Deputy Callely was in possession. He indicated that he was sharing time with Deputy Kirk. As neither Deputy is in the House I now call on Deputy O'Donnell.
Private Members' Business. - National Development Plan 1994-1999: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Owen on Tuesday, 31 May 1994:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to publish this week the Revised National Plan showing clearly each alteration in any paragraph or commitment that is now different from the National Plan Programme originally submitted to Brussels.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recognising the major contribution to jobs and to Ireland's economic potential arising from the substantial investment to be made with EU structural funds and associated public and private expenditure, supports the strategy and priorities set out in theNational Development Plan, 1994-1999 and notes the success of the Government in ensuring that this strategy and these priorities will be fully reflected in the Community Support Framwork, 1994-1999, final details of which are now being settled.”
— (Minister for Finance).
I wish to share my time with Fine Gael.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
The Progressive Democrats supports this motion. There is little doubt that the National Development Plan, in its revised but as yet unseen form, will bear little resemblance to the plan launched with great pomp and ceremony at Dublin Castle last October. With the deadline for publication of the European Commission's approved version of this country's plan breached on 8 April last, it was immediately obvious that the Government had no intention of publishing the plan before the European elections. This is a masterpiece of political cowardice in the face of the forthcoming elections.
This must come as a relief to all the Fianna Fáil and Labour candidates in the European and by-elections. The voting will be over before the electorate will be told that many of the spending plans outlined in the National Development Plan are to be rephased, which is the euphemism for butchered. There is no doubt in my mind that the final plan will differ substantially from the original. The plan is being scaled down in two ways. Some of the major infrastructural projects will be delayed or severely curtailed and some of the projects not fully outlined in the original plan will be dropped. Of permanent importance to Dublin will be the shortfall affecting vital proposals such as the light rail project for Dublin, with one of the three lines now apparently scheduled to go because there is not enough money to proceed with the three light rail projects.
Our problems in ascertaining the level of structural funding we would secure in the period 1994-99 have been well documented in this House. Claiming it had secured funding of £8 billion, the Government proceeded to draw up and publish the original plan even when it knew it would never receive £8 billion from the EU. This was and continues to be self-delusion on an enormous scale and there is no doubt that public cynicism has never been greater because the Government is unable to come clean with the electorate on the realistic projects that will be implemented.
The figure we will receive is closer to £5.9 billion but, by a process of double counting, the Government believes it can get away with claiming that the figure is £7.2 billion. A review of spending allocations is proceeding in tandem with negotiations with the EC Commission in Brussels which must approve the plan before it is set down in the Community Support Framework, which will commit EU funding up to 1999.
The 10 per cent cut in the overall £20 billion plan — when Exchequer and private sector matching funding is taken into account — will mean substantial cuts across the board or the dropping of some projects. After the election we will witness an indecent squabble between Labour and Fianna Fáil Ministers about what projects are to be cut. Inevitably, the later start to some of the projects means that spending on some projects will stretch beyond 1999, the last year of the current batch of funding, but the Government will not be able to say for sure where the money will come from after that date.
There is no doubt that the dowry of this partnership Government was the Euro billions. That is a crude but true statement. It made attractive to Labour what had been inconceivable — an alliance with the arch enemy, Fianna Fáil. Now Government Ministers boast constantly in this House of the seamless union between the partners in Government. They should be mortified to say that there is a seamless union between two distinct political parties. Certainly, the Labour distinctive voice has gone.
Several fundamental problems instantly come to mind. In launching the original plan, the Government committed itself to several flagship projects, its criteria for the choice of such a project being the visibility of the project, something to which the Government could point and say, "We built that; that is ours". Coming from a variety of EU schemes there is more potential for the Government to fudge the funding. EU money, for example, supports a whole range of spending including headage payments to farmers, grants to industry and numerous educational and training programmes. I fully expect the Government to announce that Exchequer funds will make up for the lower than expected allocations of EU funding. That is unacceptable.
One thing the Labour Party loves to do even more than spending money, is announcing that it intends to spend taxpayers' and Euro money. It announces such plans with great ceremony. A responsible Government should be embarrassed by such profligate spending. A spirit of prudence and restraint should replace the attitute that we can bankroll every ministerial whim on the back of Structural Funds.
The fundamental premise of structural funding is that the EU, the State and the private sector would work as a partnership to improve Ireland's infrastructure, bringing us onto a par with our European counterparts. The Government's mishandling of the Structural Funds negotiations cannot mean that this economy carries the can for the shortfall in Euro funds.
In none of the key areas — agriculture, industry, education and training, would it be desirable or helpful to Government European election candidates that cast iron commitments given by Fianna Fáil and Labour would fail to be met. A firm commitment of £419 million in headage payments, with a promise of further extensions, was given to the farming community. Spending on industry, with a job creation target set at 200,000 gross jobs, was said to be untouchable. Education and training programmes catering — if we were to believe the original programme — for 1.2 million people by 1999, was secured. That plan has now been sent back to Brussels for renegotiation and rephasing.
The Government has a duty to the House to give details of the revisions to the plan that have been discussed with the EU Commission to date. That should be up front. Unless we get a clear outline of the annual level of investment from the EU, the Exchequer and the private sector and an indication of the level of alteration in the various programmes outlined in the original plan, Fianna Fáil and Labour candidates in the election are standing on an unsafe platform and are being less than honest. Elections are essentially contracts with the electorate. This Government sought and continues to seek a mandate for Europe on the basis of the original plan but this is a false plan, a moveable feast.
The Government must accept that there is a shortfall in the level of funding and proceed from there. It cannot continue to pretend that the plan as it exists will stand. If the Government insists that the plan will be implemented in its entirety then the taxpayer will make up the shortage of almost £2 billion. The money must come from somewhere. If the Government is not willing to give details of the negotiations on the plan to the House then it is obvious that it is involved in a ready-up and is not willing to face the electorate on the basis of a massively altered plan.
