Appropriation Act, 1999: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann notes the supply services and purposes to which sums have been appropriated in the Appropriation Act, 1999.

–(Senator Finneran).

Mr. Costello

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am not at all pleased with the Appropriation Act or the manner in which its stewardship was handled by the Government. It is amazing, when one considers the figures, that a better job was not done in terms of the budget, the national development plan and the projected social partnership pay deal.

I note in one of today's newspapers that the Exchequer surplus stood at an incredible £698 million in January. That must have brought a smile to the Minister's face. The figure was £72 million this time last year. If we were to have anything like a similar surplus in the remaining 11 months of this year, £698 million multiplied by 12 would give us more than £8.5 billion.

Mr. Farrell

That comes from having a good Minister for Finance who knows how to run the country.

Mr. Costello

I do not back Senator Farrell's views 100%. The figures indicate an enormous expansion in the Government's budget. Of the £698 million, £575 million was taken from PAYE earners whose taxes account for the vast majority of the budget surplus. That was described today by Dermot O'Brien of NCB stockbrokers as being quite extraordinary. It is amazing to witness such a dramatic change in the surplus figure from one year to the next. Only two years ago, we did not have any surplus.

All the indicators are that the economy will continue to grow quite dramatically and that has implications for the manner in which we plan. The figures cited by the Minister in the budget, the national development plan and in the current pay negotiations for a three year deal are dramatically out of date and do not bear any relation, good, bad or indifferent, to the 1999 figures. That issue must be addressed in terms of the Minister's fiscal vision, at least for the period of the national development plan.

Ireland has only experienced this largesse for a very short time. We now have an historical window of opportunity where we can make Ireland a truly great country. Our economy has been developed on a tiny, fragile base in terms of infrastructure, facilities, ability to combat poverty and social exclusion, house prices, labour force shortages and the issue of asylum seekers. We can now address all of these issues but we are going about it the wrong way.

Last week I referred to the Minister's speech in which he stated that inflation was expected to reach 1.6% in 1999. We now find it stands at 3.9%, two and a half times the Minister's confident predictions of 15 December 1999. That indicates just how rapidly the fiscal situation is changing. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of where those figures came from. How could there be such a dramatic gap between the projected and real figures?

We are now tied into the euro and are out of line with the sterling area which remains our main market. That means imports will be considerably more expensive than heretofore. We are also beginning to import at a greater rate than we previously did. There is more money in the economy, yet despite this the Minister skewed the budget to ensure that the extra money provided would go more to the better off than to those on low incomes. As a result the middle and upper middle classes will buy expensive consumer goods that will not be available in this country. They will have to be imported from the sterling, dollar or yen areas and this will import inflation.

The low paid pay tax on earnings above £107 per week. IBEC and the Government continue to insist on pegging the proposed minimum wage at £4.40 per hour which will result in a weekly wage of £176. This means that almost £70 of it will be taxed. That is outrageous. How can the Minister insist on adhering to a minimum wage of £4.40 per hour and at the same time refuse to grant any tax concessions on it? He is under pressure from the social partners in the current negotiations to act, but it should not be necessary for his hand to be forced in this way. He should be responsible and lead in this area by giving direction to the economy and the finances. It is a bad omen for future Ministers when the Minister has twisted and turned and shown a readiness to take measures beyond the provisions that could be better introduced in the budget or the Finance Bill. I am surprised and disappointed at the manner in which he has dealt with the low paid.

Child benefit has also been dealt with in a mealy mouthed fashion. The provision of an extra £2 per week for the first and second child and £2.50 for the third child will not do much for the 40% of children below the poverty line. The Government is seeking to negotiate with the social partners a flat payment of £10 per week to all parents with children under the age of five years. It should have been included in the budget. The social partners seek £20 per week to give a proper chance to children in disadvantaged areas and to parents in impoverished circumstances.

The only child care provision in the budget was a 100% capital allowance for crèches or child care facilities. Again, this is skewed in favour of the private sector and to those with means. Why can we not have a pre-school service of the kind to be introduced in Northern Ireland? The first major initiative by the Minister there was for state provision of a pre-school service to all. Why can we not do something similar? Given that 40% of children are below the poverty line, it would give the best opportunity to youngsters in disadvantaged areas. We should do something dramatic to benefit children. It would also improve the economy in the long-term. In its general election manifesto Fianna Fáil promised to provide tax relief of £2,000 per annum for married couples. That needs to be implemented.

The Government has offered a package of £1.3 billion to combat poverty and social exclusion over a three year period. This should have been included in the budget and the national development plan. On the news today Fr. Seán Healy rightly rejected the offer. He asked how the Government could consider that a sum of £1.3 billion over three years would be an appropriate amount to combat poverty and social exclusion. At less than £500 million per annum it is a ridiculous proposal.

