I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes the supply services and purposes to which sums have been appropriated in the Appropriation Act, 1990.
Appropriation Act, 1990: Motion.
Os rud é go bhfuil teorainn ama i gceist agus nach mbeidh muid ag caint ach ar feadh cúig nóiméad déag nó mar sin, ba mhaith liomsa mo chuid cainte a dhíriú ar rudaí a bhaineann le hiarthar na hÉireann, leis an Ghaeltacht, leis an chósta thiar ó Dhún na nGall síos go Ciarraí. I dtosach báire ba mhaith liom labhairt ar Roinn na Gaeltachta agus na Meastacháin atá curtha amach maidir leis an Roinn sin. Tá an-díomá orm nach bhfuil aon aitheantas tugtha sna Meastacháin — easnaimh é seo atá an-sonrach —maidir leis an Ghaeilge, an Ghaeltacht agus Roinn na Gaeltachta féin. Go deimhin féin, tá an-imní orm mar nach bhfuil aon Aire Gaeltachta ag feidhmiú. Mar is eol don Teach, go teoiriciúil, is é an Taoiseach Aire na Gaeltachta, ach go bhfios domsa, ar chaoi ar bith, agus do go leor daoine eile, níl an Taoiseach ag feidhmiú mar Aire Gaeltachta. Ní raibh sé le feiceáil riamh istigh sa Roinn sin ná ní raibh sé le feiceáil riamh sa Ghaeltacht. Ní iontas, mar sin, go bhfuil laige sna Meastacháin mar is cosúil go bhfuil neamhaird á tabhairt ar an nGaeltacht agus ar Roinn na Gaeltachta, agus tá céim síos á tabhairt ag an Rialtas don Roinn sin faoi láthair.
Tóg, mar shampla, seomra na Gaeilge, sampla beag a léiríonn an spéis atá ann ó thaobh na Meastachán de. Bhí go leor cainte, rí-rá agus grianghraf ann roimh an Nollaig nuair a osclaíodh an seomra. Tháinig an Taoiseach agus dúradh a lán faoi gach a bhféadfaí a dhéanamh chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn sa Dáil agus sa Seanad, ach céard atá ag tarlú do sheomra na Gaeilge? Níl duine ar bith ann lena fheidhmiú, níl aon rúnaí ann, ná níl aon duine ann le cuspóirí bhunú an tseomra sin a chur chun cinn. Is follas sin sna Meastacháin mar níor cuireadh airgead breise ar bith ar fáil sna Meastacháin maidir le foireann don seomra chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn.
Is aisteach liomsa go gcuirfimis seomra Gaeilge ar bun ach nárbh fhiú leis an Aire Airgeadais dóthain airgid nó foireann a chur ar fáil le go bhféadfadh an seomra sin feidhmiú. Sin an locht is mó dá bhfuil agamsa ar na Meastacháin seo atá á bplé againn. Is amhlaidh an scéal maidir leis an Chomhchoiste don Ghaeilge. Tá comhchoistí éagsúla san Oireachtas agus tábhacht ar leith ag baint leo. Má táimid dáiríre faoi chur chun cinn na Gaeilge sa Teach seo, ní thaispeántar an dáiríreacht seo ó thaobh sheomra na Gaeilge de agus, níos measa fós, ní léirítear aon dáiríreacht i leith an Chomhchoiste don Ghaeilge. Rinne Cathaoirleach an Chomhchoiste, an Teachta David Andrews — fear díograiseach a bhfuil an-suim aige in imeachtaí an Chomhchoiste agus in imeachtaí na Gaeilge agus a bhfuil an-mholadh ag dul dó — tromaíocht ar a Rialtas féin mar chonacthas dó go raibh air iad a cháineadh cionn is nach bhfuil siad ag déanamh freastail chóir ar an Chomhchoiste don Ghaeilge.
