Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Oct 1988

Vol. 383 No. 5

Estimates for Public Services, 1989, and Public Capital Programme, 1989: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Finance on Tuesday, 25 October 1988:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the 1989 Estimates for the Public Services (Abridged Version) and of the 1989 Summary Public Capital Programme.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 4:
After "Programme" to add to the Motion:
"published by the Government on 18th October, 1988. In noting the publication of the 1989 Estimates Dáil Éireann draws attention to the fact that they present only one part of the budgetary and financial picture for 1989, and resolves to have a full debate on each estimate as amended, as soon as possible after the 1989 Budget."
—Deputy Noonan(Limerick East).

I came in this evening to say a few brief words and to make three points. First, my party are not supporting these Estimates as we did last year because we believe there is increasing evidence of the Government becoming essentially a Government of accountants and book keepers without adequate respect or understanding of the overriding obligation on Governments to concern themselves with the quality of life of people. The Government are much too narrowly focused in terms of looking at the columns of figures rather than at the queues of people at the unemployment exchanges or the hospitals waiting to be looked after.

I am disappointed therefore that that evidence is not increasingly obvious to a party who, whatever other faults some of us might have said they had in the past, were believed to have a feeling for the quality of life of people. I have never seen a group of Cabinet Ministers become so out of touch with reality so quickly as have the members of this Government.

I find it incomprehensible that a Minister for Health should try to defend the indefensible in the face of the evidence all about him that there is a very serious crisis of both morale and quality of service in the hospitals. It is preposterous that the Minister for the Environment, in the wake of these Estimates, can deny in the Dáil, as he did yesterday, that there is likely to be any difficulty in the area of housing when it is perfectly clear that there will be a major shortfall in the area of units of accommodation available for those at present listed for such accommodation.

I am saddened about that because there was a broad area of agreement that a Government that got down to the job of trying to correct the public finances needed some basis of reasonable understanding from Opposition parties to some extent that understanding, which was evident and was available, has been abused, because there is a corresponding obligation on a minority Government not to act as if they had a majority. Unless the honest and genuine concerns of people in all parties, including the Government party, about the quality of life of people is taken on board, undoubtedly this Government will have failed, not just from the point of view of delivering a quality of service, but electorally, although that is not necessarily the most important failure in this context.

I am disappointed that the overriding concern the Government have, even in areas like health and environment, seems to be with the absolute obligation to balance the books. I have been naive to believe that that was the job of the Minister for Finance who dealt with that internally and related his concerns and his strictures to his colleagues but I thought that the job of the Minister for the Environment was to concern himself with environmental issues in the broadest sense of the word and that the job of the Minister for Health was to do likewise in the health area. The reality is that in the health area, for example, there has been a number of incidents in the last 12 to 14 months which have involved very serious questions over the way people have been treated or appear to have been treated in hospitals or referred home from hospitals and, in a number of cases, have died, allegedly as a result. I asked the Minister to investigate two cases and to put it mildly the results of both those investigations were not fully presented to the Dáil, to any member of the public, to the families concerned or to me.

I am aware that at present there is speculation about the closing of Temple Street Hospital, the only children's hospital on the north side of Dublin. I am not going to go into the implications which the closure of this hospital would have for the local community but this fear is widely propagated by those working in the hospital and by the unions representing them. It is impossible to get a clear pronouncement from the Government. People have a right to an adequate medical service and there is an overriding obligation on the Government to say in the context of the Estimate for the Department of Health: "Hold on a moment, let us see if the concern which is being widely voiced at all levels of the community is justified". I appeal to the Government to review their very hard approach to spending in the health area. Many of us would argue that there is room for better management systems and greater efficiency in the health area but in the meantime while we are waiting for the glorious day when those systems will be put in place we should remember that there are people who need attention but who are not getting it and who are being sent from Billy to Jack and sometimes from Jack to their homes without getting proper medical attention. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Health to ensure that that does not happen. I am aware of cases in my own constituency and in other constitutencies where this has occurred.

In recent times my party leader gave examples of cases where, for example, women had to give birth in a man's ward. It is intolerable that there are incredibly long waiting lists for basic services, particularly when we look at the details contained in the Estimates. For example, in the Estimate for the Department of the Environment there is an increase of 209 per cent under the heading "office premises" but when we come to deal with those people who are not represented in this House, such as travellers, we find naturally enough that there has been a reduction as apparently there is in every other area where it is politic and easy to clatter the weak. Ultimately, what the failure of the general medical service means is the creation of a two-tier health system with the ordinary patient who cannot afford VHI premiums having to depend on the general medical service. I have no doubt that the Government are failing to protect the wellbeing and health of those people. I do not get any pleasure from saying that because I wish the Government well in their efforts but at the same time there is no point in us failing to do our job which is to say that the people whom we represent have a right to be listened to, not just the economic masters who appear to dictate in every Department. I challenge the Government to address this concern and to review what is happening down along the line, at the cliff face, in the health area.

