A Cheann Comhairle, I beg leave to announce, for the information of the Dáil, that on 19 July 1989, the Government appointed the following Deputies to be Ministers of State with responsibilities as follows:

I should like to ask the Chair to permit me a moment to extend my good wishes to the Minister of State who have been appointed and to wish them success, quite sincerely meant, in the discharge of their functions. I will not comment on the various changes that have come about although I know that one or two of the Ministers of State have moved on to different pastures, perhaps not greener but, certainly, different and I wish them well in their functions.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of State on their appointment.

It is not usual to allow Members to comment on an announcement.

I have just commented.

It is proposed to take Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, together with related Supplementary Estimates.

Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, it is also proposed that Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive, shall be taken without debate and be decided by one question; the Supplementary Estimate to which No. 16 relates shall be taken with Vote 42 for the purposes of debate and shall be decided by one question.

It is further proposed that at the conclusion of business today, the Dáil shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 October 1989.

In the Order of Business there are two matters lacking. The first is that I understand it has been agreed that we will take the necessary steps today to set up the Committee of Public Accounts but that has not been mentioned on the Order of Business.

Will the Deputy permit me to dispose of the Order of Business and then I shall facilitate him?

I am speaking of items which I believe should be in the Order of Business. Second, I should like to ask the Taoiseach if in today's Order of Business he will provide time to discuss the crisis which has emerged in relation to the so-called National Development Plan where it now appears that it is not at all certain that the country will get the £3.7 billion from the EC Structural Funds. An emergency mission of Ministers is being sent to Brussels next Monday to try to claw back——

Clearly this is not in order.

I want to know if the Taoiseach will provide on the Order of Business today for——

This is contrary to normal procedure in the House and I cannot condone it.

I am just asking if the Taoiseach will provide time for a debate on this issue.

This is completely contrary to procedure and the Deputy is aware of that.

I cannot ask to have an item included on the Order of Business if the Order of Business has been dealt with by the House?

I will facilitate the Deputy in raising matters appertaining to the Order of Business when the Chair has been facilitated in disposing of these matters.

May I, before the Chair comes to the conclusion and before he gets to the fateful announcement that we adjourn until 24 October, raise this question so that I can ask the Taoiseach if he will make time available today in the House to discuss this crisis?

That can be asked on the question which I shall be putting to the House shortly.

I thought it might help the Chair to know in advance the questions I would be asking, but I take his assurance that I can ask the questions later.

What has transpired up to now was completely out of order. I shall be glad to facilitate all Deputies when I have disposed of the Order of Business. Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 1 to 19 agreed?

In relation to item No. 5, the motion concerning the restoration of the Child Care Bill to the Order Paper, I understood that it was intended to establish a committee of the House to deal with Committee Stage of that Bill during the recess. Will the Taoiseach clarify if it is intended to bring a motion before the House to establish that committee today? If that is not the intention I propose to oppose the resumption date and to suggest that we return earlier in mid-September, to deal with that Bill.

No, it is not intended to set up a special committee. I have considered the matter and my view is that the Bill would be better considered in a committee of the whole House.

Will the Taoiseach bring the House back earlier?

Deputy Michael D. Higgins on the Order of Business.

I do not see any reference in the listed legislation to the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1987, or any proposed legislative amendments thereof. I ask the Taoiseach if, in view of the announcements which were made yesterday, it is proposed to resolve the rod licence dispute through amending legislation. This would require inclusion in the listed legislation but I notice it is missing——

I am sorry, Deputy Higgins, I would much prefer if you would raise that matter in another way.

If I might say, Sir, I have given consideration to the matter as well and I think it would be in appropriate to raise it on the Adjournment. It is, in fact, legislation which has been promised.

If the Deputy is seeking my permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment I will communicate with him.

That is not my intention because it is promised legislation.

Please, Deputy Higgins.

This is my one opportunity to ask——

I am sorry, Deputy Higgins, you must now resume your seat. You have made your point.

It is promised legislation.

Please, Deputies, I have not disposed of this matter.

Can we not ask about legislation?

I have put the question to the House.

It is——

I am on my feet, Deputy Higgins. Please conform to the rules of this House.

On a point of order, on the Order Paper before us this morning there are 19 items of legislation. Yesterday two Ministers, one on the radio and the other in the House, said that there would be new legislation in relation to the Fisheries (No. 2) Bill, 1987.

Restored legislation.

Deputy Higgins, like other Deputies in the House, are fuly entitled to ask the question and I believe the Taoiseach will probably answer the question, if given the opportunity.

That is all I want.

There are many ways of raising that question, Deputy.

In relation to legislation, this is the correct forum in which to raise the matter. The question has been asked and I believe we are entitled to an answer.

I am simply conforming to the normal procedure in dealing with the Order of Business. I insist on doing that.

I regret, a Cheann Comhairle, to have to depart this session by having a row with you but I believe we have rights in this House, and our rights are as follows. Legislation was promised by two Ministers in the Cabinet yesterday and the Taoiseach should surely be in a position to clarify when legislation will be introduced and the content of the legislation.

That is a question I would allow at the appropriate time.

This is the time.

I merely want to point out that the matters which Deputy Higgins referred to are simply orders to restore legislation to the Order Paper. They are not new legislation or promised legislation. My position in regard to promised legislation is to follow the precedent which has been well established in this House and on which I understand that you, a Cheann Comhairle, propose to make a statement later.

It would be helpful if an announcement was made in the House.

With regard to the restoration of Bills to the Order Paper——

Please, Deputy Shatter.

On this specific matter of the restoration of Bills to the Order Paper——

As there is no motion before the House, we cannot have a debate on this matter now.

May I ask the Taoiseach a question which might be of assistance? It will be extremely brief. Maybe the Government have omitted something from the Order Paper by accident. That is what I want to ask about. With regard to restoring legislation to the Order Paper, will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government have, by accident, omitted the legislation relating to genetic fingerprinting, as published in the last Dáil, and whether it is intended to restore that legislation to the Order Paper? It is not included in the list before the House.

Our purpose in putting this list of Bills before the Dáil for restoration is purely to enable us to have a programme of work to get on with when we resume. This list is not necessarily exclusive. There is other legislation which will be——

Is there any particular reason that Bill was not included?

No particular reason.

Can I please dispose of business in the normal way? I will be glad to facilitate Deputies.

You are asking us to agree to the Order of Business and we are most anxious to do so if we could get an indication as to what precisely it means. Therefore, may I ask if, in the restoration of these Bills, it is to be understood that they will go back on to the Order Paper and will be taken at the Stage at which they were interrupted when the last Dáil was dissolved?

