Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1991

Vol. 127 No. 16

Appropriation Act, 1990: Motion (Resumed.)

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann notes the supply services and purposes to which sums have been appropriated in the Appropriation Act, 1990.

—(Senator Fallon.)

Mr. E. Ryan

I would like to welcome the Minister to the House. I congratulate the Government on their handling of the economy since 1987 and the great work they have done in clearing up the huge financial mess which the country found themselves in at that time. Many commentators then felt we would never be able to stabilise our debt and the various other problems which we took on, but over that period the Government have not alone stabilised that debt but have brought inflation rates down to one of the lowest in Europe, have brought our interest rates down considerably, even though they have risen in the past 18 months. Overall the Government have done a very good job on the economy and the budget is another step in the right direction to try to pull this country around. We still have a major problem with unemployment. Every party sees that as the main problem and I believe it is only a continuation of the present policies that will allow us in the long term to overcome that problem.

I would like to mention one aspect of the budget which was not covered but which I believe is very significant, that is, the urban renewal programme in designated areas. In 1986 the Urban Renewal Act designated a number of areas in Dublin and throughout the country for special tax incentives. The areas designated in Dublin were along the north and south Liffey quays, the north inner city, Henrietta Street — a small Georgian enclave in the north city — and the Custom House Docks area. The Custom House Docks Development authority was set up to administer the Custom House Docks area and Dublin Corporation were given the responsibility of promoting redevelopment in the other designated areas of the city. These areas were characterised by under-used and derelict land and run down buildings. They had very little prospect of being developed without the incentives. For instance, in the 12 years prior to designation there had not been one planning application for development in the designated area of the Liffey quays.

A problem that had to be overcome by the corporation was that only a 50 per cent capital allowance was available to developers in designated areas compared to 100 per cent in the Custom House Docks area and the other areas throughout the country. However, despite this disadvantage, the city saw the incentives as a great opportunity to review the fortunes of the inner city and embarked on a major campaign to do so.

As a first step, they advertised nationally and internationally the benefits of the incentives and advertised for sale sites in their ownership that qualified for incentives. The first major site sold for redevelopment early in 1987 was in High Street and the developers were Hill View Securities. That particular site was derelict for many years and used as a surplus car park. On the site today stands the fine Christchurch Square development, which when completed will be a 80,000 sq. feet development with a mixture of office and residential units.

Since the introduction of the incentives 42 projects have been completed, 17 are in progress and 80 are at a planning stage in the designated areas, including the new areas designated in 1990. These developments cover approximately a floor area of 3.3 million sq. feet, which represents a capital investment of about £230 million. The following are some of the developments that are taking place in the designated areas: Winetavern Street, Bridge Street Lower, Usher's Quay, Ormond Quay Upper, Arran Quay, Merchant's Quay, Marlborough Street, Sarsfield Quay, St. Michael's Close and High Street. In addition, the new developments have many fine refurbishment works carried out on buildings under the tax incentive scheme, including the following: Kinley House, Lord Edward Street, Ormond Hotel, Virgin Megastore, 10-12 Ormond Quay Lower, 1-3 Parliament Street, 24 Merchant's Quay and these complement the magnificent renovation works carried out in Dublin Castle and Government Buildings.

It is evident from these developments and from the high demand for property offered for sale by the corporation that the designated areas in four short years have been transformed from areas of dereliction and depression to areas where you can now fashionably develop, live, work or carry out your business. To encourage development in the designated areas, Dublin Corporation set up a development advisory team which consisted of a town planner, property valuer, a road engineer, an architect and a senior administrator. The team holds consultation on a regular basis with developers, architects, estate agents, property owners and other interested parties and makes planning and architectural advice freely available to those wishing to develop in the inner city.

It is the city's policy to ensure that the developments are designed and built to the highest standard and the advisory team's consultation with developers and their architects have been instrumental in ensuring this. The design of some of the fine new developments in the designated areas has evolved after many meetings between the architects and/or advisory team. The feature of the new buildings is how well they blend in with the old adjacent buildings and, in fact, complement one another. In addition to holding consultations, the advisory team have been involved in the preparation of feasibility studies for selected sites and corporation ownership and these studies have proved to be a great asset in marketing the sites and making developers aware of the development potential.

The corporation have long realised that a major contribution to urban renewal in the city can be made by civic improvements and a number of major improvement schemes have been carried out over the past few years, such as the pedestrianisation of Henry Street, Mary Street, Liffey Street on the north side and the Grafton Street area on the south side and the upgrading of connecting thoroughfares. These improvements have been continued from Grafton Street through South Great George's Street. Within the designated areas civic improvement works have been completed on the Liffey quays in the north inner city area around Mountjoy Square. The civic improvement works are a major factor in promoting development as well as bringing major benefits to existing businesses by giving the area a better environment in which to shop, live, work or carry out business.

The main type of development in the designated areas has been commercial, mainly office, and in this regard the double rent allowance and the rates remission were major factors. In essence, a firm or individual paying tax at the rate of around 50p in the £ could get a new property rent and rates free for ten years. Concern has been expressed in some quarters that when the ten year period runs out tenants will move elsewhere. I do not share that concern. I am confident that the designated areas over the next ten years will become major commercial centres and that businesses starting up now will become well established in the areas and will not wish to move elsewhere in ten years' time.

The designated areas scheme have been so successful that in May 1990 the Minister for the Environment announced an extension of the areas in Dublin and other parts of the country. Four new areas have been designated in Dublin — south inner city, Dorset Street, George's Quay and Smithfield-Capel Street areas. These will provide further scope for the redevelopment of areas and sites that hitherto have been vacant and derelict.