In relation to the Department of the Environment, in which I have a particular interest, have responsibility for on behalf of my own party and have some experience of having been a member of a local authority for many years, I can assure the Minister and the Government that there is a serious problem in that on the one hand the rate support grant is being slashed while on the other the increasing obligation on local authorities to carry out their statutory functions cannot be met because of a shortfall in funds. I take the view that it is simply not enough to ask for more funds for local authorities, I would prefer to see a major restructuring of the local authorities and the devolution of power in certain areas to local authorities, giving them the right to raise their own finances to deal with some of their responsibilities. While we are waiting for that kind of reform, and we have waited for decades for it, in the interim there is an overriding obligation on the Government to look after the interests of those who are at the end of the line in respect of all the services which local authorities exist to provide, such as housing and sanitary services.

I am aware of cases where the accommodation in which people are living is simply not fit for human habitation. I do not use those words in their legal sense which is a very narrow definition applied by the local authorities but in their commonsensical interpretation. During the past few years substantial progress has been made in the provision of housing but unfortunately a very serious problem is pending which will manifest itself in the next two or three years when the clawback in the area of investment for housing infrastructure will produce the inevitable crisis. There is an obligation on the Minister to explain precisely how that can be squared with the figure contained in the Estimate. I am aware that it is easy for someone to come into this House and pick out one or two of the Estimates and deal with them without looking at the broad picture but there are enough of us who are looking at the broad picture. It appears that the Taoiseach and his Ministers are also concerned about the broad picture and the broad picture ultimately can be narrowed down to individuals with their needs, fears and weaknesses and the need for people in this House to speak up on their behalf.

In the area of health there is a very serious problem. I am aware of one recent case where a boy suffering from leukaemia was referred to three different hospitals while suffering from a serious respiratory problem. In the context of that child being entitled to the same level of treatment as the loftiest in the land regardless of illness, that is not good enough and no concern about the national finances should take precedence over the health of that young boy.

For three and a half years I chaired the Committee of Public Expenditure who produced 26 reports on how this State wastes money. It does so day in, day out in many Departments. If we are serious about this we would start with our own house and the way in which money is spent within Departments and the lack of management systems and accountability within those Departments. We should consider the implications of the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the excellent work now being done by the Committee of Public Accounts under the chairmanship of Deputy Gay Mitchell. Every day that committee tell us how money is being wasted but apparently we are sacrosanct and the way in which Departments organise their affairs goes unscathed and those who make mistakes and to be fair those who do excellent work are left as they are. That is not good enough.

When we come to the broad picture of the public finances I am not that impressed because at the bottom of it all I see a queue of people who believe that the public representatives are there to do something about the quality of their lives. Essentially therefore what I want to say about this Book of Estimates is that it amounts to a set of figures, and their presentation allow Ministers to stand up and say that we are making progress in some respects. The bottom line is that vast numbers of our people are being forced to emigrate and a growing number of our people are getting a degenerating health service. There is virtual anarchy in parts of our cities. I am in politics some 20 years and I have never seen a more serious crime problem then the one I have seen during recent months in the city centre of Dublin where gangs of young thugs, some of them as young as eight or nine years of age, systematically burn old people out of their homes under the eyes of their parents who apparently neither have the will nor the interest to do anything about it. I suspect that they are a generation of people who ten years ago had their own problems and now find themselves unable to cope. We are all aware of the lack of morale in the Garda Síochána — we have heard them refer to it — but there are serious problems in regard to the quality of life of those living in these areas.

Finally, all I want to say is that when all the figures are wiped away and all of us have done the best we can each of us in this House is in here ultimately to help those people because the strong will take care of themselves. In the context of worrying about the quality of life, this Government are failing abysmally. They hope that a combination of popular economic support from a number of commentators who do not see the texture of the lives of ordinary people, allied with the emigration boat, will keep them broadly on line. In my view that is not what they were elected to do.

I appeal to the Ministers involved, particularly the Ministers for Health and the Environment to go back to their roots, to visit the hospitals, preferably without a fanfare, and talk to their constituents, councillors and backbenchers and to listen to some people in the Opposition. Then they will know all is not right at that level. When we talk blithely about doing something about the public finances, we may be doing that at the expense of people who should not be dealt within that way. Those who are strong in the community, in the public service and in the Government Departments, have once again managed to insulate themselves from the need for attention at their level. That is what concerns me, and I believe I have been elected to say that in this House.