The real problem with the debate on these funds is that the investments, while welcome and electorally attractive, will do nothing to address the structural defects in our economy. The key question is: how will that growth translate into jobs? We have an economy which, in a textbook fashion, is doing well, yet many people are unemployed and there is an air of gloom about. The main barrier is the tax wedge and the Progressive Democrats will keep saying this because we believe it is so. The tax wedge is the difference between what it costs an employer to employ someone and what the employee takes home.
The culture of dependency is rife. A generation of young people are being weaned on dependency, on the notion that the State will pay. If there is one message that any good parent or Government can preach it is that one must be responsible for one's own achievement. The State is there to support individuals in their efforts. People must be encouraged to make their own way, to prosper and create jobs and wealth. Profit is still a dirty word in this economy but it is the key to encouraging the natural tendencies of the individual to prosper. Tax reform is the key to this. Levels of employment would indicate it is something we are actively trying to discourage rather than promote. The Government has done little or nothing to tackle the problem. it has only tinkered with taxation. The 1 per cent income levy and increased RPT are the only major milestones, or should I say, millstones, for which the Government will be remembered, not to mention the inequitable tax amnesty.
There are certain undeniable facts. Government spending of 17 per cent with inflation running at 3 per cent or less is a major structural defect. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work has further compounded the problem. Why does the Government not spell out targets to bring our debt to GDP ratio down to meet the Maastricht guidelines of 60 per cent? Why does it not adopt the NESC target of 95 per cent debt-GNP by 1996? More than anything else, why does it not set out clear tax targets? No targets have been set for a radical reform of the tax system. The Government is obsessed with pleasing the electorate and seducing people with spending we cannot afford.
With an overall majority of 35 seats, the largest in the history of the State, the Government had a real opportunity to implement major tax reform which was initiated by the last Government and to put the country on track to succeed in Europe in the next century. It wasted the opportunity. Afraid to give the economy the shake-up it needs, the Government is sleep-walking through financial administration and planning. It lurches from announcement to announcement of spending plans.
If we do not use this last large Structural Fund injection to address our massive structural difficulties, then the money will have been wasted — frittered away on a Government wish list. If this happens it will rank as one of the greatest wasted opportunities in the history of the State. We need a full debate on the revised or butchered national plan with details of alterations to and expenditure on projects made available to the House. We need a fundamental rethink of the whole premises of the plan.
With the problems we face as a small economy with a huge unemployment problem — a source of national shame to most people — the Government should be prudent, strict and tough on public expenditure. It should bend over backwards to support individuals and small businesses to better themselves and create jobs. I have heard union leaders talk about the constitutional right to work. The Progressive Democrats is the only party that agrees with this but not in the way Phil Flynn imagines. He sees it as the role of the State to be the employer. This is outdated, discredited statism that destroys personal initiative.
The Progressive Democrats believes that instead of the human set-aside of our present dependency culture where people are paid not to work, as promoted by this Government, we should ensure that people work for their dole and contribute to the economic welfare of the nation. They should liberate themselves from the human set-aside which is long term unemployment. It is obscene if there is no incentive for a married man with four children to take up a job because he is better off on the dole with all the ancillary supports. It is anti-job and anti-human. There is no socialist response to high unemployment except that the State will pay for everything. The State is you and I and it cannot sustain such high levels of mindless, futureless dependency.
There is a spirit of enterprise in the country which is stifled by statism. Creative people with great ideas are obstructed at every turn when they try to better themselves and their families. Many emigrate and make their contribution to America and Europe. They rise to the top of their chosen sectors. We all know them. We went to college with them. We know people who are successful in America, even though they just left college, because there is a spirit of enterprise in America which allows people to prosper. It does not stop them creating jobs. It allows them take risks and does not hamper them with bureaucracy. People are driven out of this country by high taxation and anti-enterprise policies. The individual spirit is stifled by bureaucracy and lack of opportunity. To employ one person is a bureaucratic nightmare. Anyone who legitimately employs child care and does not take on someone from the black economy is astounded by the form-filling and bureaucracy involved. One must get tax advice.
The Government is proving to be a high tax, big spending Government. A press release issued from the Tánaiste's office is enveloped in a fantastic, glossy, gold-leafed folder. This is profligate spending. When the report of the Kilkenny incest case was announced we were invited to a media launch at the Shelbourne Hotel. This was a report of a horrific case of incest. The Government is obsessed with gloss, the media event and pomp and ceremony. Every event is a big party occasion and involves major spending. As the days go on, it becomes more incredible.
There is no sign of the revised plan yet the Minister for Health announced that £7.5 million would be allocated to extend the Castlebar hospital project. Of course, it is in the month of the election. We have a sophisticated electorate who will be able to see through these pre-election promises. Before the 1992 general election many promises were made in my constituency. The then Minister for Education, Deputy Brennan, sanctioned a school in Dublin South. The project was cleared by the Department of Education and it was sanctioned the week before the election. Immediately after the election a new Government was formed and the project scrapped. That is the type of double standards and dishonesty people have had to endure since the last election and I have no doubt that they will experience more of the same after the elections on 9 June.
The Progressive Democrats supports the Fine Gael motion. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs said in his press release that the public had a right to know. It has a right to know the amount by which the National Development Plan will be butchered. I hope the electorate is sophisticated and smart enough to see through the lies being told in the run up to the European elections and the promises being made about spending. People are beginning to wise up to the Government.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Mar adeir an sean-fhocal, “an té nach bhfuil láidir caithfidh sé bheith glic”. Is féidir liom é sin a athrú agus a rá, “an Rialtas nach bhfuil láidir, caithfidh siad a bheith glic”.
Tá an Rialtas seo an-láidir ó thaobh uimhreacha de. Ní raibh Rialtas riamh chomh láidir leo ach ó thaobh calmachta agus, b'fhéidir ó thaobh macainte, tá siad an-lag. Bhí siad ag rá i gcónaí linn nach raibh gá ar bith le h-aon athrú a dhéanamh leis an bplean.
