear vision for our society. The latter is the complete opposite of the type of society that the Government is trying to create. It also faces up to the difficult decisions about the distribution of resources and the need to stand up for the elderly, the disabled, working people and the weaker sections of society.
Many people are asking why Deputy Joe Higgins, Councillor Clare Daly and other residents are locked up in Mountjoy while criminals and tax dodgers are walking the streets. These are awkward questions for our society and we must wake up to the reality that there is a major erosion of public confidence in the wake of recent scandals. We have seen more of this in recent days with Ministers travelling to play golf in Spain during a working week and Deputies skiving off to Australia during the opening days of this Dáil session. I particularly challenge Deputy Power on this issue. We should not be afraid to say that this is not good practice and it should be exposed. I am not claiming any high moral ground on these issues but when Ministers, judges or politicians engage in behaviour of this nature, their credibility is seriously tainted.
Last night we listened to a lecture from the Tánaiste on democracy and the left in general. On the issue of democracy, the Tánaiste should take a good look at these benches. In the recent opinion polls, the Technical Group is running at 24%. That figure is six times greater than that attributed to the Progressive Democrats. There is nothing progressive or democratic about the Tánaiste's policies. She has turned her back on the liberal and democratic tradition in this country. If she considers the position of her colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, in England, she will discover how far to the right her party has travelled. The Progressive Democrats supported the war in Iraq where 10,000 civilians lie dead. Now the party is afraid to admit it, but it is conning the people on taxation by saying one thing and introducing stealth taxes by the backdoor.
The recent One in Four row about giving funding to abuse victims is another classic example. Will the Department come into the real world, stop making a laughing stock of itself and give the One in Four group its €80,000 funding? We are talking about a miserly €80,000 in the context of a deal that will run to hundreds of millions of euro. It is a question of fairness and equity.
The renewal of child care allowances for participants in VTOS, Youthreach and FÁS training schemes, preventing the most disadvantaged achieving second-chance education, is a disgrace. It is another example of social and community vandalism. The Government is wrecking services and then using taxpayers' money to pick up the tab for the fall-out in the wider community. This motion is about the 26% of lone parents who do not have the ability to adequately heat their homes and are living in poverty. Of these people, who have a gross income of less the €12,000 per annum, 20% have never been in paid employment and 62% left school before completion of the junior certificate. This debate is about siding with these people and taking the tough decisions in their interests.
I urge all Deputies in the House to support the motion as it stands and to stop hiding behind amendments. Our people are crying out for vision and leadership on this issue. I call on Deputies to support us.
Community employment schemes have been a great help to the communities that organised them. It is a shame that they are under threat. I admit to being a sponsor of a community employment scheme in my village where it has been very helpful.
There is a CE scheme in Mayo run by people with multiple sclerosis. It has been in operation for almost ten years but is due to finish in January. I cannot begin to tell the House how upset the participants are. There are about 16 people involved and I have met most of them. The scheme is a lifeline for them. Virtually all those on the scheme have no chance of a job. It is a terrible tragedy as many of those participants have been laid-off from regular employment due to the onset of their illness. Many are disabled but manage with the support of their fellow participants. They do great work in visiting others suffering from MS in their own homes. They also operate a once-weekly club for MS sufferers with 20 participants and operate a day club from noon until 3 p.m. every Friday. Physiotherapy for MS sufferers in the county is also organised by them. The scheme received support from the Western Health Board last year. No extra funds were available this year so the group had to raise €3,000. Their work is fabulous and caters for all of Mayo. They bring people from Belmullet for physiotherapy and day trips. It is a shame that this scheme is being ended and I wrote to the Minister about it. I hope she will do something about it. She passed it on to Deputy Fahey, but I hope she will look at it again.
VTOS involves young mothers who are trying to do something to improve their lot in life. They are trying to improve their job prospects. Down payments have been made to crèches by young mothers and they are anxious that they will be allowed to go. If they drop out the numbers will decrease and the scheme may well fall. Mayo VEC has said it will reduce by 37% and so on. I call on the Government to look at this as it involves the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society.
I agree with the polluter pays principle. No matter who the polluter is, the bigger the polluter, the more they should pay. Big and small business must play their part. Unfortunately, it seems the small man gets the rub most of all. We should have a system that is equitable and transparent and then people would be quite happy to go along with it. Big business can play its part by reducing the amount of waste it produces. Why should those who produce little or no waste have to pay anything at all? If such people did not have to pay it might encourage other people to produce less waste.
Deputy Joe Higgins seemed to get a very harsh sentence when compared to those who were arrogantly in contempt of court but walked off scot free.
The Minister castigated the lefties and rural Deputies for appending their names to this motion. Is this because she knows that we are the ones who can see what the Government is really doing? She referred to our support for Deputy Joe Higgins. Personally, I will not condone anyone breaking the law. I commend Deputy Higgins for sticking to his principles in this matter. What type of country is this when a man standing up for his constituents is handed down such a severe sentence while criminals roam the streets, receive suspended sentences, rack-up charges and remain outside the walls of Mountjoy Prison and other prisons in this State?