Níl aon rúnaí lánaimseartha ag an gComhchoiste don Ghaeilge faoi mar atá ag gach rannóg eile. Arís, de réir na Meastacháin seo, is léir nach bhfuil aon suim ag an Aire Airgeadais sna cúrsaí seo, agus, de dheasca na neamhshuime seo agus an easpa airgid i gcás a leithéide, is beag éifeacht atá leis an gcomhchoiste, dar leis an gCathaoirleach. Murar féidir an scéal seo a leigheas trí breis airgid a chur ar fáil, is cóir éirí as ar fad. Tá rud eile ann nach bhfuil sna Meastacháin, rud a bhfuil an-chaint faoi agus rud atá antábhachtach, agus baineann sé leis an gcóras aistriúcháin seo. Tá a fhios ag chuile dhuine an troid agus an cúnamh a fuaireamar ón Teach seo leis an gcóras aistriúcháin a chur ar siúl anseo. Bhí go leor daoine den tuairim nach bhféadfaí a leithéid a dhéanamh ar chor ar bith mar nach raibh na haistritheoirí ann lena fheidhmiú. Is lú an fhoireann aistritheoirí atá ann faoi láthair ná mar a bhí ann deich mbliana ó shin, nuair a bhí beirt sa bhreis ann. Tá an rannóg seo tar éis a iarraidh, arís agus arís eile, ar an Aire agus ar an Roinn Airgeadais breis foirne a chur ar fáil chun go bhféadfadh siad a gcuid oibre a dhéanamh i gceart, ach is léir gur tugadh cluas bhodhar do na hiarratais.
Níl aon tagairt do seo sna Meastacháin. Tá caint ann go gceapfar duine amháin breise amach anseo, ach fós bheadh siad faoi bhun an líon foirne a bhí ann deich mbliana ó shin. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Teach seo go bhfuil obair Rannóg an Aistriúcháin ceithre bliana ar gcúl ina gcuid oibre? Go bunreachtúil caithfidh siad na Billí uilig a aistriú go Gaeilge. Léiríonn sé seo ar fad cé chomh lag is atá na Meastacháin, nó an soláthar airgeadais atá ann le haghaidh na Gaeilge agus chuile shórt a bhaineann léi. Tá seomra na Gaeilge gan foireann, tá an Comhchoiste don Ghaeilge gan rúnaí, agus anois tá Rannóg an Aistriúcháin i ndroch-chaoi de bharr gan dóthain foirne bheith acu. Níl go leor ann leis an ngnáthobair laethúil a dhéanamh gan trácht ar an lear mór oibre atá curtha ar gcúl de bharr easpa foirne. Cuireann sé an-díoma orm nach bhfuil réiteach na bhfadhbanna seo uilig sna Meastacháin seo. Tá mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire a rá linn cén uair a bheidh an t-airgead ar fáil leis na fadhbanna sin a réiteach.
Tógaimis ceist theilifís na Gaeilge. Cuireadh suim airgid, £500,000, ar fáil breis agus bliain go leith ó shin le rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi sin. Níl tada déanta faoi go fóil, cé gur gealladh dúinn arís agus arís eile go mbeadh sé ann a leilhéid seo de mhí, agus mar sin de. Níl a fhios agam cén uair a bheidh teilifís na Gaeilge nó na Gaeltachta ann. Tá a fhios againn cén costas a bhainfidh lena bhunú — luadh an figiúr £9 milliún in aghaidh na bliana agus tá gealltanas tugtha ag an Aire agus ag Aire Stáit na Gaeltachta go mbunófar é, ach ní fheicim cén chaoi ar féidir é a fheidhmiú mura bhfuil sé luaite sna Meastacháin, agus ní fheicim tagairt dá leithéid sna Meastacháin seo.
Agus mé ag caint ar ábhar seo na teilifíse, níl a fhios agam an cheist airgeadais é. Cé go bhfuil an Dáil féin á teilifísiú níl iomrá ar bith ann go ndéanfar amhlaidh leis an Seanad. Níl aon chaint ar mhíreanna as Gaeilge a phléitear sa Dáil ná sa Seanad a theilifísiú. Nár mhór an gar dá bhféadfaí leathuair a chloig in aghaidh na seachtaine de dhíospóireacht i nGaeilge sa Dáil agus sa Seanad a theilifísiú. Dá ndéanfaí a leithéid bheadh fonn ar níos mó Teachtaí agus Seanadóirí roinnt Gaeilge a labhairt sa dá Theach. Níl le feiceáil ar an scáileán anois ach beagán den Dáil, agus é déanta go dona, dar liomsa, agus é uilig i mBéarla gan oiread agus focal Gaeilge le cloisteáil.