My party have endeavoured to extend some measure of support to this Government on occasional votes when it seemed proper to do so. Last year we were the only party to support the Government on the Estimates, despite the popular misconception to the contrary, but we are not doing that this year. We put the Government on notice that we believe that that facility, that willingness to assist, is being abused by a refusal to listen, a refusal to recognise their minority and, therefore, vulnerable position and, from my point of view, and by reference to the broad picture, without referring to the detail of the qualify of life of the people at the bottom of the scale who are suffering abysmally, and whom this Government appear to be willing to put to one side.

I am tempted to follow the line taken by Deputy O'Donoghue, who spoke a short time ago when he was talking about the cause of our present economic difficulties, but I think we would arrive at different conclusions. I wish to speak about the deflationary impact of the proposed Estimates in 1989 on the economy and to perhaps look at the very sluggish level of consumer spending, and the low level of domestic investment, factors which are present in our economy and which are the cause of a very sluggish, if not sick, indigenous economy, the effects of which are to some extent masked by a good performance from a narrow sector of our manufacturing industry but which do not contribute proportionately to the growth of the economy. This is a limted debate and there will be opportunities no doubt on the budget debate in the New Year to cover the more general aspects of the Government's economic and fiscal policy.

I want to confine myself in this debate to the estimated amount for the Department of Defence in 1989. We all recall a short time ago that it was announced the Nobel Peace Prize this year was being awarded to the United Nations peace keeping forces. We all heard this announcement with pleasure and pride because of the prominent part our Defence Forces have taken in the United Nations peace keeping operations over the years. Members of the Government were quick to pay tribute to members of the Defence Forces, and regally so, tributes which were echoed here this afternoon by the Minister for Defence. In the course of his tribute he indicated the wide variety of domestic duties performed by the Defence Forces and how they had come to the aid of the civil power in so many and different ways on many occasions and at all times with efficiency and in a way that the Government of the day knew they could rely totally on their ability to deal with the task given to them.

When I hear all these tributes and examine the amount that is proposed to be spent on the Permanent Defence Forces in 1989, all these flowing tributes ring very hollow. Looking at the Estimate for 1989 it is quite clear that our Defence Forces will be underpaid, undermanned and under-equipped again. The inadequate level of pay in the Defence Forces has compelled soldiers' spouses to unite in a national protest movement, to culminate outside the gates of this House next week.

I live in a garrison town and know the members of the Defence Forces and their families. They do not want to be in this position. Their husbands do not want them doing this, and it is undignified for them to have to do it, but they are forced into it by the failure of the Government to recognise the pay and conditions pertaining in the Defence Forces.

Some four or five months ago a pay review body was set up when this agitation first began, but they still have not reported. There is a net issue involved and I am puzzled why they have not reported. This pay budget received many submissions from various sectors of the Defence Forces who were only too well aware of their position, and who were only too well acquainted with the facts to support to pay submission compared with other State institutions. I know comprehensive submissions were made to this body sometime ago. They have all the facts on the table and yet they have failed to bring forward a recommendation or a report.

I am led to the conclusion that the pay review body was a cosmetic exercise, a political gesture by the Minister in the hope that he would dampen this agitation, but he misunderstood the depth of feeling and the real needs behind this agitation. I disagreed with him when he told the House that all this agitation was a campaign in the media. The media are reporting the campaign, but let me assure the Minister that the campaign is for real. There is a genuine sense of deep grievance in the Defence Forces manifested in this unique demonstration by their wives.

I appeal to the Government to urge this pay review body to make their report. They must be in a position to do so.

Having regard to the submissions made, they must be in a position to recommend a significant increase in Army pay. I appeal to the Government to accept that recommendation and to implement the pay increase immediately. The Government need not fear any knock-on effect if they deal generously with the Defence Forces, because I submit they stand alone in terms of industrial relations and work conditions. They should be dealt with separately and generously. There are precedents for that, and the Minister mentioned one this afternoon. They can be and they should be dealt with separately and not left to bring up the rear of the public service agreements, conciliation and so on and take whatever crumbs fall from that table. When I look at the Estimate I wonder where is the provision for extra pay if the review body should so recommend, as I confidently expect they have done. It would be incredible if they could not or would not having regard to the case that is being made to them.

If the strength of the Defence Forces is to be maintained in 1989 at the 1988 level the pay provisions put forward under subhead B for 1989 would be barely adequate to cover the increases already in the pipeline under the national pay agreement. They will not provide for any further increases. Consequently, the only way in which a pay increase can be granted within the financial limit of the Estimate is by reducing the number in the Defence Forces for 1989. If we have fewer men we can afford to pay them more.