Nothing the Government has done to date has addressed the rising trend in house prices nor has anything been done to put a roof over the heads of those who cannot afford one. In 1998 the increase in house prices was 25% nationally while it was 18% in 1999. While the rate of increase in 1999 dropped in urban areas it was 25% in rural areas.

It is clear that mortgage interest rates are to increase following the decision by the ECB to increase interest rates. Only last month most economists confidently predicted that there would be no increase in rates this month or next. I presume rates have been increased on the back of increases in the US. The impending increase in mortgage interest rates will further escalate house prices and will have an adverse impact on those who borrowed heavily to buy a house. Given the recent survey indicating that houses in Ireland have the lowest standards of insulation and energy conservation in Europe, it is apparent that houses built today are of poor quality.

It takes two years for a homeless single person to secure accommodation from Dublin Corporation. That is not a glowing tribute to the economy. We have deliberated at length on problems such as hospital and housing waiting lists, inadequate infrastructure and lack of services to children and we have invited Ministers to address them. Neither the budget nor the national development plan contains adequate proposals to deal with these issues and I am not satisfied that the negotiations with the social partners are addressing them. Perhaps a second budget and national development plan would tackle the issues and crises facing society.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I do not agree with Senator Costello's assertion that the Appropriation Act was badly steered through the House. Nor do I accept many of his assertions on what he described as fundamental flaws in the budget and the legislation to give effect to its provisions. The Senator pointed to what he called a number of weaknesses on discretionary spending in different areas. The approach taken by the Minister and the Minister of State to the past three budgets has not only borne fruit but propelled the boom in the economy.

Senator Costello also referred to inflationary dangers. Some economists have expressed concern. However, the Minister and Minister of State have said that taking all factors into account, they are satisfied that the budget, the national development plan and other strategies take account of social exclusion and are adequate. They are also satisfied the economy is sound enough to take account of the programmes that will be put in place. The Department of Finance project is for an average annual inflation rate of 3%. Senator Costello referred to 3.9%. While this may be higher than the EU average—

Mr. Costello

The 3.9% rate is the official rate from the EU.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

—the Department of Finance projection that I am quoting is for an average annual inflation rate of 3%.

Mr. Costello

The European Central Bank has given a figure of 3.9%.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Fitzgerald without interruption.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

To address house price inflation there must be a supply of houses and we cannot get that supply with a wave of a magic wand. Some people may think we can build houses in the air – they would talk then about other kinds of pollution – but they certainly will not allow them to be built on the ground.

Mr. J. Doyle

Scripture speaks of a home for oneself in the heavens.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Fitzgerald without interruption.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

It may be manna from Heaven that we need when we talk of the house price crisis.

Having listened to Senator Costello and his party colleagues in Dublin Corporation I am more baffled than ever. I do not mean to be argumentative but I have to address this issue which we admit is serious for our economy and for young couples trying to get houses when their wage increases have not and could not match the spiralling inflationary trends in house prices. I intend to deal in detail with educational deprivation and disadvantage if I have time because I have a few figures to throw at Senator Costello and his party.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Act. The budget and the Acts that give it legislative effect reflect the vision of the Government, the Minister for Finance and his Minister of State at the Department of Finance and the objectives set out for the short, medium and long-term development of the country. The budget plays an important role in influencing the domestic economy. This has never been truer than with the current budget. Many people say that the budget was not that welcome because the national development plan for the next six years which preceded it rendered it obsolete. I do not agree. It was preceded by some days by the national development plan which provides a blueprint for the economy over the next six years. Yet the reality is – and I am supported by many people, including the Minister – that the national development plan depends enormously for its successful delivery on the very measures which the budget and the related legislation introduced.

The budget strategy is formulated against a background of a very buoyant economy. It does not take a genius to know that. We are all witnessing that the national infrastructure is under considerable strain. There are labour shortages across a broad spectrum of the economy and the housing market is still in crisis, although slightly less than it was. With these factors the Minister had to focus firmly and carefully on the negotiations for a successor to Partnership 2000. As Senator Costello has left the Chamber I will not dwell on this. His focus was entirely on the budget, that Partnership 2000 did not really count and that everything should have been signposted in the budget. I wonder what his trade union friends and colleagues would think of that.

The Minister acknowledged responsibly and took into account that a partnership discussion that had already commenced would have to be taken into account sensitively when he was formulating his budget proposals. The negotiations had just commenced at that time. His real challenge was to strike a balance between a number of competing factors, for example the high and rising expectations of various interest groups. The newspapers were fuelling these expectations. We all know what happened in the past when they were let out of control and how wage and salary expectations caused inflation because of the way they were handled. The real needs of the economy also had to be taken into account, which is fundamental.