Mar gheall ar Údarás na Gaeltachta —tarlaíonn sé gur ball mé féi de bhord an Udaráis — níl dóthain airgid acu, bíodh go bhfuil cruthúnas ann go bhfuil siad ag cur jabanna ar fáil, agus seo muid anois ag tús na bliana agus is ar éigean atá aon airgead ag Údarás na Gaeltachta le caitheamh d'ainneoin gurb iad an eagraíocht is mó a chruthaigh poist i gcomhmhéid leis an airgead a fuair siad i rith na bliana seo caite uilig.
Ó thaobh Roinn na Gaeltachta de, tá mé an-éadóchasach go bhfuil soláthar airgid cuí, sásúil ann le go bhféadfaí an teanga a chur chun cinn, ní amháin sa Teach seo agus sa Dáil, ach, go bunúsach, ar fud na Gaeltachta. Maidir le hoideachas, cuireann sé as domsa a laghad airgid atá ann le haghaidh mhúinteoirí feabhais. Tá sé geallta go mbeidh múinteoirí feabhais le fáil agus go dtabharfar aire cheart do na gasúir sin a bhfuil míchumas intinne orthu agus a bhfuil scoileanna speisialta ann dá leithéid. Is cosúil go bhfuil polasaí, ag an Rialtas cuid mhaith de na scoileanna sin a dhúnadh. Tá scéal truamhéileach ag teacht as Gaillimh le cúpla lá anuas go raibh cead faighte ón Roinn Oideachais le scoil a thógáil le haghaidh na ngasúr mallintinneach ach anois tá athrú plean ann agus ní bheidh aon scoil ann do na gasúir sin.
Tá deireadh á chur le scoil eile a bhfuil gasúir ann nach bhfuil go hiomlán mallintinneach ach a bhfuil easpa bheag éigin orthu. Tá siadsan á gcur isteach sna gnáthscoileanna, agus seo muid ar thaobh amháin ag iarraidh múinteoirí feabhais a chur isteach sna gnáthscoileánna mar gheall ar ghasúir atá cineál mall ó thaobh foghlama, de, agus, ar an taobh eile, tá an Roinn Oideachais ag cur deiridh leis de bharr gearadh siar scoileanna speisialta a bhí ag déileáil le gasúir mhallintinneacha. Níl sé sin inghlactha agus, thar aon aicme eile sa tír, níor chóir go dtaispeánfaí nó go mbeadh sé le feiceáil go mbeadh aon chiorrú ann.
Maidir le Roinn na Mara, nuair a smaoinímid ar a laghad airgid atá curtha ar fáil agus ar an obair dheisiúcháin atá le déanamh ar na céanna agus na calafoirt de bharr an dochair uafásach a rinne an stoirm a bhí ann an geimhreadh seo, ní fheicfidh muidne lenár linn féin ná le linn shaol ár bpáistí féin go gcuirfear caoi cheart ar na céanna agus na calafoirt sin. Tá an dá oileán Gaeltachta, Inis Meáin agus Inis Oírr, ag fanacht ó bunaíodh an Stát — agus níl mé ag cur an mhilleáin ar an Rialtas seo ach ar gach Rialtas a bhí ann go dtí seo — le cé ceart a fháil. Tá sé ceadaithe i bprionsabal go gcuirfear caoi ar na nithe seo, ach is é an seanscéal arís é, "mair a chapaill agus gheobhair féar".
Níl aon airgead curtha ar fáil chun go gcuirfí deis ar na céanna seo. Ní féidir liom, mar sin, glacadh leis na Meastacháin seo sa mhéid go bhfuil ciorrú ar chuile Roinn Stáit. Is trua liom gur mar seo atá, ach beidh mé ag súil go dtabharfaidh an tAire aird ar an pointí seo uilig atá luaite agam.
Tá go leor pointí spéisiúla ardaithe ag an Seanadóir a labhair romham faoi na Meastacháin, go mórmhór meastachtáin Roinn na Gaeltachta agus Údarás na Gaeltachta dá bharr. Ach níl i gceist agamsa miontrácht a dhéanamh ar na hábhair sin tráthnóna, mar, mar a dúirt an Ceannaire, beidh deis againn i gceann trí seachtaine dul isteach sna hábhair sin go mion agus iad a phlé agus féachaint cén chaoi is ceart airgead na Gaeilge a chaitheamh. Mar is eol do go leor, dúirt mise cúpla rud le coicís anuas maidir le hairgead na Gaeilge agus, dar liomsa, an mhí-éifeacht a bhaineann leis an gcaiteachas sin. Ach creidim sa díospóireacht áirithe seo gur ócáid í le labhairt go gineáralta faoi chúrsaí airgid na tíre.