I see another signal in the Estimate to support my prognosis that the number will be let fall. The provision for allowances under subhead C has been significantly reduced. In cash terms it has been reduced from £17.2 million to £16.6 million at a time when the duties attracting those allowances show no sign of diminishing. The only explanation for that is that there will be fewer personnel in 1989. Consequently, the demand on this subhead will be less. If numbers are to be reduced, as I suspect they will be, then conditions in the Army will become totally intolerable. The present strength is not sufficient to enable the Army to discharge all the tasks that have been given to it and at the same time give the members of the Defence Forces a reasonable standard of living. The incidence is now unduly harsh. Men are subject to call-out on 24 hour duty at an unacceptably frequent level.

In 1986 the number of "other ranks" stood at 12,450. The number budgeted for in 1988 is 11,600, a reduction of 7 per cent. If a pay increase is to be given within the limits set in the Book of Estimates that number has to drop even further. If that happens the damage to morale and efficiency will be incredibly serious. The Army is under-equipped. There has been a 25 per cent reduction between 1987 and 1989 under subhead H which deals with defensive equipment, that is the Army's hardware. I know from personal experience that the level of equipment available to the Army is the bare minimum to keep the morale at the level it should be and to keep professional expertise at the level it should be. To see that subhead being further diminished means that the capacity of the Army to keep up to date and to keep a proper level of equipment, of weapons and munitions, that an army needs for its morale to be at a right state will not be attainable in 1989.

I note there is a significant drop in the sum provided for mechanical transport, for Army vehicles such as landrovers. That figure has dropped since 1986 from £5.3 million to £3.1 million. From personal knowledge I can say that the transport fleet in 1986 was aged and much of it was unreliable. It was only kept going because of the proficiency and expertise of the Supply and Transport Corps to cannibalise vehicles to keep other vehicles on the road. The Army is sadly lacking in heavy lorries to transport troops. I always have a fear of a repetition of the humiliating experience of 1969 when private buses had to be hired to move troops to positions along the Border. The position in 1986 was serious enough but it was containable and was being improved on a phased basis. However, it must have worsened because allocations since 1986 have been progressively less each year.

I am extremely worried that the sum being provided for the Defence Forces for 1989 will be inadequate. It will not provide the level of pay increase that is so necessary in terms of equity and in terms of proper reward to people carrying out an important task for the State. The level of manpower will become critically low. Why I think the Government are going to do down the road of reducing manpower is confirmed by another signal in the Estimates under subhead M which provides for uniforms and personal equipment that soldiers wear and carry. That subhead has been reduced and the only way that can be done is in the expectation that there will be fewer men to clothe in 1989 than there were in 1988. The Defence Forces are facing a very gloomy 1989 but the Government do not seem to realise the pivotal and basic role that the Defence Forces play in our democracy. They are the last guardians of our democracy and their efficiency in playing that role depends on them being maintained at an adequate strength. It depends, very importantly, on their morale being high and that, in turn, depends on them having a reasonable standard of pay, reasonable conditions and a reasonable level of strength so that the incidence and burden of duty does not fall too frequently and with consequent hardship and damage to their family lives.

It is hypocritical of the Government to praise the Defence Forces — indeed, I understand they are planning a formal occasion to recognise the granting of the Nobel Peace Prize — for their great contribution to UN peacekeeping operations for the last 30 years, to praise them for their devotion to duty and their assistance to the civil power since the foundation of the State while, at the same time, not providing the wherewithal to ensure that the personnel can live without hardship, discharge their tasks without undue hardship and have the proper equipment to do that. Far too often the Defence Forces are regarded as the Cinderella of the State services. They are only thought of when everybody else has been provided for. That is a dangerous and shortsighted attitude. The Estimate being provided for 1989, unfortunately, confirms a continuation of that thinking about the Defence Forces.

It is widely recognised that since Fianna Fáil took office revitalisation has taken place throughout the economy. That has occurred because of the policies pursued by the Government in the past two years. When they took office the difficult options facing the country were spelt out clearly. We had a choice of following two roads, either take decisions for the betterment of the community but which imposed hardships on certain sectors, or take the easy option like the previous Government did for more than four years. The policies pursued by the Coalition created massive problems and we are paying for them today.

I listened with interest to the many contributions to this debate and I could not help wondering if some of the speakers were involved in decision-making on behalf of the country. We are all aware of the destruction under the previous Government with the national debt doubling, unemployment rising to the highest figure in the history of the State, inflation rampant and interest rates at their highest. I should like to pay tribute to the Government for the way they faced up to their responsibilities and tackled the difficult issues. The people recognise the necessity for this. The figure for inflation is now 2 per cent per annum, the lowest for over 20 years; interest rates have fallen by 6 per cent and industry has benefited from a reduction in electricity prices, this has helped the whole economy and the community at large. Difficult decisions were taken in 1987 and 1988 to create a new environment for growth. Opposition spokesmen disapproved of these decisions but they have been proved wrong. One of the major factors was the reduction in interest rates. There has been a great improvement in confidence throughout the economy and for the first time in many years the people see hope for the future.