In addition, consideration had to be given to the threat of overheating through inflationary pressure from various sources, whether from wages, consumer demand or other corollary factors, all of which come, ironically, from the successful management of the economy by the Government. All these pressures compete and the Minister had to strike a reasonable and fair balance in the budget, yet at the same time take account of external factors. Any reasonable person wishing to be objective is compelled to admit that in overall terms, given all the many mitigating factors, a fair and rational balance has been struck.

There are problems and shortcomings. The national partnership negotiations are almost con cluded. I am confident they will be concluded and that a fair and reasonable balance will be struck between all the competing interests. Some of the purists among our economic experts – and I could name a few of them – decried the budget immediately because capital spending, as opposed to what Senator Costello spoke about, was to rise by 26%, much of it to be spent on social infrastructure. While they accepted that social inclusion was given major priority, they unashamedly said budget policy and national plans should have as their singular priority the securing of the economy and not, as they put it, pander to the poverty lobbies. This was most unfair and an insult to voluntary organisations who lobby the Minister and the Government to take full account of poverty, deprivation, social exclusion, etc. in these booming times. Judgments such as these in boom times invoke the wrath of all well meaning people concerned for the plight of the poor and the socially excluded.

The social welfare package in the budget amounted to £400 million and there is scope in the partnership talks for further top-ups. This is the largest ever provision for social welfare, with payment dates being brought forward. Reports in today's and yesterday's newspapers suggest substantial additional top-ups. These features mark a significant further step on the road to creating an inclusive and socially cohesive society in the new millennium. Total spending by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs will be almost £5.4 billion. Additional social inclusion measures, before any top-ups agreed in the partnership talks, will bring current spending to almost £500 million in a full year. For example, the weekly income threshold for family income supplement is being increased by £13, resulting in an additional benefit of about £8 per week.

Other social welfare payments also show significant increases. Pensions, for example, were given priority in 1997 and 1998 and in the 1999 budget they were increased by a further £7. In the past week the Taoiseach publicly and categorically stated that the elimination of poverty will be a primary target in the national development plan which has funding of £40 billion. The aim is to tackle social disadvantage and try to provide a better quality of life for all our people. As the Taoiseach said, we must confront the cliché that the poor in society will always be with us.

I was very heartened to receive, as did all Oireachtas colleagues, correspondence from the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies Providing Services for People with Mental Handicap, an area in which I have taken an interest and produced a document on in the mid 1980s. The letter said:

The National Federation of Voluntary Bodies welcomes the provision in budget 2000 of £28 million Revenue funding – £35 million in a full year – together with a three-year £80 million capital programme for new service developments for people with intellectual disability.

Those with an intellectual disability are the voiceless in our community who depend on voluntary bodies to speak for them. The letter continued:

The provision of 555 new residential places, 185 new respite places and 100 new day places in 2000 will make sufficient inroads into the waiting lists for services.

I have never read a similar comment from this voluntary body. The letter concluded:

The national federation would like to convey our sincere gratitude to all . . . and request your continued support for the elimination of waiting lists within the three-year timeframe as announced.

I had much to say on education but my time is up.

Mr. Gibbons

I welcome the Minister to the House and am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Act. I intend confining myself to two major topics which relate to infrastructural development and decentralisation. I may have a slight parochial interest in what I say, but I am sure this will not surprise the Minister.

The national development plan must be wholeheartedly welcomed by everybody. Fortunately, for the first time we are capable of delivering and implementing the type of development required for the next 20 to 30 years. We can plan ahead and put in place the infrastructure required for the years and generations to come. I do not think we have ever been in such a position. In that context the national development plan is particularly important. It has identified some of the most important areas which have been neglected through the years by successive Governments, mainly because of a lack of cash. Now that we are in a position to do something I wholeheartedly welcome the approach of the Government in the plan to develop the main road network.

The main centres of population include Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork, Waterford and Wexford and it is important that there is a proper road and rail network between them and Dublin to accommodate traffic and business. A difficulty arises in relation to the N9 which links Waterford with Dublin, as there are a number of options which the National Roads Authority can consider in terms of upgrading the service between the two major cities. The existing route, the N9. runs through Thomastown, Paulstown, Carlow and Kilcullen, and is crying out for development, probably more than any other road in the country. The Minister of State, who regularly travels the route, is well aware of this. Over the past number of weeks there has been a debate about the route the NRA may select for upgrading the connection between Dublin and Waterford. It is imperative that the NRA selects the N9. The important issue is not just the route but the area it will service. The difficulty with taking the N11 as the main route is that a huge area around Carlow, Kilkenny, parts of County Laois and south Tipperary would not be serviced at all by a proper road network. For that reason it is particularly important that the N9 is extended to Waterford by means of a motorway or high standard dual carriageway, with an eastern by-pass of Carlow town.

