Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 2004

Vol. 592 No. 2

Leaders’ Questions.

We read in the newspapers this morning of the sad news of apparent confirmation of a young man in a Dublin hospital having contracted variant CJD. Our thoughts and empathy should be with him and his family.

The details of how this incident occurred remain to be fully investigated. It appears, however, from medical reports and medical sources that the young man concerned did not contract variant CJD by way of blood transfusion or operation. I understand that he has not lived abroad. A case like this which, unfortunately, is the first of its kind here, will give rise to concerns among members of the public about public health issues. From that perspective, will the Taoiseach outline what steps the Government is taking and what inquiries it is making about this incident to ensure that public health fears, as a consequence of this most unfortunate case, can be properly allayed?

I join Deputy Kenny in expressing regret that the diagnosis of a young male patient in a Dublin hospital confirms that he is suffering from variant CJD. Our thoughts and prayers are with the patient, his family and friends who are attempting to cope with this difficult situation. I thank all those who respected the privacy of the patient and his family in recent weeks. I appreciate the effort undertaken by everybody in that respect.

In reply to Deputy Kenny's question, the Tánaiste was made aware of this potential case of variant CJD on 21 October last. While respecting the privacy and confidentiality of the patient, she met with and was briefed by the chief medical officer, Dr. Jim Kiely, and the chairman of the national CJD advisory committee, Professor William Hall, on the potential broader public health implications that may arise from this case, as Deputy Kenny rightly pointed out. She was assured that the measures in place to protect public health, particularly in regard to the protection of blood supply, are in accordance with best international practice. There are no issues in regard to blood supply arising from this specific case, as the patient has never donated or received blood and the cause of the infection is not linked to an operation.

The CJD advisory board will continue to monitor all developments nationally and internationally and, along with the Department's chief medical officer, to advise the Tánaiste on any relevant developments. It is understood, as Deputy Kenny said, that the person in the suspected case had not lived abroad. The hospital authorities have ruled out that this condition was caused by a blood product. If variant CJD is eventually confirmed in this case, which is now known to be the position, this would be the first indigenous case. The other person who had this condition had lived in England for a long period, as people will recall. It has been formally confirmed that variant CJD is caused by the consumption of beef. This is believed to be the cause of the majority of the just fewer than 150 such cases in the UK and a number of other cases worldwide.

The worrying issue about this case, even though all the protections recommended were taken here with a major effort having been made from 1996-97 onwards, is that the incubation period for variant CJD is not known, but it is believed to extend for many years. It is difficult to find out what is the exact position on that, but people in this area say it is from ten to 15 years, although that is not hardened up by many people in this area, but that is what the Food Safety Authority of Ireland indicates. There is a possibility that the man concerned became infected prior to the introduction of the more rigorous food safety controls, in particular the removal of the risk materials from the food chain, which was introduced in respect of UK imports eight years ago.

From 1996 onwards, and in advance of their adoption elsewhere, rigorous controls have been applied here to protect consumers and to eradicate BSE. These controls are audited by the FSAI and the EU Food and Veterinary Office. Ireland's controls are deemed to be optimal and stable from 1998 under the geographical assessment which was published. There have been many cases in the USA. The Department is continuing to take all the necessary precautions, both agricultural and on the BSE side. In this case, the CJD advisory group and the FSAI have indicated that there should not be a need for public concern about the safety of Irish beef. In particular, the FSAI said that it is confident that, based on the current controls, consumers of Irish beef are not exposed to BSE infective agent. That is its most recent assessment on this issue.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and indicating that the FSAI and the CJD advisory board will continue to closely monitor this position. It is important the Taoiseach reiterated that with regard to concerns from a public health perspective, the Government is happy there is no real fear here.

I note that the medical reports and medical sources seem to indicate that as the young man did not contract this disease from a blood transfusion or from an operation, it is almost certain he contracted it from eating infected beef. The beef sector is critical to our economy and to the livelihoods of many thousands of people. If this is the case, is it clear from what source that beef may have come? It is critical to maintain the high standards of integrity and credibility in the Irish beef sector by an open and transparent process. I expect the Department of Agriculture and Food, from the beef sector element of this unfortunate circumstance, to see to it that those highest standards apply. When investigations, inquiries and the process of determining how this happened, if that is possible, are complete I hope that information will be made known so that everyone understands the importance of the credibility of the beef sector and of the application of the most rigorous standards here to maintain public confidence in our beef.