More or less.

Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 1 to 19 agreed? Agreed. May I ask if the proposal for the Adjournment of the House is agreed?

Before you come to that point, Sir, because that is the conclusion of the Order of Business which is proposed for today, may I ask if the Taoiseach intends to make time available today to discuss the crisis which has arisen in relation to the allocation of EC Structural Funds to this country and the reason an emergency mission of three Ministers has to go to Brussels next Monday to try to sort it out? I hope they have more success than the emergency mission which went there last December in order to cobble together the figures for the budget. I should like to know first, will the Taoiseach make time available to discuss that issue in the House today and, secondly, if it is the Government's intention today to take the necessary measures to set up the Committee of Public Accounts?

With regard to the last point, the Committee of Selection has met. The names for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Committee of Public Accounts have been agreed and will be announced during the course of the day. With regard to the other matter, I know that the Ceann Comhairle would rule me out of order if I were to answer the specific question——

Have a go.

——as to whether time will be provided today but lest any misinterpretation would go abroad, there is neither a crisis nor an emergency mission.

Hear, hear.

Will the Taoiseach——

We cannot debate this matter now, Deputy.

All I am asking is whether the Taoiseach will make time available today——

I have afforded Deputy Dukes every latitude to put that question.

——so that if indeed he has any good reason for saying there is neither a mission nor a crisis the rest of us can know about it, bearing in mind that there are members of this Government who were very sceptical some months ago about the national programme for development. For example, the Minister for Industry and Commerce spent about an hour and a half in this House saying how he did not believe——

Please, Deputy Dukes, this is not good enough.

We are now told we are not going to get time——

I am calling Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.

It is very disquieting——

Please, Deputy Dukes. I have called Deputy De Rossa.

Deputy Dukes needs a holiday.

On the proposal to adjourn until 24 October, I wish to propose that that be altered to 12 September. I indicated earlier I was disappointed that the Taoiseach has decided not to establish a special committee to deal with the Child Care Bill which has been on the floor of this House since 1985. It is appalling that it is going to be delayed yet again, and possibly not even dealt with before the end of this year if the programme we have before us is anything to go by. I propose that this House should return to 12 September to deal especially with the Child Care Bill. I might point out that the date I am proposing is one which was proposed last year by the Progressive Democrats.

I note the Deputy's amendment——

On a point of information. I should like to assure Deputy De Rossa that that Bill will receive priority. It will be dealt with immediately on resumption and I am quite certain will be put through before the Christmas recess.

Deputy Alan Shatter, on the resumption date.

On the proposal to adjourn the House this evening and the date given, may I ask the Taoiseach before the House adjourns this evening, that in the light of ongoing reports concerning an investigation into An Bord Pleanála and the grave implications for the integrity of the planning process and doubts which might arise as to the validity of planning permissions granted——

Please, Deputy Shatter, the question before the House is simply the date of resumption. The Deputy is bringing in extraneous matter.

I merely asked whether the Taoiseach will arrange for the Minister for the Environment today, before the House adjourns, to make an urgent statement of clarification on this matter, to indicate to the House the parameters of the investigation which are under way and the possible implications of the investigation.

I note the amendment in the name of Deputy De Rossa that the date "24 October 1989" be substituted by the date "12 September 1989". I am now putting the question: "That the date proposed to be deleted stand".

Vótáil.

Will the Members who claim a division please rise?

Deputies Mac Giolla, De Rossa, McCartan, Sherlock, Gilmore, Rabbitte, Gregory, Kemmy and Garland rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. The amendment is lost.

The names of Members dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Dáil.

Yesterday in the course of the Order of Business and in response to queries from a number of Members I undertook to make a statement in relation to promised legislation.

Standing Order No. 25 provides, inter alia, that the Taoiseach announces the order in which Government business is taken each day. There is no motion before the House and no room for debate. My predecessors have ruled that on the Order of Business the only questions which may be permitted must relate first to the business of the day, secondly, to the taking of other business on the Order Paper, thirdly, the taking of business which has been promised and which therefore can be anticipated and, fourthly arrangements for sittings. The Chair has consistently ruled that he cannot and will not accept matters being raised on the Order of Business which are not relevant.

Deputy Seán Barrett asked when it was proposed to introduce promised legislation in relation to the establishment of a new civil court of appeal. The proposed legislation is referred to in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government 1989-1993 In The National Interest. I have consulted the ruling of my predecessors in this matter of promised legislation and I find that on 30 November 1983 the then Ceann Comhairle ruled as follows:

It is in order to ask about proposals for legislation on the Order Paper. It is also in order to ask about legislation that has been promised in the House by the Government but not beyond that.

I intend to uphold that ruling. In so far as I am concerned the legislation must be promised in the House. I may say, however, that parliamentary questions and indeed motions in relation to specific proposals for legislation can be tabled by Members irrespective of whether such proposals were made inside or outside the House.

There should be a public health warning on statements made outside the House.

I wish to ask the Minister for Communications if he will make a statement to the House on the sale of Cablelink. He has refused to do so in the past on the basis that any discussions he had were of an informal nature. Now that he has had formal discussions, does he not think that the time is right to make such a statement?

I allowed the Deputy some latitude in the matter.

Is the Minister going to make a statement?

In the interests of the good order of this House I would like clarification on one aspect of your ruling. Does it mean that announcements made by members of the Government outside of this House as regards promised legislation or that any agreements entered into outside this House by members of the Government, which contain promises to produce legislation, should be given no credibility by either the general public or by Members of this House?

Please, Deputy Shatter, the statement is crystal clear. Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.

It appears to confine the work of the House in a manner that I have not seen it to be confined since I entered this House.

If the Deputy wishes to change the rulings there are ways and means open to him.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the deteriorating situation in Namibia and the need for this House to agree to the attendance of a parliamentary delegation in Namibia in early November to watch the election process there.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Is the Taoiseach aware that in this House yesterday evening an offer was made by the Fine Gael Party to accommodate a sitting of the House either this evening, tomorrow or next week to deal with legislation to amend the Fisheries Act, 1987? Will he tell the House when the Government intend publishing such amending legislation and if he is prepared to do so within the next ten days?

I have given the Deputy some latitude. This matter has been raised earlier.

It is promised legislation.

It was raised in the House yesterday.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the continuing crisis that affects civil legal aid centres, particularly the centres which are closed temporarily and the centre in Galway.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I thank you for your statement, Sir. As Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I would ask you to make arrangements that some time be made available each day so that the public can see that this assembly is relevant and that the situation will not arise where everyone in the street will be talking about a problem and the only place you cannot talk about it is in here.