There is no doubt that the tax amnesty which was a once off major boost for tax revenue has helped many companies, particularly small companies who, for many years because of costs, found that they could not meet their financial commitments. There are cowboys in every industry and every sector but many companies found it very difficult to meet their commitments and the amnesty gave them an opportunity to get their house in order. The receipt of over £500 million in taxes due to the State is a clear indication of the foresight of the Government in pursuing this line. Revenue which was rightly owed to the State was collected and, as I have already said, it also gave many industries the opportunity to get their house in order and to prepare for the revitalisation of the economy which is taking place at present. No doubt it will take a lot of the pressure from many of these enterprises who have had very difficult years and it will now put them back on a sound financial footing. I would appeal to many of those people to ensure that they now keep their tax affairs in order. We must ensure that industry is properly geared to take its place in 1992.

Comments have been made about unemployment. Certainly unemployment is far too high, we would all agree on that. However, a recent survey showed an increase of 6,000 people in employment in the economy, the first increase in employment since 1980. That again is an indication that the policies of the Government are working. Everybody, irrespective of their political affiliations, must recognise this as a very important factor. The numbers on the live register are being reduced and work is being created throughout the community.

We have heard a lot about the completion of the internal market in 1992. This will have implications for the country, particularly for industry and other sectors. I would like to pay tribute to the Government and to Ministers, particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who have devoted a lot of time travelling the country to ensure that industrialists and the people involved are fully aware of the implications of the single market in 1992. We can look forward with confidence in the belief that we can take our place in Europe without any fear. Naturally there are pluses and minuses. The success of people such as Stephen Roche, Seán Kelly, our soccer team, those who have taken part in the Olympics and the Paralympics and also the most recent golfing success shows very clearly that a small nation like ours can take its place in Europe. I am sure that the success of all those sports people will give confidence to people generally throughout the country.

I wish to refer to the area of social welfare. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister in particular and to the Government for ensuring that there were no cuts in this area. Provision is made in the Estimates to protect the less well off in the community. From time to time during the year statements were made about certain benefits that were going to be cut but the Estimates have proved once again Fianna Fáil's commitment to ensuring that the less well off in the community are protected.

I would like to mention one or two areas. Free fuel is very important for people at winter time but there are anomalies. A certain sector of the community is being left out because they cannot qualify for one reason or another. Some of those people are a lot worse off than some of the people who qualify. That is the area the Minister should consider.

I would also like to refer to medical referees. I know they have a very thankless job. People have been cut off from receiving social welfare benefit and rightly so in many cases because they had been receiving it for many years when they should not have been receiving it at all. However, I have come across some very genuine cases where medical referees have cut people off from receiving benefit, their own GPs having found them unfit for work. Some of them had been attending consultants who also found them unfit for work. Because they are not then considered to be available for work they are in a catch-22 situation. The Minister should address this matter very quickly because it is causing problems for such people.

I compliment the Minister on tackling social welfare abuse and fraud. About £66 million has been saved in this area since March 1987. I want to assure people here today that anyone who is entitled to benefit will get it, they have nothing to fear from this Minister or this Government but people who are claiming under false pretences should watch out. I am delighted that the clampdown on fraud has been such a success. There are too many people claiming from the State and were it not for the people who are claiming under false pretences, the less well off would be receiving much better benefits. We cannot allow this to continue. I am delighted that the Minister has tackled this area because fraud is widespread. It has been identified by the Department of Social Welfare that in Wicklow two out of 129 subcontractors in the timber industry were not registered with the Revenue Commissioners. That is one simple example of the scale of fraud.

I would like to refer to the Department of the Environment and the £39 million referred to in the Estimates. The Minister has introduced a very important scheme for special housing needs for the elderly. The people in Cork benefited last year from two schemes which provided that special housing would be made available for the elderly. Unfortunately, there are people in estates who are very unhappy and nervous because of the increase in crime and vandalism. This special housing will give them an opportunity to live in a comfortable home, cared for by people who are interested in their well being. I welcome this scheme very much and I would ask the Minister to increase the allocation in this area.

By regulation, I am due to call the Tánaiste at 4.45 p.m.

Therefore I have approximately five minutes. There are a few points I want to make but I better deal with the ones that to me are very important. Before I make my general comments I want to say that I support fully the case made by my colleague, Deputy Cooney, in relation to the pay and conditions of members of the Defence Force. I had the honour of being a party spokesman for Defence at one stage and this brought me into contact with a number of the problems which confront the Defence Force. We pay tribute to the Defence Force. Their loyalty and contribution to the State can never be questioned. I appeal to the Government to expedite this long-awaited report so that some of the problems, at least, facing the Defence Force can be resolved. Our Defence Force are known throughout the world for their contribution to world peace. We pay tribute to them but it is important that the issue of pay and conditions is resolved.

