Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

Last year the Taoiseach told the IMI: "We will keep down personal and business taxes in order to strengthen and maintain the competitive position of the Irish economy." We were told that the Government intended to launch an onslaught and a flood of announcements by Ministers about their plans to tackle inflation. The Taoiseach will be aware that the recent report by the National Competitiveness Council was a savage indictment of the efforts of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to control inflation and implement policies which would maintain business and consumer costs. Ireland is now Europe's most expensive country. According to the National Competitiveness Council, decisions by Government, its agencies and regulators have contributed adversely to inflation. In other words, far from being a solution to the problem, Government is part of the problem.

The Taoiseach will be aware that for business, competitiveness is not just a buzzword. Costs have increased, cheques must still be paid, price increases cannot be passed on, contracts are lost and jobs are placed in danger. The Taoiseach will be aware of the 27 stealth charges imposed on the Irish business and consumer sector since 2002. VAT has risen by 8%, ESB charges soared by 13%, parking fees are up 25%, accident and emergency charges have increased to €45, the drugs refund threshold level has been raised to €78 and leaving certificate examination fees have gone up to €86. In the Estimates last week, the drugs refund threshold level went up again, to €85, accident and emergency visit charges increased by €10 to €55 and inpatient stay charges went up €10 to €55.

We seem to have a unique regulation where, for instance, price increases in gas and electricity are allowed by the regulator on the basis that this will encourage competition. There have been 34 new stealth charges. Last week's Estimates saw €50 million being collected by means of increased health charges. Fine Gael has been highlighting rip-offs in Irish society over recent years and thousands of ordinary people have sent in their stories to the relevant website. Will the Taoiseach tell the House of three tangible initiatives taken by the Government that have helped to increase Ireland's competitiveness, which is so important for our future?

The Taoiseach

In recent years the economy has annually turned in one of the best economic performances in the world. From 1997 to 2003 the economy has grown by more than 8% per annum in real terms. These are genuine increases for the economy and for business. For the current year we expect Ireland to maintain its global economic position. The mid-term review of the economic outlook forecast a growth of 4.7% and we might even beat that. Irish GNP growth is predicted to rise by 4.2%, while euro area growth is predicted at 1.7%. We remain one of the strongest economies in terms of profitability. Deputy Kenny knows profitability among Irish companies, both indigenous and international, is extremely strong. That is what enables us to create the current level of jobs. Again this year, over 1,000 jobs are being created per week. The number at work has increased by almost 400,000 over recent years. Unemployment is at an historic low and employment creation is at an historic high. EU and Irish inflation are at the closest point in three or four years. I would have thought the convergence of the two would have been the source of some satisfaction. We have seen all the international areas in which we have moved to make successful productive investment.

The Competition Authority report is to keep people on their guard so that we examine areas in which we can try to do better. That is the purpose of the Competition Authority. It is not to tell us we are doing well and that we should do no more. Regulators do not apply stealth taxes. A stealth tax is a secret tax. The purpose of regulators is to create a transparent position so that people can make their submissions.

I was asked to give three examples. Our taxes policies actively drive our ability to create jobs and wealth. We have moved on insurance and on infrastructure on which we are spending 5% of gross domestic product, GDP, which is much higher than that being spent by any other country. We have moved on education and on Science Foundation Ireland. Those are four or five examples and I could go through each of them. In education, infrastructure, Science Foundation Ireland and in other areas, we are trying to get the productive sector of the economy up and running. I do not have to remind Deputy Kenny where we are in a global context in that few countries are ahead of us.

Mr. Kenny

That is all very well but actions speak louder than words and the reality is not what the Taoiseach outlined. For instance, the Government's tax policies have driven 50% of taxpayers into the 42% tax rate. The Forfás report of 2003 refers to the cutting edge of competitiveness. In organisations sponsored by the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, there were 4,000 job losses in 2001, 8,000 in 2002 and 7,500 in 2003. These figures have not been plucked from the air but are identified in that Forfás report. The Taoiseach also said — it seems to be a hallmark of his Government — that there is a policy of containment by spending rather than by reform allied to spending. In other words, while the country has done very well from a number of points of view, it could have done so much better had the Taoiseach implemented a real policy of reform allied to good spending.

The Taoiseach made the point about tackling the professions and the uncompetitive practices which exist in that regard. When will a person be able to go directly to a barrister or a consultant without being charged through the nose for a letter of introduction? Does the Taoiseach hold out any hope that there will be an end to the rapid spiral of Government inspired costs? Will we see a situation where prices charged by Government bodies will not rise more than the rate of inflation unless there are compelling public interest reasons?