The city will continue to give every encouragement to commercial developments in the designated areas. I am pleased to note the changes of emphasis to more residential development in recent schemes under consideration. That is why we welcome the changes in the budget concerning section 27 and the designated areas and also the announcement of refurbishment expenditure in relation to designated areas. The 1991 budget announced that expenditure incurred in the refurbishment of property for rented accommodation within the designated areas could be set off against rental income from all sources for tax purposes. In all other areas this type of expenditure can only be set off against rental income from the refurbishment property in question. The budget also extends the scheme to the designated areas until 31 May 1993. It expires in all other areas on 21 March 1992. These changes should substantially increase the volume of refurbishment work and the creation of residential accommodation within the designated areas.

This is one of the most significant things that has happened for many years as regards inner city renewal in any budget. There was an over-supply of office accommodation in the inner city and it was very worrying that the trend was almost exclusively towards offices. Because of the changes in the budget we will now see a huge move towards residential accommodation and we will really get what we want — the so-called living city back to the centre of Dublin. I would like to congratulate the Minister on these changes because in the long term they will probably be the most significant thing to have happened for inner city renewal for many years.

Mr. Ross

I think that the Appropriation Act, with its rather wide scope, is an appropriate time very briefly to review the performance of this Government in certain areas, particularly in the spending area. When I examined the record of this Government and of the last Government I found that in some areas it has shown refreshingly great strength and in others it has obviously great drawbacks. It is fair and it is not so often that these sounds and noises come from these benches — to say that in the area of finance, in the area of looking after the country's finances, the Government have been extremely successful. I do not think that that is something which is disputed very often by many people on the moderate opposition side in this country. It would be wrong if from these benches, which are after all independent benches, we constantly carped at what the Government have done, especially in the economy area. Since 1987 and up to recently, when there are obviously grounds for misgivings, the Government's performance in the economic area has been a highly successful one. It was noticeable that for that particular policy from 1987-89 the Government, broadly speaking, got the support of the Opposition.

That seems to have changed now, and has changed for reasons which are particularly relevant to this Bill in that the Government were opposed in their Programme for Economic and Social Progress, as recently as last week in this House and before that in the other House, because there were real fears that Government spending was now going to get out of control. There were real fears that the public sector is going to be paid too much, that much of what has been gained since 1987 and 1989 is about to be thrown away because of political cowardice and difficulties which the Government feel they are facing in the economic field.

It may be that the Government strategy through luck, and only through luck, may succeed. It may be that because the Gulf War has been so short and because the world recession may be shorter than anticipated a few months ago, the growth figures which the Government have thrown at us will be fulfilled. I still doubt it, but I think it is possible. It may well be that this will happen, but that will be a matter of luck. It should be acknowledged that we are not economically masters of our own destiny and that the growth rate in this country really depends more on external factors than on internal factors. But, having taken that away, it is only fair to say that Government policies on expenditure and tax have been successful and the Government should be commended for that. There are dangers which lie ahead in certain areas, but so far the Government should be commended for what they have done in this area. It was certainly more successful than the last Government was on the economy. That is as far as I go in commending the last two Governments for their success in the last three or four years.

As recently as yesterday Deputy Bruton raised a very important issue in the Dáil and was not allowed to discuss it at any length. It seems to me that in the last few months Government policy on Northern Ireland has been extremely reactionary, extremely unhelpful and extremely dishonest. The Brooke talks, which have now being going on for——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)

I think the Senator is getting away from the motion.

Mr. Ross

I presume that money is being spent on Government policy in Northern Ireland. It cannot be done for nothing.

Acting Chairman

I do not think Northern Ireland is appropriate to the Appropriation Act.

Mr. Ross

Of course, it is appropriate because Government money is spent on Northern Ireland policy. It you can persuade me that it costs the Government nothing to send Government Ministers to the North and to England to discuss matters I will accept what you are saying; but otherwise, with respect, I suggest that you are absolutely incorrect.

By the Taoiseach accusing Deputy Bruton yesterday of being disloyal for opposing Government policy, he was stating that he was being disloyal to a party policy. He was impugning his motives when he is opposing Fianna Fáil Party policy. That is not disloyalty. That is a very important and very vital function of democracy. What Deputy Bruton was saying yesterday was absolutely correct. If the Taoiseach has no interest in devolution, which he has not, he is going to scupper these talks and he will be to blame for this and not the Unionist Party.

What is happening on these talks is quite simple. The Government here wants to talk about a united Ireland and the Unionists do not want to talk about a united Ireland. That is the real problem which lies behind all the jargon and mumbo-jumbo with which we are fed from these talks. The lack of information about what is happening is what is so disturbing. It is a fair question to ask: what is wrong with devolution? Surely the answer to the Northern Ireland problem must be that the people there solve it one way or the other among themselves. If the Taoiseach does not like devolution and if the Taoiseach simply wants a united Ireland or nothing, he should say so. He is sending out coded signals to his own troops which means this and he is saying something else in public. It would be far more honest if he were to say that he only wants to talk to the Unionists about one particular matter. There is a solution to the problem. He can quite simply say that we will not enter into those talks until the Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland have come to an agreement. He can say that and then the talks will go ahead.

Acting Chairman

You are not talking about finance, you are talking about Northern Ireland policy. You are not talking about finance to Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Doyle

He is talking about Vote 3, the Department of the Taoiseach — salaries and expenses contained therein.

Acting Chairman

He has not mentioned money since he started.

Mr. Ross

With great respect, I have mentioned money on several occasions. If you can prove to me that Government policy in Northern Ireland costs nothing I will accept your ruling but as I understand it all policies cost money.

Mr. E. Ryan

On a point of Order, does the Chair have to prove anything to the Senator? Surely the Senator has to prove to the Chair——

Acting Chairman

I do not have to prove anything but I want to point out to him that he is straying from the subject. He knows that he is straying. By his smile he indicates he is straying. He is saying "I will challenge you". I am not challenging anybody; I am only pointing something out.