I suggest that the Deputy take steps to have that matter introduced at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, through his own members on that committee.

May I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food when he intends to introduce the necessary legislation to provide for the setting up of a national milk agency, something he promised in the last Dáil?

It has not been promised by any member of this Government in this House.

The Taoiseach is disowning yet another Minister.

That legislation was promised by the Minister previously in this House in reply to a parliamentary question.

I am sure the Deputy will find ways of following up that matter.

There is no other way.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the obvious problems confronting the Government in relation to the EC Structural Funds.

I will communicate with the Deputy in connection with that matter.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment, along with some of my other colleagues from Dún Laoghaire, the future position of Carysfort College and particularly the desirability to maintain it as an educational facility in the borough.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

Yesterday you ruled out of order my Private Notice Question on the sale of Irish Steel. Could I now seek your permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment today?

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the collapse of the manufacture of casein in this country, resulting from a lack of Government or EC subvention, which has caused job losses in many of the assembly plants, including Miloko in Carrick-on-Suir.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the setting up of a national milk agency.

I will be in touch with the Deputy.

May I again seek to raise on the Adjournment the question of the waiting list at the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital? There are children whose hearing is being impaired because their problems are not being dealt with while in excess of 600 senior citizens are losing their sight for the want of cataract operations which, I understand, cost only about £600 per operation.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment, and to seek clarification of the conflicting views of Ministers on the failed rod licence issue, in view of what we heard yesterday on the radio and what you announced here this morning about matters that can be taken and legislation that has been promised. In regard to a reply which I received from the Minister for the Marine on Tuesday——

I want to help Deputy McCormack. He need not elaborate now. I will be in touch with him concerning his request for an Adjournment debate.

It relates to Question No. 10 on Tuesday's Order Paper.

I understand, Deputy.

I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues in west Galway who have been elevated to the Cabinet. There are only myself and Deputy Michael D. Higgins left now.

Will the Minister for Communications make a statement on the undue delay in issuing a licence for local radio in the Cavan-Monaghan area? A period of more than 13 weeks has elapsed——

The Deputy can find another way of raising that matter.

Would the Minister not make a statement?

Please, Deputy Boylan, desist.

Would he not?

I would like to join with Deputy Barnes in seeking your permission to raise on the Adjournment the sale of Carysfort College which is due to be completed by 14 September which is well in advance——

I will communicate with the Deputy.

With your permission, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the construction of Jobstown community college. After three years this was promised during the election campaign by the Minister for Education, belatedly but none the less welcome. Now I understand there are problems surrounding the construction and I would like to raise it——

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

Will the Minister for Agriculture inform the House when he intends to announce the extension of the scheme to disadvantaged areas?

The Deputy knows full well that is not in order now.

That is an easy question.

My colleague will deal with it.

I am putting the question: "That the following motions be agreed to.

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Bill, 1989, which had been presented and had reached First Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for the Marine.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Building Control Bill, 1984, which had reached Committee Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for the Environment.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Bill, 1989 [Seanad], which had reached Second Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for the Environment.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Local Government (Planning and Development) (No. 2) Bill, 1988, which had reached Committee Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for the Environment.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Child Care Bill, 1988, which had reached Committee Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Health.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Turf Development Bill, 1988, which had reached Committee Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Energy.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987 [Seanad], Parts I and II of which had been disposed of in Committee prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper and that the Committee proceedings thereon shall be resumed at the commencement of Part III.

—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Derelict Sites Bill, 1989, sections 1 to 12, inclusive, of which had been disposed of in Committee prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper and that the Committee proceedings thereon shall be resumed at the commencement of section 13.

—(Minister for the Environment.)

Go ndéanfar, de bhun Bhuan-Ordú Uimh. 109 de na Buan-Orduithe, i dtaobh Gnó Phoiblí, an Bille um Údarás na Gaeltachta (Leasú), 1989, a bhí tíolactha agus a raibh an Chéad Chéim sroichte aige sular lánscoireadh an Dáil an 25 Bealtaine, 1989, a chur ar ais ar Riar na hOibre.

—(Aire na Gaeltachta.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Horse Breeding Bill, 1985, which had reached Committee Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Agriculture and Food.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill, 1989, which had reached Second Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Agriculture and Food.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Video Recordings Bill, 1987, which had reached Report Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Justice.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill, 1988 [Seanad], which had reached Second Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Justice.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988, which had reached Report Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Justice.)

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 109 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill, 1989 [Seanad], which had reached Second Stage prior to the dissolution of the Dáil on 25th May, 1989, be restored to the Order Paper.

—(Minister for Justice.)"

I move:

That leave be given by the Dáil to introduce the following Supplementary Estimate for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989:—

Vote 42—Health.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1989 copies of which were laid in draft before the Dáil on the 19th day of July, 1989.

I move:

That leave be given by the Dáil to introduce the following Supplementary Estimates for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989:—

Supplementary Estimates

Vote 33 — Labour.

Vote 40 — International Co-Operation.

We now come to Estimates for the Public Service, Vote 37, Defence, and Vote 38, Army Pensions, which I understand will be taken together.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £264,487,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Defence, including certain services administered by that Office, and for the pay and expenses of the Defence Forces.

The Defence Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1989 is for a net sum of £264.5 million. This is an increase of £4.4 million on the corresponding outturn figure of £260.1 million for 1988. The gross provision in the 1989 Estimate is £274.9 million.

The major part of the 1989 Estimate — 82 per cent or £217.5 million — provides for pay and allowances and this represents an increase of £17.8 million and the outturn for 1988. The non-pay items amount to £57.4 million; the comparable 1988 figure was £73.1 million but it included exceptional expenditure amounting to approximately £14 million on the purchase of two patrol vessels for the Naval Service and the installation of a computerised information system for use in fishery protection activities. In addition, provision for grants-in-aid totalling £.54 million in respect of the Irish Red Cross Society and Coiste An Asgard was also included in the 1988 figure. In 1989, this expenditure will be funded from the national lottery.

The provision of £10.4 million for appropriations-in-aid shows a decrease of £2.2 million on the 1988 outturn.

The Estimate for 1989 is based on an average total strength of 12,910 in the Permanent Defence Force comprising 1,560 officers, 50 cadets and 11,300 other ranks. The averages for 1988 were 1,590 officers, 40 cadets and 11,600 other ranks.