Ach díreach cúpla poínte sonrach a luaigh an Seanadóir a labhair romham, is é sin, ceist na gcéanna sna hoileáin bheaga in Árainn. Ba mhaith liomsa tréaslú leis an Rialtas. Le os cionn trí scór bliain bhí ceist bhád farantóireachta go hÁrainn faoi chaibidil, agus anuraidh rinneadh cinneadh faoi sin. Don chéad uair riamh, tógadh cinneadh na milliúin punt a chaitheamh ar dhá ché a chur ar fáil ar Inis Meáin agus Inis Oírr. Dé réir mar a thuigimise an scéal, tógfar iadsan anois ach caithfear, ar ndóigh, an réamhobair a dhéanamh agus beidh an t-airgead ar fáil leis an obair a dhéanamh ag an am caoi. Ar ndóigh, beidh mise i measc daoine eile ag brú na ceiste sin, ach caithfidh mé a rá, mar dhuine nach bhfuil sa saol poiblí ach bliain go leith, go bhfuil mé an-sásta go bhfuil an oiread sin dul chun cinn déanta ar na ceisteanna sin i gcaitheamh an dá bhliain sin.
This is an occasion for an overview of the total financial situation of the State. A quarter of an hour is a very short time to even begin to explore the problem and the realities of this very important and complex question. The first thing I would once again like to point out is that I have always maintained, and I continue to maintain, that those who favour extra expenditure have, at the same time to explain where any extra expenditure will come from.
We have had enough living on our children's money. That a previous generation have to be indicted for putting a burden on this generation and on future generations is something that in my opinion they never had a right to do. We borrowed, as I have pointed out many times before, £25,000 million pounds but I would have to say that in terms of infrastructure, in terms of a legacy, we have very little to show for that expenditure.
The second thing is that if you accept that you have to raise extra finance for any extra expenditure you want to make, then you have to look at how that can be done. Thirdly, and this is very dear to my heart as a practical person working on the ground, we have to look closely at a third option, which is more efficient and more effective use of the expenditure that is being made.
The first comment I would make about the Estimates which stand at £6.8 billion, is that only 11 per cent of this amount is for capital expenditure. I have maintained that it is one area where I can see justification for borrowing if it is used productively, effectively and if it generates a return. We have seen the effectiveness, for example, in the telecommunications area where borrowing was made to modernise the system and where that borrowing has, not only in terms of An Bord Telecom but in national economy terms, paid off handsomely. I would like to see an accelerated capital programme particularly in the area of roads, ports, sewerage and water to ensure that we have the basic infrastructure to allow us provide a suitable standard of living for our people and also allow industry, agriculture and tourism, etc., to grow and generate income in the future.
Money from the EC is becoming fundamental to the overall financing of this State. I have reservations about certain aspects of this. In relation to road expenditure, it strikes me as odd that Regional Fund money can be spent only on national primary and secondary roads which are, by definition, predominantly in the more developed parts of the country and not on county roads, which most of us use and which are vital to the aims of rural regeneration. EC money is often matched by national money. That poses problems, firstly, because many communities do not have the matching capital and, secondly, the rules, regulations and small print conditions mean that the illusion is much greater than the substance.
Total expenditure this year is £6.8 billion and of that 61 per cent goes to three Departments — Social Welfare, Health and Education. Regarding the Department of Health, it is about time that we reviewed the situation there. It would appear that throwing money into it does not give the person on the ground a better health service. There is a structural problem relating to health expenditure. There are certain fixed principles that everybody seems to accept and that cannot be questioned in health expenditure, which none of us would accept in other facets of our lives. For example, it is accepted in the public health sector that the State chooses the consultant and so on. However, very few of us would allow the State to choose the garage to send our cars to for repair. We should approach this matter in a much more imaginative way. I often ask myself how I can provide private healthcare, for myself and my family for an annual fee of around £500. I have a choice of consultants and a private hospital bed.
It is not good enough for people, particularly those in Opposition, to propose throwing more money into health and never propose examining the structures or the way the money is spent. It is the same in the health services. The easy option is to go for more money. There is only a limited amount available and if we do not get value for it there will never be enough money. In relation to roads, sewerage, water, education, health or housing, the constant cry from people is that more imaginative and innovative ways should be found to spend public money which would ensure a greater return. Maybe we could raise more in taxes.