An issue which has caused much debate in my town over the past few months is where the by-pass of the town should be located. The obvious route is east of the town. If one takes the western route, as is proposed by a number of people, new bridges will have to be built over the River Barrow, one to get to the far side and another to get back, which I think is daft.

The area is divided by the River Barrow into Objective One and Objective One in transition areas. County Laois is in an Objective One area while counties Carlow and Kilkenny are in an Objective One in transition area. It is vital that the correct decision is made as soon as possible so that everybody will know the route the road will take and the standard of the route so that people can plan accordingly. In that context I congratulate Carlow County Council on recently purchasing 70 acres of land to develop an industrial business park on the edge of the town. It is totally dependent on the road taking that route. The case for developing the N9 is strong and there is no other option unless people have other interests which are not based on the proper development of the region.

The link between Rosslare and the western seaboard should be seriously considered given that it was omitted from the NDP. The N80 which runs from Enniscorthy through Carlow and Portlaoise to the west is crucial because of the importance of Rosslare port. That road also needs to be upgraded to a high standard. If that were to happen, an extremely good network of roads would be in place in the south-eastern region which would link many centres and provide an opportunity for further development.

The rail service must be upgraded if decentralisation and housing are to be addressed. The Waterford-Dublin service is totally inadequate. Trains do not run frequently enough. The 6 p.m. service to Waterford is the only one which runs in the evening. That is not on in this day and age. Many people who commute daily from Carlow, Athy and Monasterevin would take the train if a proper service was provided. Money needs to be invested to upgrade the line. A service based on the Arrow model should be adopted to service the region as it would benefit Dublin and the towns I mentioned.

I welcome the commitment which the Minister for Finance gave in his Budget Statement. He said that the Government would be much more radical in its decentralisation policy than was the case previously. Only 4,000 jobs were decentralised from Dublin over the past 12 or 13 years. In identifying locations for decentralisation, we must consider why it is being done, what are its benefits and what regions will benefit. Dublin will benefit because the congestion of the city will be relieved to some extent. As a result of modern telecommunications there is no necessity for everything to be centred in Dublin. Decentralisation has benefited towns, such as Waterford, Wexford, Thurles, Kilkenny and Portlaoise in the past. However, Carlow has been omitted again. It is crucial that a Department is relocated to the town. Diversity is required in the area because that will keep it vibrant.

In a past life I worked as a research officer with An Foras Talúntais, the agricultural research body, which has changed its name to Teagasc. I never understood why its headquarters were located in Sandymount Avenue, Dublin. It did not seem to make sense because all its work was carried out in seven major centres around the country. It is still centred there and it located a horticultural unit in Kinsealy for no particular reason. Research into horticultural and amenity crops can be carried out wherever there is good soil. Teagasc has the opportunity to realise its assets at Sandymount Avenue and Kinsealy and use the money generated to develop its service.

It is currently involved in biotechnology, which is the science of the 21st century. We have moved away from physics and chemistry. If Ireland is realistic about research, it must get extensively involved in this field. I propose that the Oakpark Centre in Carlow should become the plant sciences centre for Ireland and a centre of excellence for plant biotechnology. The centre's personnel has the necessary expertise and CIT also works closely with Teagasc. Land is available and it makes sense to implement this proposal. However, money is required to develop a proper unit. Teagasc can obtain the money by selling its assets in Dublin.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's commitments in the NDP to investment in infrastructure and decentralisation. I hope that a commitment will be given to the development of Carlow as an urban centre in the not too distant future, not just in terms of its infrastructural network but also in terms of technology and decentralisation.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

The concerns and complaints which have been voiced during the debate emanate from good news but it is only the most negative, cynical and begrudging of people who would not want to be part of this celebration. All of us can recall the bad old days when there was more than 15% unemployment and the House debated economic decline, high inflation and interest rates, which were very much centre stage at that time. The difficulties facing us are the challenges which one expects from success and progress. Nobody could have foreseen 20 years ago that there would be labour shortages in specific industries, the cost of child care would be a significant issue, there would be congestion in major cities and towns, not empty streets, and house prices would escalate in heavily populated areas.

We must exercise our minds in this regard. The population is young and highly educated. If young people wish to leave Ireland they do so out of choice, not necessity, and wherever they go they generally find a ready welcome in their adopted country. People emigrated during the past two centuries because they had to and they were not always prepared for the new world. They were not always in a position to immediately avail of the opportunities which existed. Today we know that is the case. We now have a highly educated young population, most of whom wish to remain at home, who are able to command exceptionally good salaries. It is not only young people who are benefiting from this good news. Older people are benefiting also. There is a lot of concern abroad for people who are vulnerable, unable to help themselves or who in some way feel deprived. They are all part of the ongoing debate. The bottom line, particularly in the area of poverty, is that there is no better way of relieving poverty than by providing employment rather than thinking only in terms of charity or a hand-out.