I assure Deputy Kenny of that. With regard to BSE, all of the pressures, controls and programmes will continue. We have had several cases over the years. The number is small compared with other countries and has reduced dramatically. Last year the number of cases was reduced by 46% and this year by 30%. Because of the incubation period of the disease, animals born before 1996-97 are principally affected.

The CJD advisory board will continue and will monitor all developments in the current case. The board will also step up its efforts to monitor developments internationally and, particularly, in the United Kingdom.

We introduced controls prior to all other EU countries. The Department of Agriculture and Food makes sure these procedures are in place and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is happy with these measures. Nevertheless, one cannot be too careful and I have no doubt the history of this case will be examined carefully because variant CJD is an extremely difficult disease.

According to this morning's newspapers the Minister for Finance will go into the budget with a surplus of €2 billion. I raise this in the context of the savage 16 cuts in social welfare introduced by the previous Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ms Coughlan. One of the cuts was meaner, more hurtful and caused more damage and hardship than another. The cuts meant no rent supplement for six months, abolition of the dietary allowance, effective abolition of the back to education allowance and several others.

Has the Taoiseach looked at the submissions from organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, for example, says in its submission to the Minister for Finance that calls seeking help from the society have soared by more than 60% in the past year and that more than a quarter of a million households are receiving assistance from the charity. There are 70,000 Irish children in consistent poverty. The society's vice-president says the figure represents 70,000 children without a warm meal every day or a second pair of shoes. This is the situation in one of the wealthiest economies in the western world.

How can the Taoiseach justify cuts to make such small savings as €58 million against the hardship caused? The Minister for Social and Family Affairs made no attempt to defend last year's cuts or to argue for them. She said they were imposed on her by the Department of Finance. Last year's cuts of €58 million were entirely provoked by the Government's profligacy in order to win the general election of the previous year. Whatever justification there was last year, the Minister for Finance now has a surplus of €2 billion and there is no justification this year. Will the Taoiseach tell those organisations which advocate the cause of the poor that, in the circumstances I have described, he will reverse the cuts in full when the budget is announced?

Some of the issues raised are not factual but I will not spend too much time correcting the Deputy. The dietary allowance was not abolished last year. Rent allowance was not abolished.

I did not say it was abolished. The Taoiseach should answer my question.

Changes were introduced, in consultation with the social partners, to work with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to provide more permanent solutions to the accommodation needs of people.

We agree with the Deputy. His own county councillors were involved in the decision.

Last year's budget included an increase in social welfare spending of approximately €650 million. There were areas where the Minister for Finance and his Department believed controls were needed. The Government made changes in some of the measures during the year because submissions were made, as they have been this year. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations that deal with those who are less well off have made pre-budget submissions and those submissions are being examined in the context of the Book of Estimates. The social welfare package is normally put together in the context of the budget.

The Deputy would like to give the impression that all is bad. We have lifted 200,000 out of poverty. That is because jobs have been created. There have been major increases in direct support for poorer families and communities. We have reduced poverty to historic levels, measured by all criteria by all of the agencies mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte. We have raised the lowest social welfare rates by 63%, excluding this year. Consistent poverty has been reduced by two thirds, from 15% to 5%, and we have implemented the largest series of social welfare and child benefits ever. Child benefit has more than trebled. Long-term unemployment is now 1.4%.

Nevertheless, I am conscious that there are those who require welfare and to whom it is extremely important. That is why, year in and year out, we try to maximise the proportion we can give to them. That is being examined again this year. I am sure the Minister for Finance will do all he can within the resources, which are better than last year. Last year, €650 million was given to social welfare. There was not a cutback of €58 million. This year we must look at those areas again to see how we can maximise support for people in need. We will continue to support community and voluntary activity, local projects and the other initiatives suggested by many organisations.

The Government has axed CE schemes.

Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said the rent supplement was abolished for the first six months. A woman, for example, fleeing domestic violence——

That is inaccurate.