As somebody who has been involved in business, agriculture and most facets of rural and urban life I argued years ago, long before it was fashionable to do so, that the most sensible policy we could adopt regarding taxation would be to reduce exemption limits and tighten up on the efficiency of collection. I argued as far back as the seventies that if that were done, the amount of revenue that would come in would increase dramatically, the satisfaction of people with the system would increase and also the nominal rates of taxation could be brought down. I welcome the moves taken in this direction in the last few years but we can go a lot further. We should avoid special schemes like the plague. The people want a simple system. They want a system where they know where they stand, where the poor do not feel at a disadvantage, or the small businessman, or the farmer, because he cannot afford tax consultants to tell him how to dodge around the tax code. He wants to feel that he is not at a disadvantage compared to his richer neighbour.
I favour further decentralisation of tax collection. Nobody knows better about who really is earning what than the person who is working on the ground. The method of collection should be on a bottom up basis rather than the one that applies at present which is from the top down. I look forward to the day, and it would also create some administrative jobs outside Dublin, when my monthly cheque to the Collector General will be paid to Galway and the relevant portion transmitted to Dublin rather than the system that operates at present where I pay, or any employer pays, the cheque to the collector who gives it to the Department of Finance, who gives it to the Department of the Gaeltacht who in turn gives it back to Údarás na Gaeltachta, who might then given it back to me, but at that stage there is only 20 per cent of my money left.
Flexibility in the public service is very important. There has been a growing realisation that methods and work practices that were appropriate to the fifties and sixties are no longer good enough today. All Departments of Government, whether Health, Education or Social Welfare, which provide a service must be customer-friendly. They should cut down on duplication and form filling. The use of computerisation in a user friendly manner should be encouraged. For example, when you get your annual PAYE tax from all the details of the latest previous return should be automatically printed out — life insurance policies, mortgage repayments, etc. — and the obligation on the taxpayer should be to insert any changes, sign the form and return to the tax office. From the point of view of the tax office it would cut down enormously on their work and from the taxpayer's point of view it would save a lot of heartache looking for details that have already been supplied to Revenue. This type of approach could be spread right across Government Departments particularly those that have regular dealings with the public and where information was given a long time ago. Much of the antipathy people feel towards dealing with the State and with intractable forms could be done away with. On that point, we should have learned from the innovation shown in the famous tax amnesty and build on it. In that case instead of the Revenue chasing people they were chasing the taxman with their cheques trying to pay them before the deadline. Some £500 million was raised for the State and this was one of the first major steps in reducing the current budget deficit that has troubled this country for so long.
Mar aon leis an bheirt Seanadóirí eile a bhí romham, d'fhéadfainn a lán ábhar a phlé i ndíospóireacht mar seo, ach in ionad bheith ag scaipeadh mo chuid tuairimí timpeall na tíre go léir, déanfaidh mé iarracht cúpla rud a phlé.
The first thing that needs to be said is that the process by which parliamentary approval is given to the expenditure of £6.6 billion, either in this House or in the other House, is a scandal. The degree of parliamentary accountability, the degree to which any Government feel they are obliged to explain or justify expenditure, the degree to which institutions and Departments feel obliged to explain or justify expenditure is close to being unparalleled in any country that claims to be a parliamentary democracy. We are among the most secretive of societies in terms of accountability and of public access to information about what is being done on behalf of the public.
I will come back at some length to one specific issue where things are being done in our name. We are a society where large areas of the State, far from being transparent, open and accessible are obscure, closed and totally inaccessible. As I have said frequently with the collapse of Stalinism in eastern Europe, we are, in terms of our centralisation, the nearest thing to a neo-Stalinist economy in the whole of Europe in which the most extraordinary determination to hold on to central control is revealed by a succession of Governments, and in particular by a succession of Ministers for Finance who are accountable for the Department of Finance and who cannot and should not be allowed to blame the inflexibilities of centralisation on public servants.
Nothing can be done to improve the efficiency of public expenditure or the use of public money by building one layer of control on another. Many of us have ample evidence of the fact that cutbacks over recent years did not produce a determination to use resources more efficiently. It simply produced smaller, equally inefficient services where large sectors of services were cut but no great attempt was made to improve the efficiency or the accountability of many of the services.