That is the good news story we are talking about and I believe the Government has got it right. Anyone who examines the national development plan will realise that few countries in Europe could feel as confident or as happy as Ireland. It would be wrong, however, for us to rest on our laurels. As well as those that are evident, there are other challenges facing us but if we listen to what people are saying, perhaps those who are less vocal and who may not have any lobby groups behind them, we will meet those challenges. These problems are sometimes aggravated by talk of the Celtic tiger, the almost mystical figure that underlines our economic progress. The Celtic tiger exists, and we should celebrate that, but there is a lot of concern among small farmers in certain parts of rural Ireland in particular.

I am not making an argument for the big farmer, and I do not want to get into the specific issues which come to the fore from time to time – it is particularly important that many of those issues would be addressed – but I am thinking of small farmers who in the past could rely on making a living from their farms. They were self-sufficient, and a young person in the family would be proud to inherit the farm and continue in that occupation. That is radically changed now, whether because of market forces internationally, new technology or new demands which are now placed on farmers. That is a reality. When such changes take place, a traditional way of life changes also not only within the farming community but within the general community in that environment. A GAA club may find it difficult to put together a hurling team because most of their young people, benefiting from the new economic progress and the opportunities available, have moved away from their own environment. As a result, rural Ireland in some instances is being denuded, and that is not good. I am talking about the hidden problems. I do not wish in any way to take from what we are now celebrating but our policies must always take these issues on board. We can concentrate development first on the cities and then on the larger towns, and hopefully on the villages also, but there remains a whole area of life from which we can all benefit, even if we do not live in that particular area.

I am not saying our policies are not focused in this regard. Obviously our policies have to be focused on the populated areas but the time will come when these small towns will prove exceptionally attractive for people as they become more affluent and want to get away from the hustle and bustle of town or city life. They may choose to move to those areas and it is important that the basic infrastructure is there when they decide on doing that. That is already the case where Dublin is concerned. Many people now travel 40 and 50 miles to work, for a number of reasons. They may prefer to live away from the city; house prices are not as high or they may have ancestral ties with the area in which they choose to live. The main point is that it is happening and will possibly happen more in the future.

In talking about decentralisation, which has been raised in the debate on a number of occasions, perhaps it is not necessary to always talk in terms of decentralising a complete Department. We are living now in a time of technology, with computers and the Internet, and it is not always necessary to be close to the centre of activity. That has been proved already by our decentralisation policy over a number of decades, some of it experimental, which nevertheless has been highly successful. It would be worth examining the possibility of decentralising smaller agencies to particular areas as a workable proposition because it would greatly benefit a small number of people. There would also be a consequential follow-up to that type of decentralisation. From the point of view of technology, it is no longer necessary to have large buildings for that purpose. I can think of many areas that could be considered for decentralisation and which would be particularly appropriate to the environment in which they would be sited.

Such an initiative would be good for the quality of life in Dublin. We all join in the sense of success in Dublin but there is another aspect to that, and I am thinking largely in terms of tourism. I do not know whether Senator Doyle will agree with me, having been pivotal to a lot of the activity, but Dublin has become an exceptionally attractive city, particularly for young people, internationally. It is a fashionable place to visit; one need only look at the number of new hotels. I do not know what the latest figure is but there must be 160 or 170 hotels in Dublin. Driving in a certain area, one is often surprised to see another hotel has been built, as we can see in the Ballsbridge area. That is a good development and I would not be among the pessimists who say they hope it lasts. I believe it will last, but I would be concerned that the very thing which makes Dublin attractive could be undermined. We advertise Ireland in the context of space, facilities and amenities, yet when people come here they are back to what New York City was like 20 or 25 years ago, with everybody tooting the horn, until legislation was brought in to stop it. That would bring about an urgent decline in Dublin. It would not be a gradual decline, and we should seriously examine that because Dublin is becoming congested. More and more of the population are moving here.

Another area I would like to touch on is the contribution made by the people who went abroad over the years, because of economic necessity or otherwise. In the context of the peace process, I do not believe the President of the United States would have played such an intrinsic role were it not for the role the Irish community played in the development of the United States; in other words, it was payback time. The same applies in Britain. The Irish community played a positive role in Britain and they had a very good image there. People had first hand experience of the Irish, not just through headlines but from working with them in industry and they were aware of their dedication and integrity. In return the tourist business benefited from that because much of the interest in Ireland would have come through the Irish community abroad. In a time when we are doing exceptionally well economically, those making policies should keep those people in mind. That would make it possible for them to come back to Ireland with their newfound experience or with money to invest.