This year's Estimate makes provision for the special increase in pay and allowances for members of the Permanent Defence Force awarded by the Government following consideration of the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Committee on Defence Forces Pay, Allowances and Conditions.

Since 1969 the main preoccupation of the Defence Forces has been with internal security matters. Primary responsibility for internal security rests with the Garda Síochána and the involvement of the Defence Forces in this field derives from their role of rendering aid to the civil power. The employment of Army personnel and resources in aid to the civil power involves the Defence Forces in patrolling, with the Garda, in the road network along the Border area, in the provision of assistance at joint Garda-Army checkpoints, in the provision of escorts for explosive and blasting operations and in the provision of specialist personnel to deal with requests for bomb disposal. In addition, vital non-military installations have the protection of military guards or patrols, while the Defence Forces also supply military parties to escort civilian prisoners and cash in transit and to help in searches for arms and explosives.

Demands made on the Defence Forces in regard to internal security matters continued at a high level during the past 12 months and indications are that there will be no significant reduction in the demands made in the security field in the foreseeable future.

There are a number of points which I would like to make with regard to Defence Forces pay. First, the pay of the Defence Forces has for many years been linked to the pay of certain Civil Service grades and the benefit of all increases — both round increases and appropriate special increases — has been passed on to the Defence Forces as a matter of course. Accordingly, the pay of military personnel has broadly kept pace with that of the public service generally.

Secondly, the review of the remuneration of members of the Defence Forces had to take full cognisance of the general condition of the economy and of the particular provisions of the Programme for National Recovery which deal with public service pay. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has already spoken of the need to maintain strict control of the public service pay bill which currently stands at approximately £3,000 million a year. Should the cost of pay in the public service run our of control, all of the gains which have been made in the last few years would be eroded. Our economic targets would become unattainable and all our sacrifices would have been in vain. For this reason, the programme strikes a fair balance between the legitimate right of public servants to just pay levels and the need to control spending. Attempts to isolate the pay of the Defence Forces from the wider picture are unrealistic.

Thirdly, the Defence Forces' pay structure is quite unlike that of other public servants. Instead of a simple system of pay scales, military personnel are paid a combination of basic pay, additional pay, daily allowances and weekly allowances. When the committee reviewed the remuneration of the Defence Forces, they looked at the total package of remuneration, and not just basic pay.

The recommendations of the committee have been implemented in full with one minor exception. In addition to the committee's recommendations, Defence Forces personnel will also receive the general round increases provided for by the public service pay agreement. All in all, the total remuneration of the other ranks personnel was increased by an average of about 9 per cent from 1 January 1989. By 1 July 1989 the average increase reached around 15 per cent rising to slightly more than 21 per cent on full implementation. The cost of these increases in 1989 will be about £12.5 million. If no review had taken place, the cost of special increases would have been £2.5 million. This is the factual position with regard to Defence Forces pay and allowances.

At a time when all areas of the public service are being asked to exercise restraint, the increases which I have just outlined could not be considered unreasonable. In the longer term, however, it is intended to restructure the Defence Forces pay system completely so as to increase basic pay levels and reduce the dependence of soldiers on special allowances.

The previous Government decided to set up a special committee to carry out a review of pay, allowances and conditions. In order to ensure better representation of the military position, the Government appointed two former members of the Permanent Defence Force to the committee. The intention was that the military authorities would continue to be afforded every opportunity of presenting their views to the committee and to meet the committee for the purpose of elaborating on the various aspects of their case.

As the House will be aware, the question of forming an association in the Permanent Defence Force has been raised. A number of non-commissioned officers and men have recently intimated that they are contemplating the formation of an association with the objects of having the right of consultation in matters relating to pay and allowances and to make recommendations for the improvement of conditions of other ranks. The association would also have a role in several other areas including welfare and educational matters and professional standards.

On any occasion on which this matter has previously been considered the official view has consistently been that the formation of an association such as that contemplated, having a system of organisation and control separate from that of the Defence Forces, would be incompatible with the system of command essential to our Defence Forces. Whatever about the acceptability or otherwise of the objects of an association such as that contemplated, a fundamental issue of principle does arise in the case of the Defence Forces.

Obviously this is an area which requires very careful examination to get the balance right. It is important that members of the Defence Forces feel that they can make their views known in regard to their conditions of service. It is equally important to ensure that any developments in this area will not be incompatible with the system of command in the Defence Forces and will not compromise good order and discipline. This matter requires careful and mature examination to try to accommodate the legitimate requirements of the members of the Defence Forces. Recognising, however, that there is a difficulty to be resolved, I intend to have the situation examined in a thorough-going way and to do so as quickly as the complexity of the subject will allow.

Rubbish.

The restrictions on the filling of officer vacancies in the Permanent Defence Force were modified early this year because of military and security considerations. In accordance with these arrangements, 258 officer promotions have already been made since 1 January 1989. Promotions at non-commissioned officer level take place in accordance with military requirements.

Deputies will be aware that the Permanent Defence Force is making a significant contribution in the cause of international peace by way of participation in a number of United Nations peace-keeping missions. We now have an Irish contingent of about 750 all ranks serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, eight personnel serving in staff appointments with the United Nations Force in Cyprus and a military police company of 37 all ranks serving with the United Nations Observer Group in Iran/Iraq. In addition, there are approximately 60 Irish officers serving as observers with various United Nations missions in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Iran/Iraq and in Namibia.

We must all be mindful that a number of Irish personnel have made the supreme sacrifice in the cause of peace in the Middle East as we have seen most recently with the tragic deaths in Lebanon of the late Corporal Fintan Heneghan and Privates Michael McNeela, Thomas Walsh and Mannix Armstrong. Their deaths draw our attention to the continuing instability of the Middle East and the need to maintain the search for a comprehensive peace settlement which would lead to a lasting peace. I am proud to say that the contribution of Irish troops to United Nations peace-keeping efforts is well recognised internationally and has been highly praised. They are a credit to the Defence Forces and to Ireland.

As regards the Reserve Defence Force, I regret that because of financial considerations, it has not been found possible to order annual training for members of the First Line Reserve in 1989. However, annual training for the FCA and the Slua Muirí at the same level as in recent years will be held.

Since early this year the STEYR rifle has been the standard infantry weapon on issue to the Permanent Defence Force. The STEYR rifle was purchased after extensive testing by the Defence Forces over a two year period and has proved to be very satisfactory. I am satisfied that the STEYR rifle will provide the Defence Forces with a reliable and effective weapon for the future.