Can the big brother stay out of this?

The Minister of State should build a few houses.

It would have helped women fleeing from domestic violence who have to go to refuges if Deputy Noel Ahern had managed to produce more than 315 social houses since he became Minister of State. The dietary allowance is being phased out over the years. I said it was effectively abolished.

How is it that savings of €58 million had to be extracted from the poor when tax reliefs were given to the wealthiest in our society? How can the Taoiseach justify that? The Minister at the time did not seek to justify the cuts. The figures from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are frightening. There are now 200% more people using the society's help line than there were two years ago. The president of the society says the greatest increase in people seeking assistance has been among those working in low paid jobs. Their jobs are so badly paid that they cannot make ends meet and have now become the working poor.

These are the figures and there is no need for them in the relative state of health of the economy. I am asking whether the Taoiseach will reverse these cuts.

I have to correct Deputy Rabbitte again, although I know that irritates him. As regards the rent allowance issue, it was not the case that people who were living in hostels——

I never mentioned hostels in my entire contribution.

The Deputy did.

I referred to women fleeing domestic violence.

Please allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

Yes. They were exempt.

They were exempt.

Those categories were exempt. There were six areas of exemption. I am sure the Deputy knows the rules but if he keeps misrepresenting them I will have to keep correcting him. There were six areas of exemption that the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, introduced.

Kicking and screaming.

Last year, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, introduced very good schemes. She made some changes to them——

They were cuts.

——but they were very good schemes and very good exemptions. The Government is only too well aware of the situation and that is why every year we have been in Government we have given substantial increases, higher than have ever been granted before. I will not go back over the history of the figures but we are continuing to give those increases. We are conscious of the areas of child benefit and long-term assistance. Not too many years ago, I recall having to fight hard to introduce a minimum wage against the wishes of those who are now in Opposition but were then in Government who did not agree with the idea of a minimum wage. We have the highest minimum wage in Europe and the highest level of it untaxed. We will continue to try to improve on that. While there are people in need, the Government is well qualified to assist them and we will continue to do so.

Look at the track record.

Cuts of €58 million.

Last weekend my party was accused by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in his favourite Sunday comic, of having what he described as "crazy tax policies".

Does Sinn Féin have tax policies?

They are not demilitarised yet.

Of course, the Deputy writes for the same comic or has done. Perhaps they have demoted him since he has taken on other responsibilities. A few days later we had a revelation of just some of the billions which this Government has given away to the very wealthy in this country through massive tax breaks. Earlier this year, when I put the same question to the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, he was unable to give me an answer. He could not tell us the cost of any of the battery of tax reliefs for developers and speculators. We still do not know the cost of many of these scams. Given those facts, I have no doubt that many people will have no difficulty in determining where the "crazy" tag properly belongs.

Does the Taoiseach agree that, to take just one example, it is crazy for this State to reward multi-millionaire developers and speculators for building private medical facilities, while at the same time our public hospital system is in crisis? Is it not crazy that millions of euro in public moneys are being wasted in tax breaks to subsidise private health business for private profit, while patients in public hospitals lie on trolleys for days at a time and there are not enough nurses and the masters of Dublin's maternity hospitals are indicating they cannot cope and will probably have to limit the numbers admitted in future?

In the forthcoming budget, will the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance reverse this crazy dichotomy between the Taoiseach's penchant to reward the wealthiest in society and penalise the least well off? In the course of preparing the budget, will the Taoiseach ensure that public money is spent instead on addressing the crisis in our A & E units, in employing more nurses and extending the medical card qualification——

The Deputy's time has concluded.

——to so many in our society who desperately need it?

This year, approximately €500 million is being spent on the health capitalprogramme to improve facilities. While, admittedly, there are some difficulties in A&E — I have acknowledged that on several occasions — I do not think we should take from the enormous progress that has been made in so many other areas of health care, whether they concern cardiac, cancer, lung or other respiratory treatment services that have been opened in this calendar year, not to mention other years. Let us notforget the 1.25 million people who are seen inA&E departments annually, in addition to the many inpatients who are well served by our hospital service.