Recent surveys have shown that people who emigrated in the fifties and sixties, many of whom never married and are living in Britian, are deprived. Those people should be able to come back to Ireland and avail of our new found opportunities and affluence. While discussing the Appropriation Act and focusing on the national development plan, we must bear in mind that there are other things besides economic progress. I would like to think that as we cultivate our economy we would not cultivate a corresponding greed. Many people say greed is central to much of what is happening here.

Much of the language being used today in relation to refugees or other immigrants is close to being racist. Instead of using our affluence to help the less well off in the same way as other countries helped us, we must make sure to minimise the whole concept of greed. Likewise, when people are doing well I would not like them to forget those who are not. Some people are not as well off as we would like them to be. We should keep them in mind when it comes to the distribution of wealth. They may have suffered for their country and are perhaps in nursing homes now, are unemployed, are grieving as a result of a bereavement or illness in the family or are suffering because of the excesses which our new economic climate has brought. Certain sections of the community are suffering because of the excesses of affluence. It is important that we look after such people.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. We have a good reason for celebration and this has been recognised by all sides of the House.

Mr. J. Cregan

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to speak on this motion. The Appropriation Act deals with many areas including Government spending and national and parochial issues.

We should reflect from where we have come. It is fair to say that this country was as close to bankruptcy in 1987 as makes no difference. Twelve years later we have arrived at a place beyond our wildest dreams. Successive Ministers for Finance through their prudent handling of the economy have brought us here. They should take a bow for the fantastic job done.

The Minister for Finance received a great deal of criticism, not all of which was justified, when he introduced the last budget. I welcome the efforts made by him in various areas. The most controversial issue related to the concessions made to double income families. The Minister was trying to address the problems of people who have to pay for second cars and child care facilities. He has gone a very long way in making it worthwhile for both partners to work. He is to be complimented for extending such benefits to the stay-at-home housewife, in particular those caring for young children or elderly relatives. Those who care for elderly relatives at home do so at enormous saving to the Exchequer. I am quite sure the Minister will extend such benefits to those at home who do not care for families. A person drew to my attention recently to something which I had not thought about before. We all believe that when one's family has been reared we do not incur the same expenses or problems. Let us take, for instance, the family with two or three children at college who come home at weekends and make huge financial demands on their parents. We must look again at the possibility of making concessions to such people. The Minister has gone a long way in dealing with the problems in this area.

Senator Gibbons referred to decentralisation. Decentralisation is to be welcomed. It would be most welcome in Limerick and Newcastlewest which has had its fair share of job losses. I appeal to the Minister to consider decentralising a Department to Newcastlewest which has the required infrastructure in place.

A pilot scheme for rural tax designation in the upper Shannon region was introduced by a Minister for Finance some years ago. It has worked very well. I hope the Minister will consider extending this scheme in his forthcoming budgets. The Leader groups in Newcastlewest and north Cork have made a very positive and worthwhile submission to the Minister on this issue. It is very important to have that scheme extended to the Ballyhoura, Duhallow and Newcastlewest regions. There is a very serious population decline in our towns, villages and open countryside, we have a high economic dependency ratio, there is very serious dereliction in the towns and countryside, we have a lack of quality accommodation to rent or buy, we have poor infrastructure, unemployment, under-employment in small businesses and farms and a very high dependency on agriculture. Sixty-seven per cent of our population depends on agriculture which we all know is declining. People are no longer getting involved or remaining in farming. From a young person's point of view, farming hours are very anti-social and the rewards are not as generous as in other areas of employment.

We have a lack of high skilled employment, an under-developed tourism industry and a serious lack of enterprise space. There was a time when the IDA would have provided advance factories. They are no longer doing so which I regret very much. We have a lack of local or inward investment. Such investment would come if the Minister could see his way to extending the scheme in the upper Shannon region. I know that some of the benefits of the scheme were held up in Brussels for some time but that is no longer the case. I fully understand that the Minister wants to wait and see how the scheme works but my information is that it is working very well and the benefits are positive. I appeal to the Minister of State to use his influence with the Minister to see if the scheme could be extended.

Some of my colleagues referred to the national development plan. While it is not entirely appropriate to this debate, we are talking about Government spending in the region of £40 million which is very welcome. That spending will take place over the next seven years and has the potential to take us to a new plane but it will involve more social partnership and the Government taking more initiatives. I hope it can be achieved over the seven years. It involves £40 million worth of investment in creating opportunities and development infrastructure. That is a massive amount of money and we should not lose sight of the fact that only 7% of that is made up from European Structural and Cohesion Funds. We have come from being totally dependent on those funds to the pleasant position where we can provide the vast amount of funding from our own resources. We are on our own to a great extent and that is why the private and public sectors must gel together to bring this nation up to the level it can attain.