Mr. Ross

I understand your point and as I mention policies in Northern Ireland I shall try to mention where it is costing money. I was coming to a close on that point. The Government have the power to allow these talks to come to a successful conclusion by saying; "Go ahead", to the Northern Ireland parties, "we will not obstruct you and we will talk to you when you have settled your problems". By imposing a veto on that process they are obstructing those talks and, I would suggest, promoting the continuation of antagonism and violence in Northern Ireland. I think it is outrageous that as part of that policy——

Acting Chairman

It is unfair to make that statement. We are not promoting any antagonism or any problems in Northern Ireland; we are doing our best to try to resolve them and the Senator knows that the Government are trying their best.

Mr. Ross

I suggest that that remark would be more appropriately made from over there rather than from where the Acting Chairman sits. It is a political charge and it is one which I have to stand by although you may not like it. It may not be fair but it is a political charge behind which I have to stand.

Mrs. Doyle

The Taoiseach's allegations of disloyalty to Deputy John Bruton were not fair either, I can assure you.

Acting Chairman

Senator Doyle will have 15 minutes in a few minutes time.

Mr. Ross

It must be said that concessions have been made on the Unionist side in Northern Ireland. I heard Deputy Bruton say on the radio today at 1 o'clock that the Unionists have given way on the issue of not speaking until the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been suspended. They have agreed to speak while the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Maryfield are still in place. It is time this Government made the serious concession of taking a hands-off position and allowing the parties in Northern Ireland to get on with the dialogue. I am sorry if the Acting Chairman finds that politically distasteful.

I would like to say a few words about Government policy on foreign affairs. This also costs the Exchequer money because, if I am not incorrect, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been travelling around India recently. Presumably I am allowed to comment on that. The Government policy on foreign affairs in the last two years has been utterly disappointing and in certain areas has been grossly hypocritical. It is right in the light of the Gulf War to say, first of all, that the Government took a correct pose but it took it late and reluctantly and not virtuously or voluntarily. It was regrettable that there was no great desire or eagerness or indication from the Government at the beginning of hostilities that they were willing to back the allied forces or that they were willing to take what was perceived as a pro-UN line. There was a lot of pussy-footing around and a lot of phoney references to peace by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We had very little option, as it happened, but to back the UN and allied forces and the line taken by the EC. It was very difficult for the Government, because of the political posture which they had taken on neutrality, to take that line. I think the Government's attitude to neutrality was exposed by the fact that we were part of the United Nations. Being part of the United Nations means that we are part of a military pact. It was regrettable — I am open to correction on this point but not the other points on which I have already been corrected — that we should be the only EC country who did not positively contribute towards the UN effort in the Gulf War. We were the ones dragging our feet. We were happy to get on board that particular band wagon once the war was over but we dragged our feet while the war was on. If we were not willing to send troops or military there we could have sent field hospitals or have sent people in a less hostile and less military capacity but we did not do this. We went along with the allied effort and with the United Nations effort but we did so reluctantly and without any great distinction.

It would have been consistent and honourable of us to have announced immediately that Shannon could be used by the United Nations forces, whereas we delayed an announcement and equivocated about it.

Our foreign policy for the last three years has been based not on any particular principles but has stumbled from one particular foreign policy to another, taking a different line in different crises. We should make quite clear the attitude which we as a nation are going to take in future to countries such as Iraq, or to any country run by tyrants or by governments who have absolutely no respect for human rights.

I was very privileged last year to travel to South Africa where many wrongs have been committed against humanity and where many such violations have been documented. I would have been delighted to have seen the Government leading the charge as it did in favour of the continued imposition of sanctions against South Africa if it had practised the same scrupulousness about human rights in other countries. It is not very consistent to surround oneself with a virtuous halo about South Africa when one is simultaneously trading with one of the most wicked regimes in the world. It was quite obvious to me that our foreign policy was based on pure expediency when I saw that we were happy to oppose the removal of sanctions against South Africa but to continue trading with Iraq. That is an exposure of the sort of double thinking which this Government have been carrying on for many years. I hope that the contortions in which the Gulf War has left the Government will force us to improve our foreign policy and to have a consistent one.

Mrs. Doyle

I shall run through some of the different Votes here in no particular order of importance. First, I would like to bring to the attention of the House, under Vote 3, the urgent need for facilities for large-scale organic conservation and for conservation tanks for organic material generally. I do this with one discovery in mind, although there are many others. I have in mind the Monks boat which was discovered in Lough Léin in County Westmeath. This is a discovery of international significance but because we do not have the conservation tanks in the National Museum, in the Office of Public Works or in the Wetland Archaeology Unit of UCD, we have no way of preserving this unique find. It is equivalent to the Derrynaflan Chalice but it did not make the headlines. We have the equivalent of four Derrynaflans or similar chalices. We have one of these unique constructed boats dating back to between the 2nd and 4th centuries.

The neglect of our heritage has to be deplored. New conservation tanks were promised. There was talk of building them in the old military billets at the back of the Department of Agriculture but those plans were shelved. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance to indicate where they will be built and to promise immediate and urgent construction so that we can preserve some of the most important aspects of our heritage such as this Monks boat which is of international significance.

Under Vote 6 I must question the present desecration of the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham. I do not think many Members in either House are aware of what is going on but sections of the interior are being destroyed to make way for the Modern Art Gallery or to afford extra space to the National Gallery for hanging modern Irish art. This is being done at the direction of the Taoiseach but, given the millions we spent on restoring and refurbishing the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham and the affection in which it is held and its important place in our heritage I would like to know from the Minister why the interior is being torn apart to provide facilities for the National Gallery. It is not good enough that we would abuse one aspect of our heritage to preserve another. There must be a better way to proceed.