The Taoiseach

On the professions, we know this is an area of high cost. The Competition Authority, as Deputy Kenny knows, has produced its interim reports for each profession and will produce the final reports. On regulatory reform and the concept of regulatory impact analysis on legislation and other areas, we published a White Paper last January in which we are committed to having a thorough regulatory impact analysis on each area to ensure there are no costs or inbuilt costs and that we are not doing something to add regulation, red tape and bureaucracy to our systems. That is good. In terms of legal fees, what the Tánaiste has done in insurance and what we have done in PRBI and in other areas to bring down costs is working and will continue to work. On income tax and taxes generally, I could go into each area, whether it be corporation tax, personal tax and so on, but in terms of creating employment, all are quite attractive.

On the argument we could always do better, I will not argue with that because I always try to do better in terms of employment, growth and what this country is achieving. We should not always get ourselves caught up in expenditure. We are spending on the productive areas of the economy which we were not able to do for years. The reason we are spending 5% of GDP on productive investment is that, for generations, we were not able to spend anything on capital programmes. On many occasions, capital programmes were squeezed and reduced. We are now able to spend on capital programmes, and that increases expenditure because one is talking about a great deal of money. In the past six years we have spent €5 billion on roads. These are substantial increases. We have done the same in respect of water services, including the work done in Dublin Bay and in the west. All these works are costly but they are good and help the productive side of investment. We should not only look at them as a cost on public expenditure.

Regarding our debt-GDP ratio, I remember and I know Deputy Kenny would acknowledge that, when the Maastricht figures came out in 1992, we were on 120% or not far off it and were reducing it at that stage. The European model was to get to 60%. It seemed that it would be impossible for us, as part of the conditions for our entry into monetary union, to reach the 60% target. We are now under 30%. We should not become fixated on the fact we are spending money when we are reducing our debt and when the general Government deficit and the current budget deficit, EBR, are very low. We must be prudent and follow fiscal controls, and the Government is doing that. To criticise us in some way for spending, especially on productive areas, is not a reasonable argument.

Mr. Rabbitte

Has the Taoiseach had the opportunity to examine the annual report of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, published last Thursday? The report shows yet again that 200 people die of lung cancer directly attributable to radon gas. That is more than half the number of people who die in road accidents each year and we quite properly spend tens of millions on the effort to save lives on the roads. When does the Government intend to treat deaths from radon gas with the same seriousness?

According to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland's report, 100,000 houses are identified as being at risk. Counties regarded as being high risk areas are Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, Clare, Galway, Mayo and Sligo where the chances of dying are one in 50 from a lifetime of exposure to radon. That is twice the risk of a car accident. What does the Government plan to do about this?

The Taoiseach will probably have read that Daniel Day-Lewis, who lived in County Wicklow, fled this country. I only mention him because, as a fellow thespian, the Taoiseach will have sympathy with him as a result of the radon instance in his house. As I said, I mention him because the Taoiseach would be interested in any film with the words "my left foot" in the title and may even audition for the next one because of the classes I hear he is taking in that area. What does the Government intend to do to respond to the serious matters raised in the annual report of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland?

The Taoiseach

I remind Deputy Rabbitte that the stars are coming to this country because of the good tax regime, they are not flying in the other direction.

Mr. Rabbitte

If we do not get rid of the gas, tax breaks will be of little use.

The Taoiseach

I am sure Mr. Daniel Day-Lewis or any other stars will have little difficulty in dealing with the remedial issues mentioned in the Radiological Protection Institute review.

It is a serious issue and has been for some years. The Radiological Protection Institute has undertaken several reviews that highlight how people can take preventative measures with regard to this issue, at minimum cost to themselves. People should follow this advice. A significant number of people die from the effects of radon gas. The surveys of which I have been aware for the past ten years have been based on trying to assist people through providing free advice on the actions they should take.

A former Minister of State came to the Cabinet a number of times in recent years and pointed out that most surveys showed that if people take remedial action, the problem can be eliminated. There are difficulties with regard to older houses in the State, which are not bound by new building regulations. The surveys indicate, however, that those difficulties can be overcome at minimum cost. I presume Deputy Rabbitte is not raising this issue with regard to new houses. As he knows, the greater number of houses built since 1970 are governed by the new regulations, which take account of radon gases. This has worked well.