The Government continually keeps tax shelters and allowances under review but it is incorrect to state that the figures released yesterday all relate to the rich. That is always the easy angle to take on these issues. Yesterday, a reply to a parliamentary question stated that major items among the reliefs were costing €8 billion plus. It is easy to say that is €8 billion for the wealthy but one should examine the exemptions from which the total accrues. They include the following exemptions from income tax: child benefit; capital allowances, the bulk of which are normal business capital allowances in lieu of depreciation; employer-employee pension costs relief, which are widely availed of; exemption from capital gains on the sale and purchase of one's principal private residence; special savings incentive accounts, which are availed of by over 1 million taxpayers; mortgage interest relief; and medical card, insurance and health expenses relief. Does the Deputy want me to do away with those exemptions in the budget? If Deputy Ó Caoláin wants to be Minister for Finance he would be better protected than I am so he could announce those changes. However, I will certainly not announce them or stand over them.

There are some exemptions that I would not defend because they were brought in for a limited period and while they help for a while, the situation then moves on. Incentives and reliefs are introduced by various Governments to try to stimulate investment in particular areas and it is good to leave them there for a while and then do away with them. The previous Minister for Finance announced the winding down of a number of these reliefs.

I noticed that media reports referred to 29 examples on the list released by the Minister yesterday, which have now been curtailed. The limiting of reliefs to promote tax equity has not been mentioned. I will not go through the 29 examples but it is only fair when one is putting one side of the story to put the other side also, when one is given the information. We will continue to keep all these reliefs and incentives under regular review, to ensure they are fulfilling their intended purpose.

The most recent projections available to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of the current tax year indicate that the top 1.5% of earners will contribute 26% of all attributable income tax.

The Taoiseach's time has concluded.

I have no difficulty with people talking about the rich but they do pay 26% of the tax bill, so we should at least note that.

The Taoiseach's response does not even amount to a fig-leaf. We have all seen the report in the newspapers this morning of the component parts and, of course, the Taoiseach would select those he knows very well are not the areas I am addressing. The Taoiseach's reply will fool nobody. He is well aware that I am talking about, for instance, the 242 people who earned between €100,000 and €1 million in 2001 and who paid no income tax at all. In addition to the 29 listed scams to which the Taoiseach referred — some are worthy supports — there are 33 others for which no information could be secured. Neither the Minister for Finance nor the Revenue Commissioners can tell us exactly what they are costing the Exchequer.

It is obscene that families must struggle to face the €40 cost of visiting a doctor for one of their children, while others — the most wealthy, which is the area I am addressing — continue to feather their nests at the expense of each and every taxpayer. That is an obscenity and it is, in the words of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, "absolutely crazy".

The Deputy should conclude.

The Taoiseach has the opportunity to try to address and redress the imbalance in our society. I invite him by his own costings to ensure that in the upcoming budget the medical card qualification is extended to all children under the age of 18 as it would only cost a mere €118 million, which is a pittance in the overall scale of things.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

However, the difference it would make to the quality of life for children and their struggling parents would be enormous. Will the Taoiseach indicate his intention to introduce such a measure?

The Deputy has asked three questions. He has now stated that he is talking just of those areas that are targeted at the wealthy, which is fair enough. Some of the reliefs may be too generous and too broad. We have already announced we are closing in on many of those tax shelters and allowances for individuals because it is not right that people should get away with all of their tax. I have no difficulty with that. We have already announced a tightening up of the procedure on capital allowances and in other areas. Much of what was included in the figure goes to middle-class middle-income earners. On the issue of the exemption of child benefit for income tax purposes, it is there for everybody and the tax allowances are there for everybody. We have never moved away from that. Those are benefits for everybody in society. People do not want these to be targeted and want them as they are. It will not change and that creates a difficulty.

I agree with what the Deputy says about the scams. I am all for stopping scams North and South. If we could address the scams we would have more revenue for the less well off in some of the categories mentioned. Eliminating scams in cigarettes, petrol and alcohol would all help the national Exchequer. I agree we should try to address scams and tax abuse by wealthy people through avoidance. We continue to try to deal with those.

Will the Deputy also condemn them?

Will the Taoiseach answer the question about the medical cards?

(Interruptions).
Barr
Roinn