I wish to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary to the Seanad. As Government spokesperson on Labour I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. I was rather puzzled to hear Senator O'Toole say he was not supporting this Government programme. If I understood him correctly, he said he was supporting the agreement. One must recognise that the programme is a result of initiation of the plan by the Government. In fairness, the Taoiseach, the Ministers who have spoken and Members on this side of the House have paid due tribute to the social partners who were involved in drawing up this important programme. Nobody tried to diminish the role played by the various social partners in coming to this very important agreement.
The agreement we are discussing is an extension of the very successful Programme for National Recovery introduced by the Government in 1987 at a time when this country was on its knees to say the least and when many experts were wondering if anything could be done to get it out of the economic mess it was in at that time. This programme and indeed the last one was built on a consensus approach by the social partners and is very positive proof of the enlightened approach at present to economic and social development. It points to an understanding by all sides that if we want to make the best possible use of our resources in these very difficult times, a consensus is the only way forward.
The last programme was very successful. Its greatest achievement was a huge reduction in our inflation rate. That is a very important point because a low rate of inflation will keep costs and prices at a minimum and create the environment for economic growth which, in the final analysis, is the only way to tackle the scourge of unemployment that was mentioned by a number of Members in this debate.
As the Taoiseach said in the other House and the Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern, said earlier, the work done by the Government under the last Programme for Economic Recovery has been recognised and talked about at international level. The EC Commission in its annual economic report hailed the achievements of the Government as spectacular. In other international fora there was reference to the continuing Irish economic miracle. By any standards those words are a fair tribute to the performance, work and achievements made under the last programme and which will continue under the new Programme for Economic and Social Progress. They are all the more laudable in view of the fact that not many years ago the self same international commentators were decrying the fact that Ireland was at the bottom rung of the ladder in terms of economic development, with all of the ills that went with it. Within as very short space of time this economic miracle has transformed this country. The credit is due, in the first instance, to the Government for putting this plan in place and to all the social partners for the excellent contributions all those organisations made to ensure that the plan was such a success.
There is no question that everyone wants the best possible for his or her own area. We want the best education, the best and greatest possible job opportunities, a better standard of living, a better health system, higher social welfare benefits and better all round care and benefits for the disadvantaged and deprived. In order to achieve all those aims we must have the wherewithal. There are very definite options as to where we get that type of money if we are to achieve all the aims towards which everyone strives. On the one hand we could loosen the strings and borrow huge amounts of money to make the extra finance available needed for the type of projects that people require. They would have short term, beneficial effects. But all those large amounts of borrowings would have to be paid back and the huge debt and the interest that would accrue would have to be serviced. On the other hand, we could increase taxation and finance the aims in that way; but we all know that the raising of personal taxation and other types is a disincentive to employment, to investment, and effectively would slow down all economic development. It would prevent the very thing that we would set about to achieve.
As the first two options would be totally unsuitable and would not, I think, in the long term solve any problems we would have, the only alternative is a co-ordinated and commonsense approach as envisaged in the former Programme for National Recovery and in this new Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The programme is committed to a reduction in taxation over the period of the programme and this is an essential ingredient in the promotion of economic development. It prepares the ground for moderate pay awards over the period and all concerned know exactly where they are going. As the Minister said, we have to set a goal, we have to decide where we are going, and then we have to decide how we get there. Hopefully, we will look at the proper routes along the way to ensue that we are on the right path and eventually we will reach our destination.
I listened to Opposition speakers who were knocking this programme for a variety of different reasons. All of their reasons were that this may not happen, and that may not happen and the other thing may not happen. They were the same people who, some time ago, were decrying the Government for not having a plan. You cannot have it both ways. You either agree to a plan or you do not agree to a plan, and in this day and age no Government would survive without having proper planning in place. Indeed, we are the envy of many countries in Europe that we have this co-ordinated consensus plan over a period of time so that people readily understand exactly what the position is and so that they can plan for themselves.
It is very important for investment and for business in general, whether it is industry, agri-business, or whatever, that you are able to plan in a definite way and that you are not afraid if you do something today the whole thing is going to be turned upside down tomorrow because of some decision that was taken on the spur of the moment. The fact that we are in that position and the fact that there are no major pay awards — this is a very important ingredient — with the exception of the emphasis on giving maximum support to the lower paid sector of our society, all this allows industry in general to plan because they know that inflation rates will be kept to the minimum. It is a marvellous achievement, as the Minister said, that we now have the lowest inflation rate in Europe. That is a tremendous tribute when not very long ago we were down at the very bottom of the scale in Europe in relation to our inflation rate.
The Minister mentioned the importance of education to the country. I wish to concur wholeheartedly with him in this. Our educational system must provide the opportunity for every person to develop his or her potential to the full and that applies both in the area of formal education and also in the area of continuing education. We must aim for the highest standards in education and educational facilities. It is only with a highly educated people that we can achieve the lifestyle to which everyone would aspire. I think, with all the faults it has and all the difficulties it has experienced over the past number of years, we can take great credit from the fact that even at this stage we have a very successful educational system. I think that is recognised both in Europe and further afield, where you have the experts and commentators mentioning the very highly educated people who are sent out from this country to jobs abroad. You have the situation where highly successful and important corporations and companies come to this country annually to take up quite a number of young people from third level institutions because they recognise that the Irish student and the Irish graduate is one of the best trained and best educated in the world. Those people do not make too many mistakes. It is because they heard that we have such a highly educated workforce and group of young people that those people come to us.