I am sorry to say that during the debate of the Estimates I have not heard one sentence to comfort people who are in difficulty at this time. I wish to deal with the issues of unemployment and emigration. In the past three days I have heard nothing from the Government benches but complimentary contributions and tributes being paid to the Government and to Ministers for what they have achieved. I ask whether they realise that the people are confronted with serious problems? It is essential to recognise there is a problem before you can provide a solution. It would appear from what has been said from the Government benches that they do not realise that there are serious problems with regard to unemployment, emigration, law and order and the difficulties of trying desperately to make ends meet.

I am delighted that the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister of State, Deputy Denis Gallagher, are here because I want to bring a very serious point to their notice. This very day I was in contact with officials in the Department of Agriculture and Food with regard to the payment of grants. I was told by officials that they are no longer replying to representations or phone calls made by Deputies, or to the representations made by the public because they are overworked. If this is true, and if the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Government are aware it is true I appeal to them to take steps to immediately rectify the problem. I am here to represent people in my constituency who have problems. We must have access to public officials within the Departments who can resolve some of those problems or inform the people of the exact position. Last week I was informed in another Department that they were 30 days behind in opening the post. I regard this as a very serious matter.

I am glad that the Minister for the Environment has decided to visit County Cork. I hope he will get an opportunity to visit my constituency. I find it very disturbing to hear the Minister and speakers from the Government benches saying that the local authorities are doing well, that they have ample funds and can resolve the problems in their respective areas. I am not a member of a local authority, but I believe the local authorities are strangled by a lack of funds. During the past three years that this Government have been in office the rate support grant to local authorities has been reduced. I understand that there will be a reduction of £10 million this year. This will have serious consequences for the local authorities.

I know the Minister for the Environment cannot be held responsible for the serious flooding in Cork during the past ten days but I maintain that the Coalition Government set the precedent by making funds available immediately to resolve the problem of flooding in another part of the country. I heard the Minister for the Environment's contribution last night and I wish to point out that he ignored the problems facing the local authorities.

In my constituency people cannot gain access to their homes because of the flooding. In fact in my constituency, Cork North-West, certain roads were literally swept away. Certain people who had parked their cars cannot take them away because of the state of the county roads. This is an emergency. I hope that when the Minister returns from his visit to Cork that he will make funds available immediately to the local authorities, and in particular to Cork County Council so that they can attend to this very serious problem.

Acting Chairman

It is now 4.45 and I must call the Tánaiste.

I accept your ruling.

I thank all Members of the House who contributed to a very constructive debate on the 1989 Estimates and Public Capital Programme. It is important that the Dáil should have an early opportunity to air their views on the Government's spending strategy for 1989. I thank the House for the general approval that has been expressed on the Government's achievement in ensuring that for the second year in succession the publication of the spending plans has been placed before the House well before the beginning of the financial year. This is a basic sign of good management, a key factor in this Government's success. For the second year in succession the Dáil will have an opportunity to examine properly prepared Estimates before the budget.

The Opposition parties cannot agree on a basis to criticise the Estimates. On the one hand, some Deputies have been critical of the Government's failure to make even more drastic cuts, while on the other hand the Government have been criticised for their unduly harsh approach. That is the type of behaviour that caused the collapse of the previous Government. Their confused response is clear evidence that the Government's strategy is correct.

I want to give the lie to certain allegations with regard to the figures. Both Deputy Noonan (Limerick East) and Deputy McDowell focused their attention on the figure of £224 million savings. Their figure is wrong. The correct figure is £311 million. They must take as the relevant basis for comparison the 1989 published allocations and what the expenditure would otherwise have been in the absence of the decisions that were taken by this Government. The real saving is £311 million. Let us have no more arguments about that.

The charge that there is an absence of any strategic direction has also been levelled against the Government. We totally reject that charge. We have shown good management since coming into Government and our budgetary and economic strategies have also been made clear. We want to create, and to a large degree we have created the conditions necessary for sustainable growth in output and thereby employment. In order to establish these conditions we had, as a priority, to restore order to public finances which were drifting towards economic bankruptcy in the last month of the previous Government. We had to stabilise the ratio between debt and gross national product.

While stabilisation of national debt and gross national product and the ratio between them sounds like a financial objective, it has very important and basic social dimension. Stabilising the debtGNP ratio means putting a firm basis under the public finances of the economy. This is essential to the future prospects of all in our society and especially for the less fortunate. They are the groups who would suffer first and hardest if the economy was allowed to drift into serious crisis. In those countries which have allowed the debt problem to crush the economy it is the less fortunate and less well off who have suffered most. Our objective is to create the financial and economic environment in which a greater level of investment can take place and thereby facilitate job creation.