Is féidir gur chreid siad féin an ráiméis sin ach níor chreid aon duine eile é. Tá sé soléir go gcaithfidh siad athrú mór a dhéanamh don phlean agus anois, toisc go bhfuil toghchán ag teacht, níl siad in ann a rá linn cad iad na hathraithe a dhéanfar don bplean.
This entire episode reminds me of Paul Daniels, one of my favourite television performers — every time I watch him he is able to fool me with his magic. It is magic how the promised £8 billion decreased to £7.2 billion or £6.2 billion — I am never sure of the exact amount. Despite this major loss in funding we were repeatedly told by the Government that there was no need to revise the National Development Plan. It is bad enough to think that we lost £1 billion or £2 billion for silly reasons but it is a gross insult to people's intelligence to suggest that the plan would not have to be revised as a result of this loss of funding.
Reference has been continually made to the need for an Ethics in Government Bill, for high standards in office and open Government. Ethics in Government surely demand that the Government is honest in what it says in this House and does not insult anyone of normal intelligence by pretending that the reduction in EU funding would not lead to the plan being revised. The Government can hoodwink the public some of the time but it cannot fool it all of the time. I hope the public realises that after the elections it will be in for a shock in the context of the National Development Plan.
During the regional news slot on this evening's Six-One news the Minister for Education announced five new schools for Dublin. Having regard to the points made by Deputy O'Donnell, I hope these schools will not suddenly disappear after the elections. It is amazing how this announcement can be made almost on the eve of the elections. I do not suppose any announcement was made about the schools which will not be built. A few days ago £7.5 million was allocated for the Castlebar hospital. When one is talking about such large amounts in EU funding that amount is not of any great consequence. However, it is amazing how this money can be given out almost on the eve of the elections and in advance of the allocation of money from Europe under the National Development Plan.
We do not know what is in the National Development Plan or the amount of funding — we have not been given any information. From what I have read in the papers the delay in allocating the funding does not lie in Brussels. It must, therefore, follow that the delay has been at the request of the Government. It is shameful that a Government which has continually looked and fought for money from Europe should ask for the funding under the plan to be delayed merely because of the elections. This election gimmick should backfire on the Government. Many areas which are supposed to benefit under the plan will be shocked to find out after the elections that they will not be getting the amount they thought they would get. While it will be too late for them to vote against the Government at that stage, if they know in advance that they are in for a shock they will be in a position to do the right thing on voting day. Regardless of what the Government says, it is not possible to lose £1 billion or £2 billion without making changes to the plan.
We are supposed to have an open Government. Yet it will not open the plan to the public, the Opposition or the officials in Brussels until after the elections. It must be a source of embarrassment to the Government that it will have to go back on its promise that no changes would be made to the plan. It is a source of embarrassment to all of us that our Government is the laughing stock of Europe because of the way it has juggled around an application for funding merely for the sake of elections. I hope this leads to a loss of support for the Government. We cannot continue to live in a land of make believe where people can say one thing when it suits them and another at a later date.
We have lost much of our standing in Europe as a result of the debacle over EU funding. The Government, and not Europe, has to bear responsibility for this. It is embarrassing to both politicians and the public to realise that Europe thinks so little of Ireland that it declared publicly that one of our Ministers told a lie. After all that, the Government asked Brussels to delay dealing with the plan until after the elections. It must be very confusing for those in Brussels to see us acting like beggars looking for money and then asking them to delay dealing with the plan for personal reasons.
This shows a lack of confidence on the part of the Government, which has the largest majority in the history of the State; it is not confident enough to say to the electorate "we have to cut back in certain areas and it is better for you to know the position before the election than to find out afterwards". This shows a lack of bravery and honesty. It is bad enough for the Government to make fools of us in Brussels once but to do so twice is indefensible. I sincerely hope that the Government will publish the revised plan before the election. If it does so it will help restore some dignity to this House and ensure that people know the true position before the elections.
I would like to share my time with Deputies O'Hanlon, Kirk and Séan Kenny.
I take it that is satisfactory and agreed?
What is the total time available to us?
Thirty minutes.
This is the fifth debate in the Dáil since last July on the National Development Plan. As I said when the matter was previously debated, it is important to look at the overall background against which this debate is taking place.
At the European Council in Edinburgh in December 1992, the Government achieved a major success in the level of resources that the Council agreed should be provided for the four cohesion member states — Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland — through the Structural Funds and the new Cohesion Fund over the following seven years to 1999. The benefits of the new Cohesion Fund have already been seen in the additional investments in the areas of transport and the environment that became possible in 1993. This was followed by the further achievement of securing over £7 billion as Ireland's share of these increased resources. While this is less than had been hoped for as a starting point, it is still a very substantial result and represents easily the largest block of aid ever secured by an Irish Government.
Over the seven-year period concerned Ireland will receive the highest level of EU aid per head of population of any member state. Aid to Ireland will amount to approximately IR£2,100 per person, compared with approximately IR£1,700 in the case of Greece, IR£1,650 in Portugal and IR£1,400 in Spain.
I will turn now to the up-to-date position. Discussions are nearing completion with the European Commission on the National Development Plan 1994-1999 with a view to agreeing the Community Support Framework, which will set out the broad national and sectoral strategies for the use of EU Structural Funds.
The central objective of the National Development Plan is to ensure the best long term return for the economy by increasing output, economic potential and long term jobs. It is further designed to reintegrate the long term unemployed and those at high risk of becoming so into the economic mainstream.
In the debate yesterday Deputies criticised the lack of consultation in drawing up the plan. This is far from the case. There were intensive consultations with a wide variety of groups including the subregional review committees, the national social partners — unions, employers and farmer organisations — various voluntary and other groups with an interest in the plan such as An Taisce, and the Community Workers' Co-operative as well as groups with an interest in specific aspects such as tourism or education.