I feel the reduction of the number of people on community employment schemes is an attack on the fabric of our society. In rural areas and small towns where there is little or no public transport or employment opportunities created by big business, these schemes provide opportunities for those who were in long-term unemployment to leave the dole queues. CE schemes gave people the opportunity to learn new skills or enhance skills they already had. People were given pride and dignity and were employed by their own communities. What do these people now have to look forward to? Who is going to run the projects these people worked on which are now essential parts of these communities? Who will work in the crèches, carry out the landscaping or take on the handiwork in schools? I ask the Minister to indicate where the saving is to the Exchequer in transferring these people back to the dole queues. Some of these people will never have the opportunity to work again and some will never feel the self-esteem they felt in the past.
Where are all the promises that were made before the general election to the effect of no cutbacks, secret or otherwise? Do not make me laugh. The slogan for that campaign should have been, "A lot done, a lot more to be undone". I could start about the state of the health service. I could talk about the increase in hospital waiting lists and what the Hanly report has done about this. Deputy Pat Breen brought up the crisis in the orthodontic service yesterday and was ruled out of order. Being ruled out of order does not shorten the waiting list.
The introduction of a levy on builders to provide services in estates is simply the introduction of another tax that will be responsible for a future hike in house prices. Does this Government realise the pressure on people over property as things stand?
Where is the Ennis bypass? It was promised at the end of 2002 and then 2003. I now wonder if it will be put back until 2004. The Minister promised sustainable jobs. Where are they? They are not to be found in County Clare where industries are closing down and nothing is being done to replace them. How can the Government hold up its head and say it is looking after the underprivileged when the price of electricity is on the increase and medical bills have also increased? There have been many more increases, but I will not list them because we would be in session for a long night.
I tell my former colleagues in the Government that I stand by my decision to leave them. Like many others, I can no longer believe them.
The imprisonment of Deputy Joe Higgins, councillor Clare Daly and 13 others, including grandmothers and breast-feeding mothers, for peaceful protest in opposition to the unfair and unjust double taxation in the form of refuse charges is outrageous and fundamentally undemocratic. Deputy Higgins has been honest on this issue. He has been elected to this and the previous Dáil on the basis of his opposition to these charges and, therefore, has a democratic mandate for his actions. Ordinary decent people from communities throughout Dublin have been jailed for peaceful democratic protest while tax dodgers, fraudsters, Ansbacher account holders, including politicians – past and present Members of this House – walk free. There surely is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the poor.
Deputy Harney lectured us last night, telling us it behoves us, as elected politicians, to be honest with people. How dare she do so? This is sickening hypocrisy, coming as it does from a Government that stole the last general election on the basis of total and absolute dishonesty.
Let us have a brief look at the record of dishonesty of this Government. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was up a lamp post telling all and sundry that one party government was bad, that Fianna Fáil could not be trusted and that the Progressive Democrats would put manners on Fianna Fáil in government. We all know what happened. The Progressive Democrats are now as dishonest as Fianna Fáil and, like the old days, are more Fianna Fáil than Fianna Fáil. What were we told about gardaí during the last general election campaign? It was said, "We will increase the strength of the Garda Síochána by 2,000 members." What happened to that promise? It was reneged on. Is that being honest?
Wait until 2007.
What about medical cards? It was said, "We will extend medical card eligibility to over 200,000 extra people." That promise was reneged on. Is that honesty? On hospital waiting lists, it was said, "We will permanently end waiting lists within two years." That promise was reneged on. Is that honesty? Where is the Tánaiste tonight? On hospital beds, it was said, "We will have an extra 3,000 beds provided." What happened? In the Eastern Regional Health Authority area alone 300 beds were closed. Is that honesty?
On crime, it was said, "We will stand for a society where all people can feel safe in their communities, businesses and homes." What happened? In 2002 the level of serious crime was up 22%, the number of assaults was up 50% and the number of sex offences, 62%. Is that honesty?
First-time housebuyers were told by Fianna Fáil that it would improve the first-time housebuyer's grant to €5,000. What happened? It was abolished. Is that honesty? What about community employment schemes and FÁS? It was agreed with the social partners to have 20,000 participants. What happened? The schemes were decimated with a loss of 8,000 places and the level of participation is down to 20,000 at the end of 2003. Is that honesty?
What do we remember the Minister for Finance saying during the last general election campaign? It went something like this: "There are no cuts planned, secretly or otherwise." Within ten days of becoming Minister for Finance we had €900 million in cuts. Is that honesty?
Where is the Tánaiste tonight to respond? This kind of hypocrisy and dishonesty has bred distrust of politicians and politics and undermined the democratic process. Shame on the Tánaiste and the Government. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V. |
Níl
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Cowley, Jerry.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan. |
Lynch, Kathleen.McGrath, Finian.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Ryan, Eamon.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Mary. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Gregory and Ó Snodaigh.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Cregan, John.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.Moloney, John.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V. |
Níl
|
Boyle, Dan.Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Cowley, Jerry.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan. |
Lynch, Kathleen.McGrath, Finian.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Ryan, Eamon.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Stagg, Emmet.Upton, Mary. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Gregory and Ó Snodaigh.
Question declared carried.