Several Deputies have also criticised the reductions in the Public Capital Programme. Quite simply, the need to further reduce our deficit has meant that capital expenditure had to be reduced in 1989. The equation that public expenditure equals more jobs has been proposed by more than one speaker in this House and is entirely fallacious and an over-simplification. Too often in the past bad investments which may have yielded beneficial results in terms of extra jobs in the short term developed into severe financial burdens on the State and disemployment in the medium and long term. Such expenditure contributed in no small way to the economic difficulties created over four years by the last Coalition Government and which we are currently tackling and, I am glad to say, now show evidence of having been surmounted. The financial policies pursued by the previous Government led to the unemployment crisis. We are now pulling out of that by rectifying our public finances and providing the economic environment for further investment and loss. We are concerned that this should not happen again. The House can be assured that as far as our capital programme is concerned, we will manage the limited resources available to the greatest effect. What is required here is management of the public finances with the objective of job creation. The allocations which we have made over a wide sphere of areas have all been the result of commitment by public funding to projects. In our circumstances this can yield a good economic and social dividend which in its place, provided it is properly allocated can also result in a rising graph in regard to jobs.

On coming into office this Government brought forward the implementation date for social welfare increases from November to July. We have given welfare increases in excess of inflation, in some cases considerably so. Welfare recipients generally have got increases totalling 6 per cent over the past two years which is way ahead of the inflation rate which is now down below 4 per cent. For recipients on the lowest rate of welfare, those most deserving, particularly those on unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowances the increases have totalled over 14 per cent. We have also helped families on welfare thorough this year's rationalisation of child dependence allowances which was of particular value to larger families.

In the course of this debate some Deputies accused the Government of being only concerned about getting the books straight. I have sought to emphasise that getting the books straight and getting the public finances in order is only a means towards the end objective of employment and of dealing with unemployment and emigration that lessen our employment prospects. The twin aims of the Programme for National Recovery were to restore order to the public finances and in doing that to revitalise the national economy. I remind these Deputies that there was no chance of creating jobs in the numbers we need if the fundamental financial imbalances of the community were not eradicated — as they have been over the past 18 months.

(Limerick East): Is the Tánaiste reading Deputy Dukes's speech for the last election?

Arising from this improved fiscal background is the evidence of growing economic activity against a background which we have created and which Ministers for Finance over the past four years failed to create. I will mention a few basic criteria straightaway. Interest rates are now down to 6½ per cent in the past year. That is an incredible barometer of real achievement and a stimulant towards investment.

How many people were made redundant?

It is down by over 6 points on what it was and it is well below the EC average.

(Limerick East): It is down to 6½ qer cent.

The growth in manufacturing output has become more broadly based. The value of personal consumption has expanded and the balance of payments position is strengthened further. I will give the House further facts on the job creation aspects.

And the redundancies.

Total employment grew by 6,000 in the 12 months to last April. The ESRI forecast for employment for last April was 14,000 lower than what has recently been revealed by the labour force survey total. A particularly encouraging factor of the survey was that it showed that total services employment rose by 10,000 despite a large fall in public service numbers. This means that under the improving economic environment, the private sector is responding and the graph that has now started will accelerate further in the months and years ahead. These trends will be further boosted by a series of measures recently announced under the programme to boost job creation in areas such as tourism, fishing, forestry and agriculture. The employment increase shown by the 1988 labour force survey is only the beginning. Once the growth rate of employment rises, we will ensure that this rate will improve and that unemployment will continue to fall and involuntary emigration will fall as a matter of course.

(Limerick-East): Very well.

These are the facts of the situation. I wish to emphasise them because they show that the Government have a positive strategy to make use of the improved economic and financial environment which we have created over the past 18 months. Having criticised the estimates for not being severe enough, Deputy Noonan has attempted to raise the spectre of general tax increases in next year's budget. Such a ploy will not work. The Deputy has presented the options in very stark and very simplistic, if not dishonest terms.

(Limerick-East): That is uncalled for.

We can cut or we can tax or we can borrow. There is a further option and it is our option. It is good management of the public finances, good management of the economy, good management so as to encourage investment here in both extensions and new developments.

(Interruptions.)

There is an inflow of funds from within the country and outside the country. So far as our economic strategy is concerned, we have faced up to the enormous difficulties created by simple Government incompetence over the four years before we took office. We have introduced an element of sound management into running this country and have made considerable progress in so doing. It is clear that the budgetary policies which we have adopted are paying dividends, our strategy is working out and the whole economy is coming right. That has been achieved in 18 months of Government with a unity of prupose and leadership. The whole trouble in the previous Government was that the rats started to flee from the sinking ship and the Fine Gael Party was left at the end of the day holding the can while the Labour Party scuttled for shelter. We have not flinched from the task.