I would like to turn to Vote 7 — Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance. I would like to raise a matter that I have previously raised on an Adjournment debate in this House but so far I have had no satisfactory answer regarding the position of Customs and Excise personnel given the imminence of a barrier-free market post 1992. When will the Minister for Finance consider the thousands of Customs and Excise officers and indicate what future they will have? Will it be redeployment or voluntary redundancy? Will there be an agreement with the Revenue section to absorb some of these very skilled men and women into that section of the Department of Finance? They have waited for direction for years. 1992 is now but a year away and so far the Minister has failed to look after a section of his Department which provides an invaluable service. Will they provide some sort of customs service to ensure that drugs or contraband goods of one type or another are not imported into our country? The length of time these people have been asked to wait without any direction regarding their future is unacceptable. They are a section of the public service that deserve to be treated with more dignity than the Minister is giving them at the moment.

Customs clearance agents are another group who are going to be badly affected by the Single European Market. I am giving some examples of the downside of post-1992. We have a customs clearance agent network along our Border and at our ports. Automated entry processing is being insisted upon by the Minister for Finance. This would cost up to £5,000 per clearance agent company and it will add a cost of £4.50 to each customs entry. If we will have a customs free Europe or a tariff free Europe post-1992, why do we now need to invest in hardware or software for an automated entry processing system and for the direct trader input system? Will it be obsolete on 1 January 1993? I would like the Minister to answer these questions.

Why is it that the software is not yet available for the automated entry processing? It should have been up and running by 1 April 1991 on a pilot study basis, yet the software is not available because it has not yet been tested. Confusion abounds among this section which will be adversely affect by our switch to the Single Market post-1992. They deserve frankness and honesty and the Minister's time and attention. He has met the Border clearance agents but I do not think they are now any wiser than any agents in our ports. I want to know how they will be treated post-1992 and why AEP and DTI are now necessary if we will be in a Single Market with no borders and no tariffs post-1992. It is hard to understand.

Vote 21 deals with prisons. We could not discuss the Appropriation Act without mentioning the urgent need for proper juvenile detention facilities. The scandal of 15 year-old boys and girls being housed with hardened criminals in our main prisons is not acceptable or tolerable any longer. Could we have an indication of Government policy in this area?

Vote 23 deals with the Land Registry. The inordinate delays cannot have escaped the notice of any Member of the Oireachtas. We have been asked in clinics around the country to resolve and speed up matters in the Land Registry. What is the explanation? Do they need extra staff and resources? Can the system be speeded up to give some semblance of efficiency, given the important service this section of the public service provides?

Vote 25 deals with the Office of the Minister for the Environment. A social housing policy was published recently. When you go through the fine print and the talk you find that the Minister has stated that six extra houses per local housing authority will be built this year. When you divide the extra money available for new starts by the number of housing authorities it comes out at six extra per housing authority per year. Those are the figures. Seventeen new houses were built last year in County Wexford and we have 700 on our housing list which is an appalling neglect of our most important social requirement.

Vote 26 deals with the Office of the Minister for Education. Since 1986 plans for the vocational school in Wexford town have been in the Department. They are now on the Minister's desk but she continues to ignore the plight of 700 pupils and their staff. The school would want to be seen to be believed. Dickensian conditions have been tolerated by all sections for years. There are not even staff toilets in the school and no proper facilities for educating in the 1990s in this most important sector. The Minister will not meet the Vocational Education Committee let alone the Oireachtas Members to hear the case. It is not acceptable in this area.

Vote 30 deals with the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Marine. I would like to ask the Minister if any progress has been made in relation to the anomalies in the social welfare and income tax codes for share fishermen. These arose out of the McLaughlin High Court judgment in 1986 and at the moment share fishermen find in most cases that they are not covered under the social welfare code. With the stormy winters we have been having and the lack of fishing most of them are not eligible for any social welfare benefits, social welfare assistance, medical cards or a decrease in their rent because they have no way of proving their income or their social welfare entitlements. The Minister promised to meet Frank Doyle of the IFO months ago to resolve the ongoing difficulties for this most important constituency.

Over 2,000 fishermen, women and their families around our coastline have been affected by the McLaughlin judgment. When will the Minister either seek a judicial review or go back to the Attorney General for a further interpretation of the 1986 judgment so that these people can have their basic entitlements under the social welfare code honoured? The confusion is not the result of the fishermen's activities or their skippers but extends from that McLaughlin judgment. The salmon review group reported many years ago. We continue to neglect the potential of inland fisheries. It is an important environmental and tourism resource. Are we going to implement the recommendations of the salmon review group or is the Government going to continue to ignore them? What is the Government's policy in this area?

Vote 32 deals with the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The Minister has managed to stand over the decimation of the economic unit and the research section of Teagasc. These are two essential areas for the future development of agriculture and for Irish farming and land use generally, given the environmental importance of making the right decisions in relation to farming and in relation to the use of fertilisers, pesticides and the need to be vigilant in regard to our water courses. I am not going to go into the CAP and GATT areas. We would need more than the short time allocated to us tonight to do justice to that problem. The future of farming depends on the interpretations of the economic unit and on research from the research unit of Teagasc. What are we going to do to rectify the decimation of these units?

Vote 40 refers to overseas development aid. We are still not making any attempt to live up to our UN obligations in this area. I do not have to paint the picture of the problems in Sudan and Ethiopia. Somehow the Gulf War pushed the story of the starving millions off the front pages and out of the media. We cannot renege on our obligations in this area and it is up to the Minister to recognise that the people of Ireland have given him the mandate to do so. They have done that through their own voluntary generosity to the non-governmental organisations. The Minister continues to ignore the strong message and wishes of our people in this area.