Two additional patrol vessels were acquired for the Naval Service in late 1988 and were renamed LE Orla and LE Ciara. These vessels are relatively new, are in a very good condition and should enhance the fishery surveillance capacity of the Naval Service.

At the request of the Department of the Marine, it was agreed that both these vessels be deployed to combat illegal salmon fishing during the 1989 season. Naval patrols commenced at the beginning of June and will continue until early August. The procedure is that the regional fishery board officer enforces the law backed up by a Garda sergeant. It is only when these personnel are obstructed in the course of their duties that they call on the personnel from the Naval Service boarding party to render assistance. A number of incidents, involving violent confrontations with Naval personnel, occurred recently and these are to be deplored.

A modern communications and information system is being provided in connection with the fishery protection activities of the Naval Service. In addition, four of the petrol vessels are being refitted with more powerful radar, thereby increasing their detection range. The programme of improved fishery monitoring facilities will considerably enhance the capacity of the Naval Service in regard to fishery surveillance and has been approved by the European Commission, which has agreed to reimburse up to 50 per cent of the additional cost involved. The question of the provision of additional financial support, particularly with a view to improving the fishery surveillance capacity of the Air Corps, is being vigorously pursued with the European Commission.

As Deputies are no doubt aware, a review group has been set up to examine the structure and the operation of the air/sea rescue service and to make recommendations to ensure a cost effective and efficient service to meet national and international requirements and to report at the earliest possible date.

As previously announced, a Dauphin helicopter will be positioned at Shannon from September 1989. In addition, arrangements are being made to have the helicopter refuelling sites of the Commissioners of Irish Lights at Fanad Head, County Donegal, Blacksod, County Mayo, and Castletownbere, County Cork upgraded for 24-hour refuelling of SAR helicopters.

Since their acquisition, the Dauphin have flown 167 search and rescue missions as a result of which 108 people were rescued. I want to take this opportunity to place on record my own appreciation and that of the Government for the wonderful job which the Air Corps are doing in the search and rescue role.

Here I might say that 20 Air Corps cadetships are on offer this year. My long-term aim is to maintain a reasonable balance between the requirements of the Air Corps and the needs of a vigorous and thriving civil aviation sector.

Provision of £9.8 million is made in subhead S of the Estimates for building and engineering works. This figure includes a capital sum of £7 million for new buildings and major refurbishment projects. The provision will enable a programme of replacement, renewal, reconstruction and maintenance of accommodation and facilities to be implemented throughout the Defence Forces.

Construction work on the new military barracks at Cavan is proceeding satisfactorily and it should be ready for occupation by April 1990. A new compact school with ancillary accommodation for the Ordnance Corps at Clancy Barracks is also under construction. It will replace a number of unserviceable buildings which are beyond economic repair. Replacement accommodation for an old temporary officers' mess at Haulbowline, County Cork is planned for commencement this year.

In April 1987 it was decided to transfer 200 of my Department's staff to new offices at Renmore, Galway. The first sold was turned on the site in February 1988. The building was handed over on 13 March 1989 and was fitted out by the Office of Public Works in the following three months. The first section of the finance branch moved in on 19 June 1989 and the move was completed by the end of the month.

The provision for Civil Defence is £1.8 million. As Minister of State with special responsibility for Civil Defence, I regard this allocation as adequate to sustain the viability of this important component of national defence.

The bulk of the provision is utilised to fund local authorities on a grant aided basis in respect of their obligations to provide a locally based voluntary civil defence organisation. The grants are usually at the rate of 70 per cent of actual expenditure on civil defence by local authorities. The commitment of the local authorities is vital in providing and maintaining the main civil defence services which would be essential in mitigating wartime effects on the civilian population. These services fulfil a further role in assisting in the relief of distress in peacetime disasters. A new major task for Civil Defence would be assisting in measures to protect the public from the consequences of peacetime nuclear accidents.

The catastrophe of Chernobyl and, lately, the nuclear submarine accidents off the Norwegian coast serve to remind us of the need for constant vigilance and preparedness. The Nuclear Accident Plan which is being prepared to cope with peacetime radiation threats to this country exploits the capability of Civil Defence to monitor and provide information on radiation levels so that the public can be advised of the measures required for its protection.

I wish to express my own thanks and the thanks of the Government generally to all the volunteers throughout the country for their continuing service in the Civil Defence Organisation. I know that Deputies will wish to join with me in conveying the country's appreciation to the thousands of volunteers who give so much of their time to the organisation.

I will move on now to the Army Pension Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1989, which is for a net sum of £42.7 million.

The Estimate includes provision for increases in pensions, allowances, and gratuities on foot of the second phase increase in pay under the terms of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Service. Flat-rate payments have been increased by three per cent from 1 January 1989, while the increase in pay-related payments reflects the appropriate increased rates of pay.

I have referred earlier to the inter-departmental committee on the pay, allowances and conditions of Defence Forces' personnel. The report of the committee recommended improvements in the retirement gratuity payable to long service soldiers and I was gratified that the Government also accepted this recommendation. The improvements consisted of:

—an increase from 21 to 25 weeks' pay in the basic 21 year gratuity;

—in the case of personnel with 22 or more years' service, a further two weeks' pay (instead of one) for each year of service in excess of 21 years, up to a maximum gratuity of 45 weeks' pay in place of 31 weeks' pay.

The Defence Forces Pensions code is non-contributory and, most importantly, allows for the immediate payment of pensions and gratuities regardless of age after relatively short periods of service. For example, an NCO or private can qualify for a gratuity after as little as three years' service and for a pension and gratuity after 21 years' service, at which stage he may still be under 40 years of age. In the case of an officer, the minimum service required for a gratuity is five years and, for a pension and gratuity, 12 years. These features are generous and are not paralleled in any other area of the public service. As such, they cannot be overlooked in the context of the consideration of pay levels and other conditions of service of military personnel.

Reverting to the Estimate, the provision of £31.8 million in Subhead E.1 for retired pay, pensions and gratuities for former members of the Defence Forces and their dependants is substantial and represents over seventy per cent of the total Estimate. The remaining subheads do not, I think, call for any particular comment but, if any Deputy requires clarification, I will be happy to provide it.

I commend both Estimates to the favourable consideration of the House.