In addition to considering the various detailed submissions I, the Minister of State at my Department, and my officials, met the different groups to discuss their views. Of course, these views varied enormously and at the end of the day the Government had to make the final decisions about the strategies and balance of investments to be included in the plan.
Deputy Hogan also mentioned cross-Border co-operation. The development plans North and South were the subject of detailed discussions between Government officials, North and South, with a view to having a strong cross-Border element in both plans. This is reflected in a chapter common to both plans.
The National Development Plan was prepared and submitted on the basis of a certain projected amount of EU aid under a number of headings — the Community Support Framework, the Community Initiatives and the Cohesion Fund. Subsequent to the submission of the plan, on 21 October 1993, the European Commission made decisions on the allocation of resources to member states and specifically on the allocations to the Community Support Frameworks for the Objective 1 regions, including Ireland. The allocation approved for Ireland under its Community Support Framework was 5.62 billion ECUs or IR£4.54 billion. This amount fell short of the amount which we had included in the plan in respect of the Community Support Framework element.
This shortfall was recognised and acknowledged by me and the Government from the outset. It remains the Government's belief that, over the six-year period to 1999, it will be possible to get additional EU aid over and above the allocations already made. However, the Community Support Framework has to be agreed now on the basis of the EU aid which has been allocated by the Commission at this stage. Accordingly, adjustments had to be made to the expenditure allocations to take account of the shortfall in EU aid.
Deputy Owen suggested yesterday that the Government did not acknowledge the shortfall until February. As I previously pointed out in the Dáil, at the press conference on 9 December 1993 and on the 1994 Estimates I said:
The indicative allocation of Structural Fund aid for Ireland for the period 1994-1999 made by the Commission on 21 October is less than the figure on which the National Development Plan was based.
I also said at that press conference that this shortfall in EC aid, and again I quote:
...has been taken into account by the Government in settling the 1994 Estimates and Public Capital Programme. The assumption underlying the Public Capital Programme and the Estimates is that Exchequer and EC spending in areas covered by the plan will be £130 million less than the plan projections.
That dealt with the situation in so far as 1994 was concerned. At the beginning of March the Government took the necessary decisions to deal with the remaining years. The Government remained satisfied that the strategy it had hoped in the plan was correct and that the balance of priorities reflected in the plan remained valid. Accordingly, it decided that the appropriate way to deal with the shortfall in EU aid was to apply a corresponding reduction on a pro rata basis to departmental allocations. The reduction was applied to the combined Exchequer and EU aid elements.
The Government is firmly committed to maintaining budgetary discipline and to a fiscal policy set in the framework of the Maastricht convergence criteria. For this reason, as I already pointed out, adjustments were made in the 1994 Estimates to take account of the shortfall in EU aid. Further adjustments were then decided to deal with the situation for later years.
In the 1994 Estimates reductions of £130 million were made to plan expenditure. This was not the full amount of the projected aid shortfall. It was possible for the Exchequer to meet some £40 million of a cost which the plan envisaged would be met by EU funding. The Government will look each year at the budget possibilities. However, the Government would regard it as imprudent to commit itself at this stage to significant further increases in public expenditure, without having regard to the economic and budget position which will apply each year.
There has been very detailed discussions with the EU Commission on the Community Support Framework. These discussions have been constructive, with those involved on both sides working to ensure that the end-product is the best possible in terms of achieving the targets of maximising growth and employment through the use of available EU and national resources.
Agreement on the overall approach and on the major issues of substance was reached fairly quickly and was finalised in April. Since then the officials have been working through the detailed text and statistical material. As the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, has already explained, this process has proved more time-consuming than had earlier been expected on either the Irish or Commission side. This is also the case with other member states. However, at this stage only the final touches of detail remain to be sorted out. There are then a number of procedures that the Commission has to go through, including consultation with the Community level committees that deal with the Structural Funds, before it can publish the Community Support Framework. We can expect publication in about another month or so.
A National Development Plan was published by the Government last October and a Community Support Framework will be published by the Commission shortly. The question of the Government publishing a revised plan, as referred to in the motion, does not arise. There is no question of anybody delaying publication of the Community Support Framework. Both the Irish and Commission officials involved have been operating throughout on the basis of getting the final document as quickly as possible.
When the Dáil debated this matter in March, I quoted from statements made by Opposition Deputies in 1989 in relation to the previous development plan, in which they forecast that it would not stand up and was likely to be rejected by the EU Commission. I pointed out that, in the event, the Community Support Framework was successfully negotiated with the EC Commission. The strategies, priorities and measures put forward in the plan were reflected, with little change, in the Community Support Framework. Implementation of the Community Support Framework was carried through extremely successfully, as is now universally acknowledged. It has been the subject of independent evaluation with very positive results being reported. The European Commission has also recognised the success of that Community Support Framework. Despite this, the Opposition again trotted out solemn assurances that the Government's approach on this occasion could not be sustained and that they would be rejected by the EU Commission. I said in the Dáil on 8 March that the Opposition was proved wrong in 1989. Unfortunately, we shall have to wait a few years to see them proved wrong again. The outcome of the discussions with the Commission on the Community Support Framework show that this indeed has been the case.
The outcome of the discussions has been very successful from the Government's point of view. Its development strategy has been accepted. It has been possible to maintain its approach of pro rata adjustments to allocations in terms of combined Exchequer and EU aid elements, which was the basis of its approach, with very minor adjustments only. These adjustments related mainly to items which have been agreed by both sides as priorities warranting reinforcement. At the same time, it has been possible to satisfy the Commission in respect of its priorities for the allocation of the EU aid element within the total expenditure areas. All of the key elements identified by the Government in the plan have been retained. The shortfall in EU aid will affect only the pace of development.
It has been suggested that, because less aid is being allocated than has been sought against certain schemes or projects, an additional cost is being imposed on the Exchequer. This is not the case. I have already explained how the total expenditure figures have been reduced to take account of the shortfall in EU aid. The net Exchequer contribution is being maintained on a global basis. While the net Exchequer cost of some schemes or projects may increase, this is compensated for by increasing the EU aid contribution elsewhere.