There are no means to deal with this issue in regard to older houses other than by people taking interest and advice. People are given free advice as to how they should deal with the issue. I am not sure what more can be done. It is not a question of having to rebuild or restructure one's house. I do not wish to be flippant but Deputy Rabbitte is aware that these are basic issues that are all centred around ventilation in the summer in particular. This is how the build-up of these gases occurs. The solutions are not complex or costly.

Mr. Rabbitte

Radon gas is the most significant, secret and deadly killer after smoking. I do not see how the Taoiseach can say that the solution is ventilation and advice. It is exclusion precautions that must be installed, not ventilation, at a cost of some €10,000 per unit. The cost of treating a cancer patient could be €1 million. My colleague, Deputy Stagg, established a remedial grant scheme but the Government abolished it in 1997. It is not true to say that the only solution to be offered is free advice and a recommendation that doors should be kept open during the summer. The necessity is to retrofit exclusionary precautions that will deal with this silent menace.

Some 100,000 houses are at risk. This represents a significant number of people and many of those householders are unable to afford the cost of the measures I have described. Does the Taoiseach continue to believe that advice and recommendations to keep doors open during the summer are the best we can do? Will the Government re-establish the grant scheme in place until 1997, which was introduced by Deputy Stagg and continued by Deputy McManus?

The Taoiseach

I do not wish to be flippant. An issue is either serious or it is not. There are other concerns in this area and asbestos is probably a more serious issue than radon gas. I believe, subject to correction, there was a proposal about a grant but no such grant was paid to anybody.

Mr. Stagg

The Government came into power and removed the grant.

The Taoiseach

Such a grant was never paid to anybody. It is great to have a theory but no money was paid out.

Mr. Stagg

Deputy Jacob removed the grant.

The Taoiseach

The Radiological Protection Institute has done several surveys on this and has pointed out that basic issues of ventilation in old houses will dramatically improve the situation.

Mr. Stagg

Such measures will do nothing of the kind. The Taoiseach is incorrect and his information is inaccurate.

The Taoiseach

There are strict regulations with regard to new houses. I am not simply talking about opening the doors. It is a question of proper ventilation schemes. The institute has also said that it will give advice and recommendations to householders on how this issue can be tackled on an individual basis. The Department of Education and Science has provided assistance in this matter to older schools, particularly through the summer building scheme. I am not sure of the costs involved with regard to this issue. However, I am aware of the situation with regard to a number of old houses whereby small issues were identified which required minor action. I am not saying there were no costs involved but the costs were minor. We all spend resources on the maintenance of our homes. Such costs were not in the order of €10,000 or €20,000.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach speaks as if it were the cost of a flower basket.

Mr. J. Higgins

Can the Taoiseach explain why in the Ireland of 2004, which his Government has had a considerable influence in shaping, a number of young men are so brutalised, twisted and mentally damaged that they will savagely murder a rival gang member while his child and partner sleep beside him under the roof of his mother, as happened this week in west Dublin? Why will such young men savagely slaughter an innocent man, a father of two, as he flees from them, as happened two weeks ago? How can such people leave a 74 year old pensioner, Mr. William Barkley from Donegal, in the revolting and appalling condition depicted in today's Evening Herald? Why, after almost eight years, has the Taoiseach allowed a situation to develop whereby the brutal murder of gang members is often greeted by ordinary, decent people, the backbone of those communities, who are frustrated, angry and fearful, with relief that there is one less individual to terrorise the neighbourhood and pose a danger to them and their children?

The Government policy has failed miserably to use the unprecedented resources available to transform those working-class neighbourhoods, still criminally neglected even if they are in the shadow of opulent new apartment blocks and the glass towers of major corporations. Life for many of the predominantly good people in these communities is fraught with tension and insecurity. Why has the Government failed in its policy to engage with that cohort of young people, a small minority, who are clearly dysfunctional from an early age and represent a serious menace to their neighbourhoods and communities?

The Government has failed to provide the resources to bring this about and it continues to do so. What genius in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform thought that the people of west Dublin would believe it a solution to throw up a few Garda checkpoints in their estates and have gardaí walking through the estates with horses? The problem is not confined to west Dublin. My Independent colleagues represent constituencies with many of the same needs. What is required are emergency resources in education, social services and psychological services to intervene dramatically to prevent this occurrence. Provision of emergency resources in community development to empower communities to take control of their neighbourhoods is the key.