First, I congratulate the new Minister in the Department of Defence. I wish him well in his new role. I congratulate the Minister of State also on his appointment.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on these Estimates. Very few other Departments have gone through such a harrowing experience over the past year as the Department of Defence. Much of this was caused by the Administration who created many of the problems. It must be said that the policy matters relating to the Defence Forces were arrived at by collective Cabinet deliberations presided over by the Taoiseach. Therefore the former Minister, should not have taken all the flak that emanated from the controversy, being just a player on the team. The last Fianna Fáil Government made an absolute mess of the Defence Forces' pay award. The general handling of the affair was dismal. When the Minister had good news to deliver, it was bad news by the time it got out. Everything went wrong with the whole procedure and I will go through it in a few moments.

Why is morale in the Defence Forces so low? Why are its members so disgruntled? Those are the questions that the Minister must answer. From what we have heard here this morning there seems to be no change contemplated by this new Administration. These questions must be analysed against a background of distrust, disharmony and of the Government taking the Defence Forces for granted.

There was general unrest for over a year when the inter-departmental committee sat to review pay and conditions in the Defence Forces, and it is the view of the Defence Forces that it took an inordinate length of time to come to a conclusion. It was felt that the Government were playing for time, but at least a pay award was imminent and figures like 15 per cent to 18 per cent were bandied around. The Military were asked for their views, but we will never know what their recommendations were. The consensus opinion was that a 20 per cent increase was sought on justifiable grounds.

Side by side with these negotiations another unusual movement was beginning to emerge. The Army spouses were taking up the fight for their husbands and getting organised across the country. They felt nobody was listening to them and they desperately wanted to speak to the Minister for Defence. I will never understand why he did not meet them or why they were not invited into his office and allowed to make their case. The Minister for Agriculture regularly meets the various farming groups. I do not see why another Minister would not meet the wives of the Army personnel and listen to the complaints from their point of view. Much of the trouble that this Government brought down on their heads started at that point. I would urge the new Minister to meet these people. He will find goodwill in abundance and hear at first hand about the difficulties experienced by Army families on very low incomes. When the wives could not get into dialogue with the Minister they organised protests to alert the general public to their complaints. It is well to reflect that they struck a positive chord with the general public as gauged in various opinion polls.

The Government waited until two days before last Christmas to announce their solution to the Defence Forces pay crisis. Over £25 million is being made available, according to the Government Press Office, which would include a 12 per cent hike for many of the lower ranks. Because of the Christmas break, and with th Dáil in recess, many Army families were relatively happy because they believed what they heard. With an increase in the various allowances imminent and a 12 per cent increase in pay it looked like things were getting a bit easier; but the bad news was yet to come. The increase in allowance would come into effect on 1 January 1989 but allowances would not apply to everybody, so the effect on disposable income would be unevenly distributed. I want to make an important point here. I see the Minister clinging to this old view that because people get an increase in their allowances that is an increase in basic income. If he or I got an increase in our allowances we would not say that our salary had increased. It is time for the Department of Defence and the Minister to come off that one.

The next bit of bad news was that the 12 per cent would be broken down so that the first 4.8 per cent of it would be paid on 1 July 1989, a couple of weeks ago. They have had to wait since Christmas. I understand that last week they got this increase amounting to £6.2 million. Nobody in Government circles would come clean and say when the remainder would be paid, but after intense questioning in the Dáil the Minister for Defence said that the remainder of the pay award was linked to the special pay claim of the public service and would receive no greater priority. This development incensed the Defence Forces and is one of the reasons morale is so low. It appears the next phase will not be payable until mid-1990, with the last part being paid at a later date. As far as I can see from the Minister's statement this morning he did not give the dates when the rest of the pay claim will be given. This is scandalous. Had the 12 per cent been paid at the beginning much of the heat would have been taken out of the situation.

However, as in all personnel disputes, when the core problem is not tackled other issues emerged. Many sections of the Defence Forces are unhappy with the method by which their grievances are dealt with. Many of the lower ranks believe that their grievances are not highlighted at all. There is a belief that irrespective of how important or valid a complaint is it will not be listened to and this leads to discontent. In a decade when great emphasis is placed on solving personnel matters by encouraging dialogue between the parties concerned it is past time that a fundamental look be taken at the Defence Forces mechanism for dealing with complaints.

Like many more Members, I would not countenance the Defence Forces becoming unionised. The vast majority of the Defence Forces do no want to be unionised as they fully understand there could be a conflict of interest between their membership of a trade union and a direction by the Government in the public interest to deliver a service which would have been strike-bound in normal circumstances. Many people in the Army would point to the importance of having a mechanism to deal with complaints but this mechanism would have to have the confidence of the Defence Forces. The members of the Defence Forces point to the very successful Garda representative body.

It is important that members of the inter-departmental group should be selected democratically from all the ranks of the Defence Forces and the members of the committee should have access to all the deliberations that are going on. It is important that the lower ranks are represented on that committee. This experiment should be tried immediately. From what the Minister said this morning suggesting a roundabout method of dealing with the problems, we could be talking here for three or four years. The proposal to democratically elect members of the Defence Forces to the inter-departmental committee should be given a chance to work and the system could be refined as the years go by. Representation is now a big question in the Defence Forces. Had the 12 per cent been paid in the way the Defence Forces personnel understood it would, we might not be having these problems today.

The twin problems of low basic income and lack of representation will haunt this administration unless they do something about it very quickly. I hope this new coalition Government will tackle the problems quickly. The outgoing administration messed up a great opportunity to prove to the Defence Forces that they were not being taken for granted, that this House accepts that their service is vitally important in that they play a vital role in protecting the democratic process and that their valued service is not going unnoticed by the nation.

The handling of the Defence Forces pay deal was a botched job. The previous Government seemed to believe they had to deal positively with groups in society via the trade union movement but that the Defence Forces were a different category who were unlikely to create any trouble by making their complaints known to the public and that after a few months the problem would just go away. That has not been the case. For the first time in many years the general public have now accepted that the Defence Forces play a vital role in many areas of Irish life and that that role had been taken for granted.

Our involvement with UNIFIL in the trouble spots of the world has brought us immense credit. The services provided by the Defence Forces as an aid to the civil power here can never be underestimated. Because of trends in society it is likely we will need this service more than ever in the future. There is an urgent need to do an in-depth study on the future of the Defence Forces. The Minister should take the opportunity to review everything in the Department of Defence and in the Defence Forces so as to ascertain what future numbers should be, the role of the Army, the equipment they should have and so on. This is a very important review and the general public agree that it is necessary. It would be welcomed by the Defence Forces as well.

On the proposal issued by the present Coalition Government last week in relation to Defence Forces pay, I am very disappointed that the new Government have not seen fit to pay at least the remainder of what is owed of this award by 1 January 1990. If the Government would pay this award it would show they were sincere about the very special problems of the Defence Forces who would know that even at this late stage the Government acknowledged there was a problem in relation to low basic income.