Irish politics has been excessively dominated by questions of expenditure — they are important — and has insufficiently addressed the questions of accountability, openness, democratic control and decentralisation. As one who stands firmly on the left in Irish politics, the agenda for the left for the next ten years, not just in this country but in western Europe generally, ought to be the very simple one of rendering practical what is theoretical and making all the areas of public power truly accountable. You cannot do that if it is all blocked in the enormous embrace of a huge Dublin-based bureaucracy which claims to itself the most extraordinary wisdom on the most local matters. I keep asking, and I will continue to do so until somebody explains, why is it not possible for an urban council to put a yellow line on a road to indicate "no parking" without the permission of the Minister and the Garda Commissioner? That is idiotic in the extreme and it either should be justified or abolished.
The country in the EC nearest to us in size is Denmark. They have managed in the past seven or eight years to devolve 70 per cent of the powers which were exercised by central Government back to elected local and regional authorities. Somebody somewhere in this country apparently unaffected by reality apparently — I keep on saying this with more than a hint of seriousness — infected with the sort of Stalinism that nobody in eastern Europe has believed in for 20 years, actually believes that the centre knows best what is good for people and for every peripheral region. We had the extraordinary spectacle of the Minister for Finance descendng on my home city to show to senior EC officials various projects which had been funded by the EC and not bothering to consult or involve officials or representatives of the people of Cork because the centre knew best. The centre does not know best. The centre does not have a clue in many cases. It is caught up in a fog of alleged expertise which even a cursory glance would show does not exist.
In my own city — I am not attempting to plug a line because I have no electoral reason to be more preoccupied about Cork than anywhere else — we have the ridiculous situation where the Department of the Environment claim a level of expertise on the complex matter of a major river crossing and claim somehow to have expertise available to them which is not available to the local authority. All they have is yet another engineer with another opinion, not necessarily better qualified, not necessarily worse qualified, but with no guarantee that the decision taken at the centre will be one bit better than the decision taken at the periphery but with a guarantee of power being retained at the centre. The whole thing is meaningless. If people and particularly members of either party in front of me or the Government parties are really concerned about creating a culture of enterprise they should forget about red herrings or the tax system. The Irish income tax system is no worse than the German income tax system but German enterprise is hardly something to be scoffed at. They should forget about that red herring and look at the reality — a centralised, burdensome, unresponsive and unenterprising orientated bureaucracy which has claimed for itself a wisdom which does not exist and a power which it does not deserve.
On the issue of lack of accountability, I looked at the sums allocated in the Bill to a number of Government Departments. I listened to Senator Ó Cuív asking where will we get money to do (a), (b), and (c), and I look at the Department of Foreign Affairs which last year used the best part of £37 million. Given the abject surrender of our sovereignty to the United States which we witnessed over the past two months, perhaps we should abolish the Department of Foreign Affairs or at least invite the United States State Department to fund it. Egypt, Syria, the USSR, China, Turkey and Bangladesh extracted a price for their capitulation to the United States but we apparently lined up and did it for nothing. It was a shameful betrayal of our sovereignty. The logical extension of that betrayal should be to close down the Department of Foreign Affairs and invite the United States State Department to set up a sub-office in Iveagh House and let them dictate every aspect of our foreign policy and use the £37 million for something more constructive than giving somebody who claims to be our Minister for Foreign Affairs but who quite manifestly is nothing more than another mouthpiece of the United States State Department the right to travel the world and pretend to be something that he is not.
Nonsense.
The reality of where our money is being spent in the area of foreign affairs is that we are participating in the slaughter of perhaps 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq who are not responsible for what was done in their name, who have no influence over the person who did things in their name and who will, unlike the leader we all detest, be there after he is gone to suffer the consequences of something over which they had no control. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats support this slaughter of civilians which has produced perhaps a greater proportion of deaths than any other war relative to the deaths of combatants. This slaughter of civilians has been carried out against a man whom his people have never succeeded——
On a point of order, how is the war relevant to this motion?
I am always reluctant to interrupt the speech of my colleague but would the Senator agree he is straying a little from the subject before us?
I would not because I heard my colleagues before me talk about everything from the nature of the quays in Inis Mór to the state of the taxation system.
Acting Chairman
I was applying the criterion that they were matters which would be at the taxpayers' expense in the context of the Appropriation Act.