How does the Government think that Blanchardstown, a city, so to speak, of 70,000 people, can be covered by a handful of community gardaí? Does the Taoiseach not realise that what people demand is not high profile stunts but large numbers of community gardaí working side by side with local people under the direction of local representative organisations? That is what is critically needed. I want to hear the Taoiseach's response on this matter. The position I outlined is not only the case in parts of Dublin, it also pertains in many neighbourhoods, cities and towns throughout the country and also in rural communities.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy asked a number of questions, which I will answer in two ways. He mentioned gangland killings and referred to the need for local development, social exclusion programmes, educational programmes for the disadvantaged, early intervention schemes to target young people at risk and the need to work with organisations in the statutory and voluntary sectors such as Barnardos and others. The State resources these organisations to help them to look after people across the system who are dysfunctional at an early age and to provide them with the necessary assistance for their rehabilitation. Community development support programmes are funded by enormous amounts of taxpayers' money, taxpayers being the people to whom the Deputy referred. In education alone this year, more than €50 million has been allocated to provide for the educationally disadvantaged and more than €20 million has been allocated to community development programmes. Such programmes are targeted mainly at people who, as the Deputy rightly said, constitute a small number of families in a small number of areas who, either through no fault of their own or through circumstances of being influenced by others, require that kind of assistance. Professional people ranging from clinical psychologists to teachers to individuals working with people under stress work hard in many areas.

Unfortunately, my experience is that such programmes do not cover the category of people who wish to be involved in gangland attacks. They are normally groups who believe there is a way other than the normal route to make it rich. They are normally not dysfunctional but clever, smart and not drug takers or abusers of alcohol. They are willing to operate whatever system is necessary or to undertake themselves or through others whatever violence is necessary to make unlawful gains. Unfortunately, we have seen the results of some of those events. We have not seen too many gangland killings this year. The gangland killing over the weekend was only the second, although there have been murders in other areas.

With the large number of gardaí in this country compared with police forces operating in other countries of our size, the Garda has specialist forces in these areas which are well resourced and use the modern technology available to try to break these gangs. Deputy Joe Higgins is aware of the feud in the area in question and that some of the people involved, who come from different areas, are well known, have been involved for a long time and are experienced in criminal activities in this city. This is an operational matter for the Garda which is using considerable resources to deal with these issues.

Mr. J. Higgins

What confidence can the decent people in the communities in this estate have that the Government has a solution to address these issues when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can glibly say that this is merely the dying sting of a wasp or when in a prominent street in the Taoiseach's constituency there is an open market for cocaine and heroin about which he must know? What confidence can they have when a society is fostered where inequalities are allowed to increase and the necessary resources are not invested in sufficient measures to provide for those who, for social and historic reasons, have been left behind and, unfortunately, among a brutalised minority there emerges the kind of nihilism that wreaks havoc on the community? Those are the issues that need to be addressed. They will not be resolved by the equivalent of Operation Freeflow as we approach Christmas. That will not resolve the issues. Fundamental, structural adjustments and emergency resources are required to fund grassroots community activists and organisations to assist them to take control of their communities. Will the Government make those resources available?

The Taoiseach

In respect of all the issues to which the Deputy referred, if he were to give credit to what is being done with the resources being spent, I could take him seriously and say we should do more, and I would not oppose that. The Deputy is aware that we invest tens of millions of taxpayers' money in local development social inclusion programmes. We invest enormous amounts in community development support programmes. We have invested almost €100 million in the young people's facilities and services fund. Resources are being invested to provide for the educationally disadvantaged. We resource various voluntary organisations which require funding to provide for early intervention in the case of children. We are also providing social housing and social facilities in these areas. I agree with such measures.

However, we should not let all of that mask the situation. There are groups of people whom the Deputy and I know and of whom we are not proud who are gangsters, thugs and criminals and who do not need the help of any of these interventions. The Deputy rightly said that there are people in my area and his area who operate activities to make large amounts of money to maintain properties in Spain, Amsterdam and elsewhere. If we were tough enough and strong enough, we would stand up to some of these people, as the Deputy does in his area and I regularly do in my area, but these people operate with immunity on many occasions.

Gardaí do their best. My only regret, given the number of years I have been trying to address this problem, is that we are so easy on these people. We believe that a garda going out with a book and a pencil will deal with these people and, if a garda were to hit the wrong one, he would be up before a board under the disciplinary code. This is unfair to the Garda force. How in the name of God can a garda with a pencil and a book deal with people who——

(Interruptions).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Nov 2004