I agree with the long term objective that Army pay should be restructured so as to substantially improve basic pay and reduce the over-dependence of soldiers on special duty allowances. I am tired of highlighting that aspect in the House for the past two years. This is something that should be tackled and it is a major aspect of the current dispute.

In relation to the search and rescue service provided by the Air Corps it has now been acknowledged by all the experts involved that it is important to have a greater concentration of Dauphin helicopters on the west coast. Fine Gael proved conclusively only a few months ago that several hours can be saved in a normal rescue mission by having the helicopters stationed at Shannon. Because of the problems of the island communities and the fishing communities along the west coast nothing less than a total relocation of Dauphin helicopters would be of any real use. Just before the election the former Minister for the Marine announced that a Dauphin helicopter would be stationed at Shannon. Will the Minister let the House know if the Air Corps have the necessary manpower to do this? When is this relocation likely to happen? It is absolutely necessary to have a long-range helicopter available in the west of Ireland for rescue missions at sea, which would be on call 24 hours a day, have a range of between 150 and 200 miles, be able to carry between 25 and 30 people and have the capacity to stay hovering in the air for a long period of time.

I have stated many times in this House that it is unlikely that we would be able to pay for such a machine but in keeping with many other countries there is no reason why we should not have a rental arrangement with a private company. There is no ideological reason why good rescue cover cannot be provided by a private firm. This is done in Britain, Norway and several other countries. Such a long-range, all-weather, fully equipped helicopter is available in this country. I understand many of the oil companies have them on their oil rigs. There is no magic involved. All that is needed is the resolve and a commitment from the Government to solve this problem. In the circumstances, Fine Gael feel duty bound to oppose this Estimate because of the mess up during the year.

It seems like we have had all this before. As far as I can see, the only thing that has happened is that we have had a change of Government and Minister. Everything in the Minister's submission is more or less in keeping with what we have been hearing during the past couple of years. That is the problem. It would appear we have not yet convinced the Government, the Department and the powers that be that a serious problem exists. With all due respect, there was nothing in the Minister's submission to the House that will change anything. It is proposed to increase the size of the interdepartmental committee but it is clear from the general and European election results that it is not a question of strengthening an interdepartmental committee. It will make no difference how many additional personnel we include on the committee; the structure of the committee is wrong and I have consistently said this. The committee only report to the Minister.

In the last Dáil the Minister refused to make available to those of us who worked for it a copy of the findings of the inter-departmental committee. In other words, we do not know on what basis they come to their conclusions. The difference between this and any form of arbitration and conciliation scheme is that people would be able to make a submission and at the end of the day they would know why a concession was granted or not. Most, if not all, meetings are held in private. The members of the Defence Forces have no access to these, either directly or indirectly, and the Members of this House have no opportunity to make a contribution.

It annoys me when the Department say —they said this again to us this morning — that "we cannot divorce it from the public service". What the Defence Forces want are the same facilities that are afforded to the public service. In the public service there is a variety of arbitration and conciliation schemes. The Defence Forces have none. Under the DFR they may try to redress wrongs but this is only in respect of individual complaints from individual members of the Defence Forces. Effectively, they have no opportunity to make any submission on their conditions of employment. That is what we are talking about here.

As I have said, in the public service there is a variety of arbitration and conciliation schemes under which conditions of employment can be dealt with. Some sections of the public service can take their case to the arbitration and conciliation section of the Labour Court but the Defence Forces do not have this right. Since coming into this House over eight years ago I have been saying that this problem will never be resolved until the Army have direct representation. Ministers deliberately tried to confuse the matter by saying that what I was arguing for was a trade union for the Army. We do not want a trade union for the Army. The Army do not want one, but rather a representative body made up of the various units of the Army, be it on a command or unit basis, to represent all ranks. It will not be satisfactory only to have an interdepartmental committee made up of public servants and a number of selected officers. A representative body, with all due respects, would have to represent every unit of the Army— officers, NCOs, and men — the Naval Service and Air Corps. I understand it is proposed in the programme for government to include two officers, but this will not resolve the problem. It will only make things worse.

Those of us who took part in the election campaign are aware of the depth of feeling about this matter all over the country. In every section of the Defence Forces there was a massive protest vote against the previous Government. It is true to say that the Minister had to pay the price for the inactivity of the Government. While a collective decision had been taken, nevertheless there was a massive protest vote against the Minister. There will also be a massive protest vote against the new Minister and Tánaiste. Here I would like to take the opportunity to join with my colleagues in wishing him a speedy recovery and a return to good health. He is going to need his good health in rectifying years of injustice.

I have said previously in this House that the last Minister to be held in respect by the Defence Forces— was Mr. Paddy Donegan, a former colleague in my constituency. He had the human touch and understood what the men were saying. However, no Minister since then has understood what the men have been saying. He saw the need to improve facilities which at that stage were out of the Stone Age to say the least and he was strong enough in Cabinet to obtain the necessary funds to be able to do this. At that stage Army pay was increased by 33 per cent. That was the last decent increase awarded to the Defence Forces. I attended a NASA meeting in Dundalk some time ago at which one Army wife effectively made this point and she was correct. She said that years ago she could go somewhere on holidays with her children each year but now, 15 or 20 years, later, she could go nowhere and could not even pay her bills.

This is all about basic pay and allowances, but the emphasis seems to be moving from basic pay to allowances. That is putting the cart before the horse. We must first get basic pay right and then the allowances, not the other way around. There are a variety of allowances which do not apply to every member of the Defence Forces, but depend on circumstances and the type of duties. All allowances do not apply in the Southern or Western, or even Curragh Commands, for that matter. Allowances paid for duties in Portlaoise do not apply in Haulbowline. The kernel of the matter is getting basic pay right. It has gone substantially out of line over a long number of years. This is because the method by which Army personnel received their increases were linked directly with the public service and the public service's committee of ICTU. That committee, which dealt directly with the Government of the day, worked out their national or annual agreement, and that was passed on globally to the various sectors of the public service, including the Army.

Coupled with that, the individual trade unions within the public service had the opportunity of negotiating basic pay increases based on a variety of different matters. That was never passed on to the Army. Probably there would be difficulties because there is no parallel between a public servant within, say, the Department of Social Welfare and a man involved on duty in the Defence Forces. The Defence Forces lost out substantially because of that, the net result now being that their basic pay has gone very far out of line.