Vote 42 refers to the Department of Health. It is now many years since a case was made for the provision of a full paediatric service at Wexford General Hospital. I now quote from the Irish Medical Journal of December 1990:

In a ten year review from 1980-89 of Wexford perinatal statistics particular emphasis was placed on neonatal deaths and transfer rates of normally formed infants.

It has been shown that sick infants treated in units without paediatric skills have a threefold increase in their odds of dying and survivors could be expected to have a higher incidence of handicap compared to those treated in properly staffed units. Wexford General Hospital is a medium-sized maternity hospital without onsite paediatrician.

It is unacceptable in the 1990s that a general hospital with a catchment area of over 100,000 as in Wexford's case, especially one with a busy maternity unit, be deprived of experts and support staff to care for sick children.

The appointment of one paediatrician — and a post was advertised last week — would inevitably result in even more transfers when he or she is off duty or on holiday and is, therefore, unacceptable. Those are the views of the IMJ and of doctors who have researched this matter. At least two must be appointed to provide a continuous service. That is the view of the Wexford paediatric action group. It is the view of us across political boundaries who support the provision of a full paediatric service with the necessary nursing and medical back-up staff, accommodation and equipment. One paediatrician would increase transfers to either Ardkeen or Dublin and would increase perinatal mortality over what it would be if the service was available where the maternity unit is situated, i.e., in Wexford General Hospital.

In Cavan-Monaghan, which has one-third the birth rate of Wexford General Hospital, there are two paediatricians and the necessary staff. Which Minister comes from Cavan-Monaghan? Need I say any more? The Minister for Health has also refused to meet the Wexford paediatric action group or to meet Wexford Oireachtas Members who can explain the situation. He has agreed to one paediatrician but he cut back the South-Eastern Health Board's budget by £1.8 million. Three into two does not go and we all recognise that. I would urge the Minister to meet the action group and Oireachtas Members and to go that one extra step of providing two consultants. He has approved of one consultant. The salary of one extra consultant would be a very small cost in terms of the overall cost of a full paediatric service at Wexford General Hospital. I would plead with the Minister for the sake of the neonates and the young children in our 100,000 population catchment area to go that extra step of the road and to establish a full paediatric service with two consultants at Wexford General Hospital.

I do not have time to deal with the increase in insurance premiums. I would like to know if any report has come from the task force which was made up of officials from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to insurance premiums? There is legislation promised in this area. It is a very difficult area, particularly for young drivers who must drive to get to and from work, or to obtain work.

I understand that time is against me and I respect your ruling, Sir. I would like to put on the record that Fine Gael did not agree to a 15 minute restriction on contributions in relation to as important an issue as the Appropriation Act. Broad legislation like this, where one can address a wide range of financial and economic matters, should not be time restricted. If necessary we can sit on Wednesday mornings and on Fridays to allow longer contributions because many areas have only been skimmed over because of time restrictions.

Acting Chairman

The House agreed last week——

Mrs. Doyle

Fine Gael did not agree.

Acting Chairman

Fine Gael does not comprise the House, in its entirety. The House is obliged to undertake to fulfil that agreement, as we have done. On this occasion I regret that the Senator's time is short.

Mrs. Doyle

I was rushed.

Acting Chairman

The time agreed was 15 minutes per speaker and we cannot depart from that.

Mrs. Doyle

We will be more vigilant about time in future on the Order of Business.

Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce (Mr. Smith)

The debate on the Appropriation Act has provided this House with an opportunity to present its views on overall economic performance and future prospects, particularly in regard to expenditure. Senators have once again taken full advantage of the wide scope of the debate to deliver constructive criticism of Government policy and to highlight areas where achievements are being made.

Much has happened since this debate was adjourned for the Christmas recess and in the short period given to me to wind up the debate I would like to update the House very briefly on these developments, as well as replying to some of the major points made during the course of the discussions.

On the economic front, 1990 was a good year for the economy which grew by about 5 per cent, repeating the performance of 1989. We have had two years of strong growth back to back, for the first time in many years. This shows what sensible national consensus combined with prudent fiscal management and declining budget deficits can achieve. Exchequer borrowing at £462 million, or 2 per cent of GNP, was closely in line with the budget estimate.

It was a good year on the prices front also. By November the CPI had fallen to only 2.7 per cent, one of the lowest rates in the EC and well below that of the United Kingdom, our largest export destination. Consumer spending grew steadily last year and investment continued to forge ahead, helped in the construction sector by an enlarged contribution from the Structural Funds. Above all, employment, the ultimate test of the strength of the economy, and the ultimate vindication of economic policy, decisions and actions grew strongly. Government borrowing is now at its lowest level in over 40 years and the debt-GNP ratio is on a firm downward path. At the end of 1990 it stood at just over 111 per cent of GNP as compared to its peak level of 131 per cent of GNP in 1987.

Since I last addressed the House on the 1990 Appropriation Act, the 1991 Budget has been introduced. The objectives which underlie this year's budget are to ensure continued economic growth, to achieve a further enduring increase in employment, to improve living standards generally, to care for the weakest in our society. We want to consolidate the progress made over the past few years in restoring economic stability and order to the public finances. The budget will give us non-inflationary economic growth of 2.25 per cent this year, which is as good as the EC average. It will maintain a healthy balance of payments situation.

The process of tax reform is also continuing. Income tax rates have been reduced again, the standard rate to 29 per cent and the top rate to 52 per cent, and progress is being maintained in the restructuring of the VAT regime to prepare for 1992.

We have again made it a priority to ensure that the disadvantaged in our society will benefit from the economic progress we are achieving. The policy remains to give most to those who need most. Weekly welfare payments will increase generally by 4 per cent from July and there will be special increases of up to 11 per cent for those on lower payments. The low paid will benefit from increases in income tax exemption limits, the particular focus in the budget on bigger families and the improved family income supplement schemes.