All in all, the result represents a considerable success for the Government. We must now move forward to ensure that we maintain our good record in implementation to ensure the maximum long term return from what has been achieved.
I thank the Minister for sharing his time and giving me an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I support the Minister's amendment and I do not understand the negative attitude of the Opposition in this debate. By any standards £7.2 billion is a phenomenal sum of money and had it not been for the attitude of the Government in the negotiations we would not have achieved such success. As the Minister pointed out, we received more per capita than any of the other 11 member states. We should recognise what has been achieved. The Minister also said that the objective of the National Development Plan is to ensure the best long term return for the economy by increasing output, economic potential and long term jobs. The development of our infrastructure will make a big contribution.
As the time available to me is brief I will concentrate on roads as part of the infrastructure and the importance of them to the development of the economy. We have got to recognise the contribution by the European Union over the years to primary roads. The Government should be complimented that this is the first year since we joined the European Union, money has been obtained for county roads. I sought such assistance some time ago and I am glad it has been made available this year.
The second INTERREG programme has been agreed and that is welcome. In the new programme I understand maritime borders will be included. Will the Minister ensure that the money is spent on the internal borders because much work remains to be done to ensure we have the maximum opportunity to develop our economy.
Under the previous INTERREG programme the flagship was the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal project joining the Shannon and the Erne making it the longest waterway in Europe for cruising. That is a marvellous achievement and will be recognised in history as a tribute to the people who believed in it and ensured its completion. Last weekend, for the first time, at the boat rally there were 150 boats cruising on the Erne, half of which were from the Shannon. I have no doubt that that development will make a major contribution to the Border area.
When the new INTERREG programme is being implemented I ask the Minister to identify a flagship project and on this occasion I suggest a road east to west, north of Dublin, from Dundalk to Sligo. There is no major road from east to west, north of the Dublin-Galway road. This is a glorious opportunity for such a flagship project. A road from Dundalk to Sligo would open up the Border area for the development of the economy in the region. I suggest the road should extend to Greenore port which has potential for development.
The money secured through the National Development Plan represents a splendid achievement and the Government is to be complimented on it. I cannot understand the negative approach of some people to this sum of money, the largest amount ever. The Minister and the Department will oversee the spending of it and I have no doubt it will be well spent.
I thank the Minister for sharing his time and allowing me to make a short contribution to the debate. Due to the short time available to me I am restricted in regard to the number of matters I can mention. It is appropriate that I join with my colleague from the neighbouring constituency of Cavan-Monaghan in congratulating the Government and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, on their success in negotiating a huge transfer of resources to the Irish economy.
When we debate the well-being of the economy it would be worthwhile if we reflected on the progress made, particularly since we became members of the European Union. That progress has much to do with the transfer of resources from Community sources. While we are a limited resourced economy in the context of the European Union it is important not to lose sight of the fact that we have climatic and other advantages.
One significant point is that project selection will continue during the period of the plan. That reflects the importance of flexibility in decision-making. Clearly, during the period of any plan priorities and needs may change. In regard to infrastructural development work the need is consistent. Two national primary roads, the N1 and the N2 run through my county. Any person who traverses either of those roads regularly will quickly realise the urgency and the need for huge investment. Recently, the Dunleer by-pass, on which a huge sum of money was spent, was completed. That new motorway has made a significant impact and, dare I say, led to a reduction in the cost of transporting goods on the N1. The upgrading of roadways is important. The sum of money we are talking about will ensure that the process of upgrading will continue apace.
The full benefit will not be reaped until the entire project is completed. This roadway which will run from Rosslare to Larne will take a number of years to complete and will form a significant part of the infrastructure along the east coast.
There is a need to develop our commercial ports and fishery harbours along the east coast. As Deputy O'Hanlon said, Greenore port at the tip of the Cooley Peninsula is privately, owned and has never received any transfers of resources from State coffers. In spite of this it has been successful in developing its own infrastructure, providing invaluable employment in the Cooley Peninsula where farming is the main activity. As a public representative for the area, I realise the importance and significance of this port to the economy of County Louth. For various reasons it has been particularly busy in recent times but the need for investment is obvious to ensure it operates to maximum capacity.
Few commentators realise the importance of the fishing industry to County Louth, the smallest county. It is of particular importance to the coastal village of Clogherhead where two processing plants make an invaluable contribution to job creation in the area.
On the question of rural development, there has been a dramatic change in the population structure in recent years; there is movement towards the east coast, particularly the greater Dublin area. As a consequence rural areas are being depopulated. I hope that all State Departments and agencies will avail of the resources available under the Leader programme as it is vitally important to maintain the population structure and develop the economies of rural areas to ensure that people will continue to live and rear their families in those areas.
I thank the Minister for sharing his time with me. I support the amendment and the strategies set out in the National Development Plan. Like the previous speaker, I welcome the reopening of the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal which connects the Shannon and the Erne. This is a marvellous example of North-South co-operation and will benefit both parts of the island, in terms of increased employment and tourism.
I wish to refer to the public transport investment programme for Dublin city to which the Labour Party attaches priority. The EU assisted investment programme involving £220 million for the greater Dublin area will enable the public transport elements of the Dublin Transportation Initiative's recommended strategy to be substantially implemented by 1999. This includes a sum of up to £200 million for the development of a light rail transit network. In addition, £36 million will be provided for co-financed traffic management measures. There will also be investment in bus services, other public transport infrastructure and support measures.
Road developments will not alleviate the problem of urban congestion and need to be accompanied by the development of public transport passenger systems. The specific objectives for the development of a city wide rail system in Dublin include a reduction in traffic congestion in the inner cordon of the city; the facilitation of matching supply and demand in the labour market in the greater Dublin area; a reduction in commuting times in travelling to and from employment, education, other social, economic and commercial purposes; a reduction in road traffic accident costs and other economic, social and environmental disbenefits associated with road traffic congestion and improved access to city centre business districts and international air and seaports.