I will now welcome some provisions in the national development plan. One of these is the allocation of £3 billion for water and sewerage infrastructure for our towns and villages. This provision will solve many of our problems because a small water and sewerage scheme can be the life blood of any village. Our planning and housing problems can be addressed if we have the infrastructure in place to continue the building programme. We are having extreme difficulties with planning applications in parts of my county, as I am sure is the case in other counties. The right place to build houses is in our towns and villages, which we will now be able to do because the Minister is making a massive amount of money available for sewerage and water schemes. This will not only retain the existing population but attract more people from larger towns. In a thriving rural community the number of teacher posts is guaranteed and the post office and Garda station will remain open. All of those things are important to the fabric of rural life.

I also welcome the massive amount of money that has been allocated in the plan for marginalised people. I am referring to health services for people with mental and physical disability who have cried out for years for the recognition they are now receiving. These people and the organisations which represent them are the first to say thanks. They acknowledged that we have made a huge effort to provide extra facilities for them.

Benefits have been extended in the budget to married couples but I would like further benefits to be extended to married women who, perhaps, do not have to care in the home for people but have students in college. The rural tax designation is vitally important to the part of the country that I come from. Decentralisation would also be a huge boost. All these issues can be addressed in time. We have come a long way in 12 years and I hope we can continue to make progress.

Money is no longer our problem. Some Members may have touched on this during the debate on previous days. We have more money than we can spend and that is a problem. Over the past 12 months I know from local authority level that while we have the financial resources we do not have the engineers or the materials. There is such a vast amount of work going on in road construction and building across the spectrum that we will have serious difficulties in physically putting the plan in motion. We are all aware that engineers are walking out of county councils on a weekly basis because they can get better pay and conditions in the private sector. They also have a choice as to where they want to work. They can work at home whereas before they would have had to travel 50 miles. That is a genuine worry.

One way to address this problem is to attract into the workforce the young people who were obliged to leave this country many years ago due to economic difficulties. Furthermore, we will have to attract people from other European countries and EU members states, particularly skilled labourers. Without the help of these people we will not be able to put the plan in place.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad to have had this opportunity to say a few words on the Appropriation Act.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I gather he was a distinguished Member of this assembly in a previous life and made many fine contributions to it.

I will start by dealing with the medical and social welfare aspect of the Appropriations Act. I welcome the substantial funding increases for services to the elderly, an increase of £35 million. These people built this country and they deserve every penny. They deserve the recognition, albeit financial, for their endeavours. They raised this generation. They laid the seeds and nurtured what we are now pleased to call the Celtic tiger. At the end of their days or in their twilight years they are more than entitled to recompense and recognition of the efforts they put in. It was not easy, it never is easy, to raise a family but in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s it was particularly difficult with serious financial constraints on everybody. These people battled through. They stayed on and raised families in Ireland while other people had to go abroad, through no fault to theirs. They had to go abroad to seek fame and fortune. Some people fell by the wayside and became marginalised in foreign countries. An unskilled person who emigrates will start at the bottom of the ladder. If they settle down, get married and raise a family, perhaps the children will reap the benefit of their parents' work in that country.

I also welcome the £7 per week increase for old age pensioners. There has been some griping about this. We should consider that the United Kingdom, a far wealthier country, could only grant a 75p per week increase to its old age pensioners. That gives us food for thought.

I am glad this budget is people centred. At the lower end of the scale, £10 million more has been given to people with physical disability and a similar increase of £10 million has also been granted to people with a mental handicap. Last but not least, the dental services, which with psychiatry were, and still are to a certain extent, the Cinderellas of the medical services, received a £10 million increase. A further £23 million has been allocated to deal with hospital waiting lists. A crux in modern society is that the more we pour into health services and hospital care the longer the waiting lists become. In many cases this is a function of new technology, greater nutrition and people living longer. Forty years ago a person suffering from a bad hip had to live with it but now it can be replaced. When a person suffers a heart attack or their coronary arteries are silted up, they can be replaced. All of these procedures take time.

I come to another problem that was mentioned in another context by the previous speaker. The health services are finding it difficult to get appropriately trained staff. When we do get them or train them they leak out of the system. They take up other jobs outside of the system. I am a GP and for years the sales representatives who came to me were predominantly male. Now I have noticed that they are younger, female and most of them have a nursing qualification or a degree in biological sciences. These people are being lost to our hospitals. It is hard to blame them in the current context of greater mobility and financial rewards for working in the private and economic sectors. We will have to examine this issue again.

Health and social services are highly labour intensive. To attract the right people into these services we will have to pay salaries that are appropriate to their skills, training and the demands placed on them. Working in the health services at either the clerical or clinical level is highly demanding and stressful. People are beginning to suffer burn out because the demands and expectations being placed on them in the practice of their profession are enormous. They are not prepared to accept anything other than the best. The gold standard of health care is not being set by the Royal Colleges but in the Four Courts on Dublin's north quays.