Since the Christmas adjournment there has been a successful outcome to the negotiations with the social partners on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The new programme provides us with the planning framework we need for stability and progress over the medium to long term. It represents the first instalment of a ten year national enterprise. What it means is that the Government have entered into a charter with the social partners to achieve agreed objectives. We have a shared plan which can produce benefits for all.

Central to this renewed consensus is the new pay agreement between the social partners and the Government. This agreement should continue the good work of the Programme for National Recovery. It holds out the prospect of three more years of industrial peace. It provides for pay increases which, so long as we match international productivity performance, are affordable in competitive terms as well as being reasonable for both employees and employers.

Equally important, the programme is fair to the unemployed in the sense that it is aimed at, and should produce, enhanced prospects for job creation. The programme clearly reaffirms our commitment in relation to the public finances while indicating the key priorities for action.

Turning to the prospects for 1991, most of the favourable factors which have helped our economy over recent years are still in place. The exception is the international economy which is experiencing a slowdown, with the US and UK showing signs of recession. Prospects for growth in other areas appear to be holding up reasonably well. However, with a 2 per cent rise forecast for the OECD as a whole, a marginally better growth rate is in prospect for the European Community. The Gulf crisis poses obvious difficulties for forecasting but I remain confident we can match the likely EC growth rate. Inflation should be even lower on average than last year at about 3 per cent. We are adopting responsible fiscal monetary and income policies. These are our best insurance against the present international uncertainties. As the Minister for Finance indicated in his budget speech, a more difficult world environment requires us to be more not less resolute in our adherence to the prudent stance which has been our hallmark in recent years.

I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Senators at various stages in the debate. In the debate before Christmas, Senator Upton spoke rather gloomily about the prospects of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare being implemented. Since then a number of important developments have taken place. The first of these occurred in January when the new Programme for Economic and Social Progress was negotiated by the social partners. This programme commits the Government to ongoing reform of the social welfare system broadly within the framework outlined by the Commission on Social Welfare. Specifically, and most importantly, the programme commits the Government to move by 1993 to the priority level of rates recommended by the Commission and thereafter to increase social welfare rates further and progressively in accordance with the recommendations of the commission as the resources of the economy grow. These commitments represent a major initiative and underline in the clearest possible manner that the care and protection of those dependent on social welfare remain a top priority of Government policy.

This year's budget represented the first phase in the implementation of the new programme's social welfare objectives. It contained a package of improvements which will bring gross expenditure on social welfare to over £3 billion a year. As I have already mentioned, weekly payments will be increased in general by 4 per cent from July and there will be a special increase of up to 11 per cent for those on the lowest payments. Significant improvements in child income support for those on social welfare and those at work on low pay were also announced in the budget.

Senator O'Toole was disappointed to find no provision in the Estimates for the cost of implementing the report of the Review Body on Primary Education. Since the first part of the debate on 20 December he will have been gratified by the many developments in this connection which have been initiated under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. A substantial improvement will be effected in the pupil-teacher ratio. Generous provision is being made for the hiring of caretakers and clerical assistants and the free books scheme is being improved. He will welcome these and other developments which move further in the direction which the review body has recommended.

Senator Upton raised, among other things, the question of access to third level education. The Government share his anxiety and that is why the programme emphasises the need for further measures in favour of the disadvantaged. Special provision is being made for mature and second chance students and moves are being initiated to encourage young people from a disadvantaged background to stay on at school and improve their chances of going to third level education.

Senator Avril Doyle asked a question in connection with educational development, particularly in her constituency. The Senator will understand that there will always be some areas where, for the time being, resources are not available. I do not have the details with regard to the specific project but she will know that we have, proportionately speaking, more people in primary, second level and third level combined than any country in the western world. We have one million young people at school, representing almost 30 per cent of our population. The total amount this year for education is £1,450 million. It is the highest ever and in the context of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress some major advances are proposed not least in the pupil-teacher ratio but also in a range of recommendations from the primary review board and other sectors.

It is somewhat unfair of the Senator in the context of choosing a particular school — I do not know the detail — that may not be listed as one for which there is adequate finance at the moment. I will certainly have a look to see where it lies in a priority——

Mrs. Doyle

It is unfair of the Minister for Education to refuse to meet the vocational committee and the Oireachtas Members.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Smith

The Senator should not use this debate as a lever to indicate any fault on the part of the Government in the context of——

Mrs. Doyle

Any fault? The Government are not infallible.

Mr. Smith

——providing resources for education and delivering a service which is on a par with that in most western countries. We have a huge percentage of our population at school and in the past number of years she, as a former Deputy, supported the measures taken in the Dáil to try to put the economy into shape which would enable it to go forward and deal with the outstanding issues. The distinction between this Government and the Government the Senator supported is that we are paying for every school we build and for everything we do in education. We are not transferring to a future generation the obligation to pay our debts for services we are providing now.

Mrs. Doyle

The Government are good learners. They learned from us that they should not mortgage their children's future.

An Cathaoirleach

I must insist on order during the course of this debate. The Minister must be allowed to continue without any further interruption.

Mrs. Doyle

If he is provocative, I shall reply.

An Cathaoirleach

Do not be baited.

Mr. Smith

I am prepared to take a little interruption now and then if, in the course of the debate, I have opportunity to point out to Senator Doyle the correctness of what Fianna Fáil are doing in this context. If it hurts to the point that it makes the Senator uneasy——

Mrs. Doyle

It hurts the 700 children in Wexford vocational school.

Mr. Smith

The Senator is anxious to break the rules of the House.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzgerald)

The Minister to continue without interruption or I will suspend the House.

Mr. Smith

The fault could be a little on my side as well. I can be provocative now and then.

The health services came in for much critical comment particularly the issue of waiting lists. Waiting lists are a feature of all health systems throughout the world. To some extent, they are a symptom of success as medical technology allows for the treatment of previously incurable conditions.