The DTI in its report recommends the development of a light rail system serving Cabinteely along the old Harcourt Street line, Tallaght and Ballymun. Further possible light rail links are being evaluated by the DTI, including links to Finglas, Clondalkin, Dublin Airport and Swords. The full light rail system recommended by the DTI will cost approximately £300 million but it cannot be constructed within the allocation of EU and other resources totalling £200 million set out in the National Development Plan. It will be necessary to complete the network over a longer time frame. Detailed work is in progress to determine the optimium combination of light rail links which should be constructed during the period of the plan and decisions will be taken shortly by the Government. The Government's decision will be influenced by major factors such as the alleviation of congestion, levels of peak and off-peak demand, social need, ease of construction and financial viability.
There will be disruption of traffic, particularly in the city centre during the construction of the proposed light rail system. This will require careful planning and consideration to minimise the disruption caused during construction. Every effort will have to be made to ensure that this is kept to the minimum.
It is proposed to spend a further £20 million on other non-light rail transport works such as integrated ticketing, enhanced inter-change facilities, DART extensions to Bray and Malahide and the upgrading of existing suburban rail services. I welcome the introduction of the Arrow service to the west of the city towards Kildare. I understand that this will be extended to include the suburban lines on the north side of the city. The overall cost of these projects will exceed the level of funding provided in the plan. It is essential that the £220 million is allocated carefully to the most effective projects.
All good shows stand or fall on denouement. This Structural Funds saga is one of the few shows in town where the audience must wait until the electoral curtain comes down on 9 June before all is revealed. It is two years since the funds first made their debut as the icing on the Maastricht cake. A slightly slimmer version was then served up as an inducement to Labour to sign up for partnership with the man that the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, described as “the Taoiseach who talks about consensus but governs behind closed doors”. The words of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs have come back to haunt him. Those halcyon days of partnership, programmes and probity are over and the doors are again firmly closed.
Since July last the Government has engaged in a desperate charade where exchange rates, deflators and base rates are juggled with virtuoso proficiency in an attempt to conceal the missing millions. The begging bowl carried to Brussels by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs returned filled more with caveats than with ECUs. For years Fianna Fáil's policy on Europe was simple — we will sign up for anything provided the price is right, the Single Market, Maastricht or European Monetary Union, just keep the funds rolling in. They are now left with an enormous shortfall in the funds and without a policy in respect of making up the shortfall.
The plan was conceived in secrecy and born in deceit. Calls from this side of the House for full consultation when drawing it up were met with silence broken only by the soothing murmurs of, "we will only have one bite at the cherry" and "we must get it right". They got it badly wrong. In the 18 months since the Taoiseach emerged from Edinburgh Castle clutching the phantom £8 billion, the funds have become but a shadow of their former self. First, they dwindled to £7.8 billion, then skipped to £7.2 billion and following the most recent discussions in Brussels they have shrunk still further. I have been informed by a reliable authority that total receipts for the period 1993-99 will be £6.7 billion. That figure was calculated on the basis of data provided by the Department of Finance in respect of Ireland's Community Support Framework as well as our share of the Cohesion Fund and the Community initiatives. I received that information in answer to Dáil questions put down last month. Is this House and the public being asked to believe that Government Ministers are not privy to the same information? Do Department of Finance officials know something Ministers do not know or are they just better at arithmetic?
I would welcome an explanation from the Minister for Finance as to why the Government persists in the tired myth that the cuts in the national plan will amount to "only" £800 million? This Government has managed to mislay more than £1 billion before it is even half way through its term of office. The Minister for the £8 billion is now the Minister for the £6.7 billion, but that does not have the same ring. Will she be asked to change her job title again in the coming months? It appears we will have to wait until 9 June to find out.
We stand to receive a total of £1.291 billion less in Euro funding than budgeted for in the national plan. To put it in perspective, the plan's five-year budget for local development amounts to £1.143 billion and the amount of the shortfall is already equivalent to £1.291 billion. I am informed by reliable sources in the European Commission that the Commission is balking at Government revisions of the plan which still do not take account of the full shortfall. Apparently the Government has still not got it right.
Funding, or the lack of it, is not the only problem. Those "mere civil servants"— which is how the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, described them — whom Ministers blithely dismissed only a few months ago are still cavilling at the plan's failure to conform to the parameters laid down by Brussels. In particular, they are concerned at the lack of additionality in many of the projects and the over-reliance on schemes rather than on permanent job creation and the sustainable development of local communities. I understand it will be a miracle if the community employment programme is implemented in the fashion originally proposed. It is my understanding that it is being obstructed and that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. Deputy Quinn, knows it will not be approved.
The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs know they are now in danger of being exposed before an increasingly disillusioned public and have decided to postpone publication of the national plan's final version until after the European elections. The electorate is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. The democratic deficit is alive and kicking.
We already know that, due to miscalculations in high places, the national plan is undergoing radical surgery — keyhole surgery. What we do not know and what this Government is afraid to tell the public is which limbs are being amputated. Two weeks ago, when launching his party's Dublin campaign, the Taoiseach informed startled Dubliners that the capital "is flourishing as never before". As evidence he cited the proposed new light rail network and the Tallaght Hospital, both projects which depend on the national plan. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that these projects remain intact? Will he provide a firm start-up date for the light rail network? Are these yet more will-o'-the-wisp promises destined to evaporate in the post-election ether of pre-election promises?