That is not to say that there is still a lot that can be done. As the Minister said, you have to give the opportunity to everyone to continue and improve themselves. It is important to add that we have a very good educational system. We must build on that system. That is why the programme contains a wide-ranging series of measures to improve our educational system, which includes measures to improve the pupil-teacher ratio and provide extra remedial teachers, extra vice-principals and career guidance posts in post-primary schools, a six year post-primary cycle, in-service training, an extra 8,800 third level places and an upgrading and replacement of substandard buildings by 1997. People might say that those are very ambitious targets, but I think those targets can be achieved, and it is through the commitment in this programme that they will be achieved. I think the trade unions involved in negotiating the programme were quite amenable to this and felt that those targets could be met. That is why they have given us such wholehearted support.
As the Minister stated, there is a Green Paper due out this summer, followed by a White Paper in 1992, and finally an Education Bill. I think, it reflects this type of consensus approach to development, particularly in the area of education, where every person and group and organisation involved in the educational field will have the opportunity to put their views forward. There will be lengthy discussions involved and everyone will get an opportunity to have a say. In the final outcome, we will have an Education Act that will revolutionise the educational system in this country and that will be all for the better. It is appropriate that one should compliment the Minister for Education on taking that initiative because it is a major step in the field of education and nothing but good can come from that.
I think everyone would acknowledge that we need a proper health service. Here I have to refer again to the type of dual standard that is operating. You hear people in this House and in the other House and in national fora criticising the Government for spending too much money on the programme and then, on the other hand, at local level I heard them on a number of occasions criticising the Government for not spending enough. They are looking for more money all the time. You have the same individuals at local level having a go at the Government for not supplying enough money for certain projects and then at national level having a go at the Government for spending too much money. You cannot have it both ways. You either accept the fact that there is need for economic restraint or you do not. You have to be definite in your viewpoint. You cannot be just on one side today and in a different fora, because it is appropriate or particularly opportune, to be on another side tomorrow.
The important point is that we have to get value for money and I think that is what the Minister for Health is trying to do at the moment. He is placing the whole emphasis at the moment on community care. I see the development of community care as a very important step in the whole area of health services. I do not think there is any old person or any person who is infirm who would not prefer to be at home. That is what we have to do. It is too simple to build institutions and put into them old people, people who feel they are no longer of use to society, and get someone to care for them in institutions. We owe them more than that.
People who gave their lives in the service of this country are entitled to a little bit more than that. We have the duty and responsibility to try to ensure that those people live out their final days in their own locality, among their own friends, among the people they grew up with, rather than be thrown into institutions. In many cases it has been proved that in certain institutions 25 per cent of people have no visitors. It has got to the stage where even relations and friends have forgotten about them. That is a terrible thing to contemplate in this day and age. The whole area of community care needs tremendous development and I am delighted the Minister is committed to improving that area.
Another area the programme identified as being one of the most important targets in relation to job creation and the whole generation of income is the tourist industry. It is a major plank of economic development. The potential we have for tourism development is enormous. At a local level, the River Shannon, the finest waterway in Europe, has huge potential. The Shannon Development Company have done great work in the development of the Lough Derg area and the number of organisations who have been involved in developing the area is absolutely colossal. With the help of this programme and the goodwill of the Minister — he was with us a couple of weeks ago lauding the Lough Derg Programme — the potential for tourist development in the area is enormous. With the Minister's goodwill and the backing of the Government, it will reach out beyond the banks of the Shannon and all areas from the mid-west outwards will benefit from tourism development in that area.
I do not think the fact that the Programme for Social and Economic Progress was negotiated initially outside of this House and of the Dáil diminishes the role of the Oireachtas. People must recognise that it is the perogative of the Government to initiate programmes. The Government put a programme in place, discuss it and negotiate it with all interested parties. Some people have made the point that we debate programme in the House, then we bring it into the political arena with all the accompanying problems and the idealism of the plan is lost in the political argument. It is the Government's duty and responsibility to initiate a programme with all the social partners. Let it not be forgotten that, when the programme is put in place, the moneys have to be allocated for the different areas. Therefore, all the programmes must come before each House of the Oireachtas in order to pass Estimates to make moneys available to initiate those programmes. It is not true to say that the role of the Oireachtas is diminished because, in order to implement the programmes and finance them, the proposals must be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas than decides, in its wisdom or otherwise, whether those programmes are suitable.
I want to compliment all the organisations involved in formulating this programme. It is necessary at this time. The Programme for National Recovery proved how successful such a plan can be. I have no doubt that this programme will continue the excellent progress that was made over the past three to four years and no doubt we will look back with pride at the end of this programme on the huge financial and other developments that have taken place.