Our Programme for National Recovery, backed by our social partners, backed by a national understanding with the trade unions, backed by an understanding on the part of the farming organisations and the employer organisations is in accordance with European Community plans until 1992. We will be discussing that aspect with President Delors tomorrow sure in the knowledge that when the Community is satisfied, as it now is, that there is a Government in place the Community will make the additional funds available to us. These funds would not have been forthcoming from a Community faced with a rudderless and leaderless Administration in this country.

Finally I wish to say that the Labour Party amendment is, of course, totally unacceptable and so is The Workers' Party amendment. They adopt the very simplistic view that I have just mentioned and show no understanding of the relationship between public spending and growth, and they show no recognition again of the importance of public spending as part of an overall sound management of the economy. That is the strategy — sound management of the economy. All the Labour Party and The Workers' Party have done is take out one aspect of what should be an overall management approach to the economy which includes interest rates, taxation rates, competitiveness and all the other policies being pursued by the Government which will in turn attract the very necessary help that we require from the European Community and which, as you will see in the months ahead, will be forthcoming on a regular basis from now to 1992.

(Limerick East): You do not have the matching funds.

However, the Fine Gael Party at the very least, while coming into the House and uttering words, know in their heart of hearts that we are right. That is why they hung on in very difficult circumstances in the dying days of the last Government. They hung on but they did not have the leadership or the support. They can come in here to the House and make idle or cheap talk but in their heart of hearts they know we are right, and for that reason we are accepting their amendment which is on all fours with our motion.

Item No. 12, motion in the name of the Minister for Finance, that Dáil Éireann takes note of the 1989 Estimates for the Public Services, (Abridged Version) and of the 1989 Summary Capital Programme. To that motion a number of amendments have been tabled. The first amendment I refer to is in the name of Deputy Michael Noonan, Limerick East. I am putting the question: “That amendment No. 4 be made.”

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 124; Níl, 17.

  • Abbott, Henry.
  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Birmingham, George.
  • Boland, John.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Matthew.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Colley, Anne.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coughlan, Mary T.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G.V.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hilliard, Colm Michael.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kennedy, Geraldine.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Michael.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCoy, John S.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Mooney, Mary.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael
  • (Limerick East).
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Dea, William Gerard.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Malley, Pat.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Swift, Brian.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Bell, Michael.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Quinn.
Amendment declared carried.

How stands the amendment in the name of Deputy McDowell?

Since it is substantially the same as that proposed by Deputy Noonan I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and insert the following:

(i) notes with grave concern that the Estimates for 1989 fail to address the many inequalities in our society, including the increasing incidence of poverty, as outlined in the recent ESRI study commissioned by the Combat Poverty Agency;

(ii) believes that these Estimates will lead to increased unemployment and emigration, particularly through the reductions in the summary Public Capital Programme and the Rates Support Grant;

(iii) notes that the Estimates fail to address the continuing and growing crisis in our seriously underfunded health service, and will lead to a further deterioration in that service, with consequent hardship throughout the community;

(iv) believes that the Estimates fail to take account also of the major reduction in access to education caused by the Estimates of 1987 and 1988, and will give rise to further inequality in that area through, for example, the cuts in school transport;

(v) believes that the Estimates will give rise to major cutbacks in essential local authority services, including the fire service;

(vi) believes that continuing cutbacks in housing allocations, at a time when there are more than 17,000 families on approved housing waiting lists, will lead inevitably to a major housing crisis, and is socially irresponsible;

(vii) believes that the further reductions in bilateral aid under the International Co-operation Estimate are totally justified;

(viii) notes that there is no provision in the Estimates to enable the continuing embargo on the filling of posts in the security forces (Garda, Army and Navy) which is causing a crisis of morale in those forces, to be ended, and that the provision for army pay is grossly inadequate in view of the Government's commitment to undertake a special review of pay in this area;

(ix) believes that the Government's failure to honour commitments to build regional technical colleges and hospitals in communities where the case for these facilities has been long-established is unacceptable;

(x) resolves therefore that these Estimates will deflate the economy further, and will increase the level of injustice in our society. Accordingly, Dáil Éireann rejects these Estimates and declares that it has no confidence in the Government.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 17.

  • Abbott, Henry.
  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Matthew.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary T.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fitzpatrick, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Hilliard, Colm Michael.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Michael.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Mooney, Mary.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
  • O'Dea, William Gerard.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Swift, Brian.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G.V.

Níl

  • Bell, Michael.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern: Níl, Deputies Howlin and Quinn.
Amendment declared lost.

The decision in respect of amendment No. 2 decides amendment No. 1 and disposes of amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies De Rossa and others. That amendment falls. The only question, therefore, before the House is that the motion, as amended, be agreed.

Question: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to," put and declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 November 1988.
Barr
Roinn