One of the areas referred to was orthopaedic surgery. We would certainly like to be able to deal almost on demand with elderly people who suffer from authorities and are in so much pain. In the course of the last year the number of operations for orthopaedic patients was 300 more than the previous year. We are not saying that is adequate but, as you know, orthopaedic services have developed in a way which was unimaginable ten years ago. Younger patients are being treated now and the range of services has been extended. We will concentrate as many resources as possible in all these areas. The waiting list for most specialities is not excessive but it is accepted that there are some areas which need to be addressed, particularly orthopaedic and ear, nose and throat procedures. Steady progress had been made over the past two years in significantly reducing long waiting lists. The number of hip replacements performed nationally increased from 1,624 in 1987 to 1,904 in 1989. Similarly, the ENT waiting list at Temple Street hospital fell from 1,228 on 1 November, 1989 to 550 on the same date in 1990. These are specific tangible results which have been achieved as a result of initiatives taken in 1989 and contained throughout 1990. They are part of a continuing drive to reduce waiting lists. The Minister for Health proposes to continue to build on this progress.

The Government's approach to the care of the mentally handicapped is concentrating on moving mentally handicapped persons from an institutional setting to an environment which is more suited to their needs. However, the need for residential care facilities is recognised. The provision in the 1990 budget of an additional £2 million for the mentally handicapped allowed, among other things, for the opening of a number of additional residential places at Cheeverstown House. The Government have provided a level of funding for mentally handicapped services which has ensured that this sector is fully protected. This is reflected by the 40 per cent increase since 1987 in allocations for voluntary agencies dealing with mental handicap. The 1991 provision continues this policy of protection for the mentally handicapped.

It is part of the Department of Health's policy that preventive medicine be promoted and developed. In 1990 an estimated £8.480 million was spent on the prevention of infectious diseases, including vaccination programmes for measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis B. A further £1.08 million was spent on health promotion at both national and local level. Of particular importance in this field is the development, in conjunction with the Department of Education, of an AIDS education pack. A national policy on alcohol is also being developed under the aegis of the National Health Council. A further £14.515 million was spent in 1990 in respect of other preventative health services including child health examinations, food hygiene and standards and the drugs advisory services.

For the total health estimates this year the Government will provide in excess of £1,550 million — over £100 million greater that that provided last year and the largest amount ever spent on the health services in the history of the State. Yet in spite of that increase, we have claims being made of cutbacks. Senator Doyle referred to a cutback of £1.8 million for the South-Eastern Health Board. An increase has been given to that health board. The fact that the increase has not met the estimate sought, which is what the Senator is referring to, not a cutback, by the South-Eastern Health Board is not the true position. The Minister for Health has made further changes which, in the light of experience this year, will help to ease any problems that are facing health boards generally.

As far as the paediatric services for Wexford are concerned, it is a detailed matter and I will communicate the information to the Deputy. A fairly substantial amount of money is being spent on Wexford hospital. We are glad that the South-Eastern Health Board have given priority to the developments in that hospital. I have had some experience of the services there. I am sure the Senator will agree that it is an excellent hospital.

Mrs. Doyle

It is an excellent hospital but we need a paediatric unit.

Mr. Smith

The extension and the additional services that will come onstream will be provided as resources permit. I know the Senator will understand that when she accuses the Government of being soft on current expenditure and not sticking to rigid lines, as did Senator Ross, it is not possible to combine those two policies.

Mrs. Doyle

They have it in Cavan-Monaghan with one-third the birth rate. We cannot understand Government policy.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senator to allow the Minister to continue.

Mrs. Doyle

Perhaps we have no Minister. Is that the problem in Wexford?

Acting Chairman

If the Senator persists she will have to leave the House. I will suspend the sitting.

Mr. Smith

You have procedures in Wexford that are not available in Cavan-Monaghan.

Mrs. Doyle

What are they?

Mr. Smith

Time does not permit me to go into the details but the Senator knows what they are. Many Senators raised the question of social housing. We have now, with the support of the parties to the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, decided to introduce a range of new measures to diversify the traditional approach to housing needs. The new strategy will embrace all sectors of the housing market, public, private, rented, owner-occupied and voluntary housing. While local authority house building and rental programmes will continue to be an important element of housing policy, there will be a new focus on community based and self-help housing initiatives backed by new Government funded schemes. Tenants in the private rented sector will have new safeguards and residents in local authority estates can look forward to continuing improvements in their housing conditions and have a greater say in how their estates are run.

I refer to Senator Doyle's remark that there will be only six additional local authority houses provided this year. The figure for last year was something like 1,500 houses completed in the country. There is a similar figure this year as well as the new provisions in voluntary housing. Each year something like 3,500 to 4,000 houses become available in the normal way to the local authority.

Mrs. Doyle

Do not confuse what I said.

Mr. Smith

It means that the total number of houses available — it is the total we are concerned about——

Mrs. Doyle

I was talking about local authority new houses.

Mr. Smith

Senators McDonald and Upton both painted a bleak picture for the agricultural sector. It must be acknowledged that 1990 was a difficult year for farmers. The outlook for the current year is also uncertain. The outcome of the GATT negotiations and the Commission proposals for CAP reform will be awaited with concern. I assure Senators that my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will vigorously defend the interests of the Irish farm sector. The need to maintain a viable farming sector must be accepted by the Community. I would not, therefore, be as pessimistic as the two Senators about the future prospects for Irish agriculture.

The position on the extension of the disadvantaged areas is that the case put to the EC Commission by the Minister for Agriculture and Food is being actively pursued and the necessary Commission proposals are expected shortly. However, as announced in the budget in order to support farm incomes it has been decided to bring forward to this year the increases in headage rates scheduled for 1992. This decision taken with the expected increase in the disadvantaged areas will be worth an extra £19 million to farmers this year and £27.5 million next year.