So the Department of Foreign Affairs is not at the taxpayers' expense?
Acting Chairman
I was thinking in terms of how you had widened the debate into a morality lecture on the war based on the appropriation to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I will desist from that line of argument because there are a number of others. I do not believe the expenditure allocated to the Department of Foreign Affairs, is justified. Neither do I believe that part of the expenditure for the Department of Communications is justified since it is now used to fund, facilitate and support overflights of this country by those agents of the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians. There is an equally valid case for rejecting expenditure in that area. I can understand those in this House who actually disagree with me but I cannot understand those who laugh because I talk about the deaths of thousands of civilians. I find that rather distasteful and not in the least amusing.
Acting Chairman
With respect to those Members present, I did not hear any laughter on what is, as you have quite clearly stated, a serious matter. That is an unfair statement to make in the circumstances.
It is ironic that we spend £37 million on the Department of Foreign Affairs which, quite clearly, we no longer need given what I have just said, and substantially less on overseas development aid. There is an overwhelming case for transferring most of the funding of the Department of Foreign Affairs to something constructive such as ODA. There is the threat of 15 million people starving to death in sub-Saharan Africa at present. There is an incredible, to use a fashionable phrase "world coalition" of interested parties determined not to allow public opinion to become diverted from the blood and guts of war to the blood and guts of 15 million starving to death. We apparently do not have the resources here or in western Europe or in North America to deal with 15 million starving people; yet, apparently we have a bottomless purse to kill 100,000 civilians. In these figures there are charades of sovereignty which no longer exist. There are pretences, as under the issue of overseas development aid, towards morality and decent values which no longer exist. There are expenditures which are effectively expenditures for war which should have been expenditures for civil activities, in overflights, communication facilities, landing rights etc.
The issues I raised are a perfect example of what I was talking at the beginning — Government without accountability, where they do not feel in the least bit obliged to listen to the views of the people or not believe that the horror of the people at the brutality of war should be reflected in their policies. They believe that the interests of this nation are best served by a sycophantic lying down and saying "yes, sir" to the State to which they apparently believe we now give our allegiance.
Mr. Farrell
Ar dtús, cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire Airgeadais maidir leis an obair mhaith atá á dhéanamh aige.
There is no doubt that we have a budget of which we can be very proud. Great work was done and I am delighted that a colleague of mine who joined politics with me, played the first game of getting our country back on a firm footing. When Ray MacSharry came to power as Minister for Finance this country was reeling under an massive burden. We should remember that we had foreign bankers telling the Government of the day that if they did not get their act together they would have to get out. The country was nearly bankrupt.
The Senator remembers 1977.
Mr. Farrell
We have pulled it back from that serious situation.
The famous manifesto.
Mr. Farrell
Who brought in the first deficit budget?
George Colley, the Minister for Finance.
Mr. Farrell
No, it was Fine Gael. Your illustrious Deputy Garret Fitz-Gerald——
The late George Colley.
Mr. Farrell
——boasted that we were living in a new era when borrowing was the rule of the day. That was the beginning of it.
Acting Chairman
The Chair only recognises Senator Farrell.
Mr. Farrell
Bíonn an fhírinne searbh — the truth is sour. We know where the borrowing started. It was not wise. We all know the old proverb: he who goes a' borrowing goes a' sorrowing. It was a pity that we were in that situation but Ministers in this and the previous Government are coming to grips with it. We came to power when the national debt was £24 billion, a massive sum of money. We have succeeded in reducing that. We did many good things which I will speak of later.
The previous speaker paid an indirect tribute to the Minister for Finance in that he was so lost for something to say that he had to speak about international matters. We all abhor those deaths but I enjoy listening to those Senators because they are the very same people who seem to condone the death of thousands of people in this country. There are two separate views, which is typical of what we have to put up with in that regard.
I would like local authorities to have greater powers. Unfortunately when local authorities decide to get better value for money and to go into the private sector and into contracting, they are prohibited from doing so because of threatened job losses and other risks. Very often we are out-voted and that is a great pity. We had a problem in Sligo with a firm of architects and engineers who built houses with faulty chimneys and who was blamed for the problem? The Minister for the Environment. No word about the engineers and architects who planned them. The Minister gave the OK to build them but surely it was not up to him to detect the problem? The architects and engineers, however, were allowed off the hook. There is not one word about them at all.
Debate adjourned.