Previous speakers referred to infrastructure. Lavish amounts of money have been put into the roads infrastructure and there was an allusion earlier to the advisability of using the N9 as the direct road to Waterford as against using the east coast route. The Minister of State will have his own ideas about that.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Byrne)

It would be a shame to miss the beautiful east coast, the garden of Ireland and the model county.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

That is a debate for another forum. The National Roads Authority will deal with it in the fullness of time.

The rail infrastructure is also of great interest. The only Euro route in Ireland runs on the east coast from Dublin to Rosslare. However, the railway line from Dublin to Rosslare, which is probably one of the three major ports in Ireland, is extremely poor. It requires much upgrading and I cannot see why it should not be made double track from the port to Dublin and on to Larne. It would also be desirable to run this Larne to Rosslare line through Dublin Airport. That would connect three main entrance and exit points to the island of Ireland. I do not believe that the Luas, as proposed, will be able to cater for the huge numbers coming through Dublin Airport. A Luas carriage will carry a maximum of 100 passengers but the airplanes arriving at the airport are carrying 300 passengers at a time. People expect to be moved quickly and expeditiously to their destinations. This is where the railway system alone can be effective.

If the radial lines from Dublin to Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo are developed and if our economic growth continues at its current pace, these lines will be unable to take the traffic that will seek to use them. We should also, therefore, look again at upgrading the line from Rosslare to Carrick-on-Suir and on to Limerick, Claremorris and Sligo. The Sligo to Claremorris line has been closed for the last 30 years but the rail bed is still there. It can be redeveloped or upgraded in a relatively short time because it will not be necessary to go through the planning process. Planning would not be an issue for the upgrade or development of, for example, the Cork to Youghal line and the line from Clonsilla to Navan. The latter rail bed still exists, substantially intact, even though it was closed over 40 years ago. We should look at what we have in rail infrastructure and build on it because people expect to be moved quickly between destinations.

We cannot allow Dublin to become a major conurbation, sucking life from the rest of the country. We must develop nodes around the country. Cities such as Galway, Limerick and Waterford are reaching critical mass. Other areas will have to be developed and the infrastructure will have to be provided so people can live there and commute quickly to major cities. It is ridiculous that it takes one and a half hours to travel by rail from Athlone to Dublin. The journey could be much faster by upgrading the line and using Arrow trains on continuous welded rail.

We must look at what we have and how we can build on it. We cannot waste this money. We must put it into the economy for future generations. We do not want them to look back and say, "My God, they wasted a golden opportunity to develop the country and install infrastructure". I must allude to another infrastructural item, fibre-optic cable. A lot more of this cable should be laid throughout the country to connect towns and cities. The capacity of fibre-optic cable should also be upgraded because it will allow many people to work from home or from their local areas. Government offices could be located anywhere while multinationals could locate offices in any part of the country and be in daily contact visually and by telephone by using fibre-optic cable.

Mr. Moylan

I wish to discuss a number of issues which are important for the country's development. We are criticised for some developments which took place in the past but great credit is due for many others.

People in rural areas tend to talk about the roads and the problem of getting from A to B. Mention was made of the railways but I will concentrate on the roads. We should commend the local authorities and the Government for the money spent to date on the roads, particularly those out of Dublin. The money was spent well and we have reached a point where the national development plan proposes to extend that network further to link the important cities and large towns.

I read a proposal recently, in the context of the extension of the national routes, to introduce tolling on the national routes to the west. There is a strong view among elected representatives from the west, Border and midland regions that there should be no tolling of the roads to the west. For many years the midlands and the west were considered disadvantaged areas. The east and south were better off but there is no mention of tolling the roads in the east. There should be no tolling of roads to the west, no matter how they are developed.

Large amounts of money are being spent by the NRA but one wonders why there is such spending when many of the roads will be bypassed in the next four to five years. Motorways will take a vast amount of the traffic currently using those roads. It is hard to justify that spend in those circumstances. The money should be spent on introducing traffic calming measures in our towns and villages in preference to spending it on some of the national routes. We must ensure the safety of people in towns and villages by controlling the speed of traffic and by upgrading the roads and lighting. That is where much of this money could be spent.

I welcome the proposed spend in the national development plan on housing infrastructure in towns. However, we have lost sight, to an extent, of proper development in these towns. We appear to be expanding these places at a huge rate simply by providing plenty of houses.

Debate adjourned.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Cassidy

At 2.30 p.m. next Wednesday.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 3 Feb 2000

Appropriation Act, 1999: Motion (Resumed).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Feb 2000