On 9 June voters will be asked to pass judgement on this Government's performance on the European stage. They will be asked to rate a Government which mislays Euro funds, squanders Ireland's voting rights and bows to the ranchers' lobby on every issue from CAP to GATT. Voters are being asked to judge a Government whose cavalier attitude towards European legislation has already cost approximately 75,000 women their social welfare entitlements. Is it any wonder that Fianna Fáil and Labour are seeking to avoid embarrassment at the polls by deferring publication of the postoperative national plan? We now have the unedifying spectacle of Ministers scrambling to plug a growing gap by selling off State assets. Their fingers are stuck firmly in the dyke, seeking to stem the rising tide of popular dissent. The parties who entered office promising to "encourage greater openness and participation at all levels" have fallen on hard times. They cannot redeem their IOUs and are thus getting rid of the family's silver. The Trustee Savings Bank and parts of Telecom Éireann are in line for privatisation. Passports are being sold at knock-down prices.
When caught out the invariable reaction of the Government is stout denial followed by a series of reluctant admissions, but their fingerprints are all over the evidence. The Structural Funds saga bears all the hallmarks of a Government which consistently confuses appearance and substance, hoping that the public will follow suit.
In the case of Tallaght Hospital, the question at issue is whether the funds dedicated by the plan will be forthcoming, not whether the hospital will proceed because that is irrevocable now. Where will the £70 million be found in the event of some or any of it being obstructed by the Commission? We do not have answers in that regard. I had the pleasure today of attending the second sod turning ceremony in Tallaght. I had to fight my way onto the VIP's bus to attend it because as a local TD for the constituency, I was invited to view it by video in the regional technical college while every member of the Labour Party in Dublin, north, west, south and east were at the site. There were a few members of Fianna Fáil thrown in but they were sparse. I was more fortunate than the chairman of the county council who was not invited. It was a joyous occasion for members of the Labour Party. It was enjoyable, but the manner in which it was handled has left a bad feeling. It is a major issue that has not been clarified.
Deputy Seán Kenny raises the question of the light rail network and talks about it as if it was assured. I cannot understand how a plan that was predicted on £1,300 million more than is now provided can go ahead as if nothing has happened. The Minister simply refuses to deal with the question. What his script merely says is that he has explained how the total expenditure figures have been reduced to take account of the shortfall in European Union aid but that the net Exchequer contribution is being maintained on a global basis; that while the net Exchequer costs of some schemes may increase, this is being compensated for by increasing the European Union aid contribution elsewhere. It is a huge task to make up a deficit of £1,300 million and in all the circumstances we are entitled to know where the money will come from or, alternatively, what projects are at risk. I have complaints about the entire balancing of what I can anticipate in the Community Support Framework in regard to the amount that will go to industry. I understand that the community employment programme in its present form is at risk as well as real jobs in TEAM Aer Lingus. There are 700 or 800 workers from TEAM Aer Lingus outside the gates of Leinster House tonight. This recently established project enjoyed some spectacular success and employs almost 2,000 people, many of them highly skilled, who left secure employment on the understanding that TEAM Aer Lingus had a very bright future; but they now find themselves staring into the abyss. The position is that unless they agree to a set of demands by 8 June, the entire TEAM Aer Lingus project is in danger of being closed down. I understand that the demands include a cut in pay of 16 per cent, an increase in the working week to 48 hours and permission to bring in contract workers from Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
In this indigenous enterprise at the leading edge of technology agreement may not be reached, for whatever reason, to secure its future. The Government is the shareholder and the issue is whether the capital will be provided. Great sacrifices were made by the workers in Aer Lingus and I am quite sure the unions will adopt a reasonable approach provided the shareholder is prepared to play its part. There is no indication that is about to happen. Will the Minister address that question seriously before we in Dublin are presented with a disaster three times the size of Digital over the next couple of weeks? This should not be allowed happen. I believe that if the Minister for Finance was still Minister for Labour, it would not have reached the edge it has now reached and it ought to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I plead with the Minister to see to it that TEAM Aer Lingus is not allowed to go over the brink.
Sir, I wish to share my time with Deputy Yates.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I thank Deputy Yates for giving me an opportunity to comment on this plan. It is extraordinary that now prior to the election we are told the facts will not be published.
I welcome the opening of the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell Canal. It was the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, on the urging of the then Deputy McCartin, who instigated the project. Were it not for the £6 million from the IFI which was a direct result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, this project might not have been possible. It is good to see such a united effort by both jurisdictions.
How will the overall cutback of 8.5 per cent affect agriculture? What impact will it have on the extension of severely handicapped areas or the reclassification of areas not already classified? For instance, vast areas of hills and bogs in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan are still excluded, whereas the total areas of Counties Galway, Roscommon and Longford are classified. My constituency colleague, Deputy O'Hanlon, mentioned that European funding can be spent on county roads, but unfortunately in my county, Cavan County Council in its wisdom used what little money was available in last year's budget on regional roads. Deputy O'Hanlon referred to the Sligo to Dundalk road. If we are trying to bridge the gap between North and South, there should be some red line on this map to show that we are prepared to help to build roads across the Border, with the exception of the one to Belfast. We were promised that £60 million would be spent-on the M2 before the "£8 billion", or whatever the figure will be at the end of the day, was negotiated. We had to employ consultants to ensure that the job could be done, but now that the consultancy has been completed on the by-pass for Carrickmacross and Castleblayney we are told that no funds will be available. That project would have been a major benefit to the infrastructure of the Monaghan region. There is no funding available for the major road through County Cavan, yet there are plans for a road from Dundalk to Sligo. It just shows that they are prepared to bring the people from north Donegal down to Sligo and Longford and that raises questions about the ideas behind the plan.
I am concerned about the Leader and INTERREG programmes. The INTERREG programme is already stretched to the limit, having been extended into Longford, Roscommon and Meath. It is proposed to extend the Leader programme throughout the country; even though a larger sum will be available, it will be spread over a longer period and may lose its impact. If ports are to be included in the INTERREG programme, it will mean that very little funding will be available to the Border region for which it was intended originally. Will the Minister for Finance give serious consideration to the Border regions, an area that has been devastated, and ensure that the moneys allocated to it from Europe are spent in them?