There are one or two other specific areas which I will touch on. I thank Senator Ryan for his compliments in relation to decisions taken by the Government over the last four or five years in terms of inner city renewal. He is obviously very familiar with and understands how necessary these developments are. I thank Senator Ross — I seldom have the opportunity of doing so — for complimenting the Government on their success on the economic policy front. He was good enough to compare this Government's performance since 1987 with any previous administration's and to say that we come out tops. He fears public expenditure will get out of control. I would like to allay his fears on that front. He referred to the Government's foreign policy. This is not an occasion on which to debate these matters. He had quite a simplistic view of the developments that are taking place not only in the context of Northern Ireland but also in the Gulf. He will be and should be aware that this Government are giving painstaking attention to the Northern problem. We have nothing to apologise for in terms of our efforts or our stance——

Mrs. Doyle

Does the Minister support devolution?

Mr. Smith

——on the Gulf crisis. Senator Doyle raised other issues and on a number of them we would not find it possible to give detailed answers at a moment's notice.

As regards the protection of our heritage and the enhancement of our architectural and archaeological landscape and peatlands, I must say that as far as this Government and their immediate predecessor are concerned the investment in renewal and development of many of our old architectural buildings, the involvement of young people, and the support for voluntary groups has been without parallel. We could come on certain matters that have not yet been resolved. In relation to the queries raised by Senator Doyle, I will have them examined.

Mrs. Doyle

Thank you.

Mr. Smith

There is no way I could accept the implications in Senator Doyle's remarks to the effect that there was neglect. As far as the leadership of this Government is concerned, the Taoiseach's interest in, contribution to and love of these areas has not been matched by anyone, and particularly not by his immediate predecessor.

Mrs. Doyle

Conservation of organic material is at a critical stage.

Mr. Smith

As regards the effect of 1992 on existing staff in Customs and Excise, we are moving progressively towards major changes. As these matters affect personnel they will be dealt with through the normal channels. There is no point in suggesting that the Government should solve problems which have not yet arisen. I assure the Senator that these matters are being examined and that the Government are concerned to find suitable alternatives and employment for the staff involved. These matters will be the subject of negotiation between the interested parties, their unions and representatives. The whole thrust of policy in terms of the national programme has been to reach a consensus. We will treat matters in that area as well as we can.

Juvenile detention has been mentioned. We are conscious that we do not have all the answers. Great efforts have been made in recent years to find additional space and provide community work but when it comes to very young offenders and admission to psychiatric hospitals, etc. there are accommodation problems. They do not necessarily involve new structures in the sense of the State being totally committed all the time to finding solutions. This is part and parcel of where society is going. We have to try to work together, bring in voluntary organisations and liaise with and support the family in such cases. It is not all about structures and new buildings. I am very conscious of the number of those cases that have arisen in recent months. We must see to what extent the Departments of Education, Social Welfare and Justice can help to find solutions.

I have tried to cover the points raised. I hope I have allayed the general concerns expressed on these topics by Members of the House and that I have demonstrated that many of the specific concerns have been addressed by the Government in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don méid a bhí le rá ag an Seanadóir Ó Foighil. Tá amhras ar an Seanadóir, go háirithe maidir le seasamh an Rialtais i leith na Gaeilge. Ní miste a rá go bhfuil Meastacháin Roinn na Gaeltachta don bhliain atá faoi chaibidil 3.1 faoin gcéad níos airde ná an caiteachas glan don bhliain roimhe sin agus go bhfuil an soláthar don bhliain reatha 6.2 faoin gcéad níos airde ná an caiteachas glan anuraidh. Bhí an cúnamh airgid a fuair Údarás na Gaeltachta ón Stát 30 faoin gcéad níos airde ná an bhliain roimhe sin. Tá an soláthar don bhliain reatha 62 faoin gcéad níos airde ná anuraidh. Léiríonn na méaduithe seo, d'ainneoin na laincisí airgeadais atá ann, dáiríreacht an Rialtais i leith na Gaeilge.

Maidir le seirbhís teilifíse i nGaeilge, chun cur leis an méid a dúirt mé roimh an Nollaig, tá an cheist seo á scrúdú faoi láthair agus déanfar cinneadh ina thaobh chomh luath agus is féidir. Ba mhaith liom freisin freagra a thabhairt ar chuid de na pointí a rinne an Seanadóir maidir leis na leibhéil fhoirne sna réimsí sin le daoine atá ag plé leis an Ghaeilge i dTithe an Oireachtais. Thagair sé do chúrsaí foirne Rannóg an Aistriúcháin. Tá socrú déanta comórtas a chur ar siúl chun aistritheoirí sóisearecha a earcú, agus, nuair a bhunófar painéal tar éis an chomórtais sin, is féidir an cheist a scrúdú maidir le haistritheoirí breise a cheapadh. Caithféar é sin a dhéanamh, áfach, i gcómhthéacs na n-éileamh iomadúil maidir le breis foirne sna Tithe trí chéile.

Maidir le foireann a chur ar fáil do Sheomra na Gaeilge bhí sé i gceist foir eann a chur ar fáil ar feadh roinnt uair a chloig ar laethanta suí ach, de bharr seirbhís aistriúcháin chomhuainigh a chur ar fáil sa Seanad, cuireadh éileamh breise ar an fhoireann atá i Rannóg an Aistriúcháin faoi láthair. D'ardaigh an Seanadóir Ó Foighil an cheist freisin i dtaobh gan ach rúnaí páirtaimseartha a bheith ann do Chomhchoiste don Ghaeilge. Tá sé sin de réir na socruithe atá ann le fada an lá maidir le foireann an choiste sin.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Fallon

It is proposed to sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.