I thank all the Deputies who contributed to this debate. The Minister in his speech referred to the fact that this is just one of the many occasions since last July that we have debated the National Development Plan. The point of this debate is a focused one, namely: why the Government has failed to publish the Community Support Framework before polling day on Thursday, 9 June? The Government failed to publish the programme simply because it will reveal that the expenditure programmes will not be able to match those set out in the plan. It wishes to deliberately avoid the wrath of voters on 9 June because it knows the National Plan is a work of economic fiction.
The facts are clear. I have checked the Official Report meticulously. We were told by the Minister that in April European Commission officials reached agreement with the Government on the major components of the Community Support Framework. More than a dozen detailed operational programmes were submitted that month. The European regulations state that the member state and the Commission shall reach agreement on the Structural Funds within six months of the plan being submitted. Our plan was submitted last October. There is no logical administrative reason why the Community Support Framework should not have been published before 9 June. No amount of proof reading, validation of statistics or textual adjustments can explain this delay. The explanation is that this publication will expose the Government to further humiliation as projects will have to be dropped or rescheduled. We know that the human resources and training area of the plan, which involve a figure of more than £3.1 billion have been questioned. Many projects, including the Tallaght Hospital, the light rail project and the turf burning generating station in the Midlands, have been seriously questioned, as has the funding for county roads. The Government is deliberately concealing from the public the final outcome of those projects by keeping them in the dark until well after the count is over. The taxpayer will be asked to pay for the Government's vanity by making up the shortfall in European co-finance. The only constant factor in the Government's handling of this sorry saga has been its false claims, deceit and an attempt to manipulate the facts. Voters should be highly sceptical of the Government's silence on this issue.
I will refer to the Minister's comments about the publication date on 1 March in reply to five Private Notice Questions. The Minister said:
The Community Support Framework, when agreed, will be published. In the case of the development plan [published in July 1993] discussions on the Irish Community Support Framework are well advanced by reference to progress of the Community Support Frameworks generally and I expect them to be concluded over the next month or so. Discussions on the operational programmes are proceeding in parallel with those of the Community Support Framework with a view to having the programmes approved at the same time or shortly after the adoption of the Community Support Framework.
Discussions were expected to be concluded a month or so after 1 March, but 1 April and 1 May have come and gone and today is 1 June. I was canvassing for the by-elections this morning and was not here last night, but I dug out of the Minister of State's speech the reason for the delay. It states that the final items, relating to matters such as completion of the list of development indicators to be included, verification of some statistics and fine tuning of the text, are being wrapped up. If ever I saw weak subterfuge, that is it. Some statistics and development indicators appear to be holding it up for three months, but this has been home and hosed. The projects to be axed are known by the Minister and the officials of the Department of Finance. The rescheduling of the programmes is known, but it is being kept under wraps deliberately by a mushroom policy for the public — feeding it manure and keeping it in the dark so that it will not know what will happen. That is the culmination of the sorry saga of the Government's handling of the matter.
I will briefly go through the potted history of this matter. In May 1992, during the Maastricht campaign, the Taoiseach promised £6 billion over four and a half years. At the December 1992 Summit in Edinburgh the Taoiseach, who was on the rack, having lost more than ten seats and facing annihilation and his political demise, said he had £8 billion over seven years in the bag. He repeated that on 16 December in the Dáil. In May and June 1993 the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste promised to use a veto if Ireland did not get the £8 billion. In January 1993 there was an 8 per cent devaluation, which should have topped up the funds, as we will be paid in ECUs. The Minister for Finance might forget that fateful night on 20 July on the tenth floor of the Berlaymont building, when Jacques Delors was totally confused about whether the meetings were on or off and reality began to dawn. The next day on "Morning Ireland" the Tánaiste announced an agreement of £7.84 billion over seven years. On 11 October the National Plan was published, which assumes a figure of £8 billion. The moment of truth came on 21 October. The Commission announced the allocation of £7.2 billion and the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste continually claim the Government will draw down more than £8 billion.
The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, denied the need to adjust the plan to take account of the shortfall of £800 million. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, accused EU officials of being mere civil servants and dressed down Mr. Landeburu. In February the Minister for Finance denied there was a problem with the plan and the Taoiseach said a new plan was not required. On 1 March we heard the first admission that the plan would have to be adjusted by way of dropping programmes.
That is the sad and sorry history of this matter. The public will not know the fallout of the Government's incompetence until after the polls have closed. The Government should have done the decent thing. It is good at lining up press conferences, getting the logo in the background, the soft fade shot, getting out the glossy brochures, turning the sod, getting the shiny shovel, cutting the tape and making the nice sweetheart announcement time after time. It was very significant, even in the run up to this election, that it was left to backbenchers like Deputy Seán Kenny to make announcements about the light rail project for Dublin. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, has not cut a tape for it. The sod has not been turned for the turf burning station, because the project will not go ahead as it has not been paid for.
Let us put this matter in terms people will understand. The Minister was right when he said the shortfall this year was £130 million, equivalent to one year's proceeds of the 1 per cent income levy. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Minister said tonight that it has been suggested that because less aid is being allocated to certain schemes or projects, an additional cost is being imposed on the Exchequer. He said that is not the case. He went on to say that there would be no reduction in expenditure. It is not possible to perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes. If there is a shortfall of £800 million — some people have said £1,200 million — the Government cannot impose a charge on the Exchequer. The Taoiseach has said the plan will not be watered down so it is magic money.
Where will the axe fall? During the debate Deputies said incorrectly — and it is a common misconception — that we are getting more money than ever before. That is not true. In 1993 our money peaked at £100 million less then £1.2 billion a year. Unlike the Spanish, who got their figure in writing, and the Portuguese, who got their plan fully approved, the Irish made a mess of it. The Government succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It added insult to injury in respect of the Irish public, who will be asked not only to pay for the shortfall and will get only key projects, but it will not know the deliberate damage caused, because information will be concealed until after polling day.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.