When I say "basic pay" I mean pay relating to hours of work. We all know that the straw that broke the camel's back was Operation Mallard, when some men were on duty over 100 hours and well in excess of 80 hours in most cases. They were paid between £20 and £30 gross while the gardaí standing with them were earning £600 or £700 a week, and in some cases more. We are talking about equality in the method of payment with the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service. Nobody will deny the right of prison officers or members of the Garda Síochána to be paid for their hours of work. That is as it should be and that came about because the gardaí had a body representative of all ranks, including inspectors and senior officers. They won that right by negotiating with the Department of Justice and unless the Defence Forces have the same structure, they will never achieve parity.

I have been in negotiation since I was 18 years old at every level of the trade union movement and I know that unless there is an active negotiating representative body operating on behalf of those within industry or sectors of industry, you will not achieve what the workers require. It is well known that non-organised labour within industry and within the commercial sector, do not achieve the same level of earnings as those within the organised trade union sector of industry and services. That is a fact of life. The Defence Forces will always be behind unless they have a strong representative body able to negotiate with the Department of Defence.

The Parliamentary Labour Party will, if necessary, either draft a Bill or use some portion of their Private Members' time to test out the sincerity of the new Coalition Government. I am putting the Minister on notice. I wish the former Minister for Defence well in his new portfolio. Progressive Democrat Deputy Molloy is on public record at every level — on radio, television and in the national media — stating the injustices suffered by the Defence Forces. Both he and his colleague are now a very important part of the new Government and naturally we shall be watching to see if they can influence the policy of that Government in relation to the Defence Forces. We want action. We do not want a repeat of what we had this morning, simply telling us what we have been listening to for the last two and a half years. That will not satisfy the Defence Forces and I can assure the Minister that, come the next election and the election after that, that will be the issue.

First, I congratulate the new Minister for Defence on his appointment. Deputy Lenihan is a man who enjoys the respect and admiration of Deputies on all sides of the House. However, it will require all his considerable political skill and diplomatic experience to deal with the very serious current situation in the Defence Forces. I also wish him a speedy return to good health and congratulate the Minister of State at his Department, Deputy Vincent Brady, who is here today.

The former Minister for Defence had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Defence Forces and few will have shed any tears on his departure. At the same time, Deputy Noonan was implementing policies which had been collectively decided by Cabinet. The blame for the appalling mess in the Defence Forces must be shared by all members of the last Government and the responsibility for dealing with the situation rests collectively on all members of this new Government.

The greatest mistake the new Government could make would be to underestimate the seething discontent that now exists or to hope that if it is ignored it will go away. The Defence Forces have been one of the most reliable and stable institutions of the State but it is now no exaggeration to say that that stability is being threatened by the failure of Government to deal adequately with the problems of pay and conditions. Discontent and dissatisfaction did not originate in the life of the last Government but it did come to a head then.

Successive Governments have always been quick to pay ritual tribute to the great work done by members of the Defence Forces and we had much of that in the Minister's speech today. However, the same Governments have refused to put their money where their mouths were by ensuring that members of the Army, Navy and Air Corps were paid a wage appropriate to the onerous and responsible tasks which they were asked to perform. Apart from normal military duties, the Defence Forces have been asked to perform quasi-policing duties along the Border, at prisons and important institutions. They are expected to provide air and sea rescue services at least in fishing grounds and Governments have been very quick to call on them to provide emergency services in the event of industrial dispute.

Despite this, the Government failed to ensure that Defence Forces personnel are paid wages appropriate to their responsibility. Most rank and file soldiers earn well below the average industrial wage and an Army captain who might have responsibility for 100 men or more would be earning well below what an executive with similar responsibilities in civilian life would earn. The poor salaries paid to officers and other highly skilled technical personnel has led to a virtual brain drain, with consequent major problems for both the Air Corps and the Naval Service. Indeed it clearly does not make sense for the State to invest large sums of money in training officers if they are then offered rates of pay which provide no incentive to stay in the Defence Forces.

The Minister's remarks concerning pay deserve specific comment. The suggestion that the pay of military personnel has broadly kept pace with that of the public service generally is disingenuous. It clearly indicates that the Minister has totally lost the drift of the argument, failed to listen to what was said on the doorsteps or to have regard for the way people voted in the recent election. Our argument is that you cannot equate work within the general public service with the duties required of members of the Defence Forces. There is no comparison. Deputy Bell, in some small way, helped to illustrate that by reference to Operation Mallard where members of the public service the gardaí working alongside the Army were earning sums vastly in excess of those paid to the Defence Forces.

To go on to suggest that any concession to a decent wage to members of the Defence Forces would in some way introduce an imbalance and an attack on the so-called gains of the Government over the last two years is ridiculous in the extreme and an insult to the dedicated members of the Defence Forces.

The Minister said that if the cost of pay in the public service ran out of control all the gains which have been made in the last few years would be eroded, that our economic targets would become unattainable and that all our sacrifices would have been in vain. What sacrifices? All whose sacrifices? It is certainly clear that the PAYE sector make sacrifices but where is the sacrifice of the wealthy, the farming community and those who fiddle their tax on a daily basis? Do not lecture members of the Defence Forces about sacrifice because they know all about them on a daily basis. One third of the country live on the poverty line or below it. Those of us who argue for action on their behalf cannot be told that these people must continue to make sacrifices. Churches and economic commentators have also pleaded for something to be done about poverty and when we refer to wages in the Defence Forces we are talking about the poverty line and below it. The numbers receiving the family income supplement clearly bear this out. The Minister's response to the issue of pay levels has been lamentable. Deputy Connaughton dealt at length with the abysmal response of the Government to the pay review body and it is not necessary to elaborate except to say that if the Government continue on the lines expressed by the Minister there will be major problems of morale and disaffection within the Defence Forces. It was hoped that the new Minister might indicate a change of attitude but clearly that is not forthcoming.

The majority of soldiers know that unemployment is running at nearly 250,000 and that there is not much prospect of alternative employment in civilian life. They have, quite rightly, turned to campaigning for improved pay and conditions in the Defence Forces. The response of the Department of Defence to the legitimate grievances of the soldiers has simply worsened the situation. The recommendations of the review body were totally inadequate and attempts by the last Government to present them as something they were not caused considerable resentment. The decision to increase the buy-out rates and to abolish the outpost allowance for certain personnel added insult to injury. In these circumstances and against a background of the continued refusal of the Department to consider the establishment of a representative body, it was not surprising that the Army Spouses' Association should have got off the ground. I should like to pay a tribute to them but, clearly, there work is not yet done. They must be congratulated on their showing in the election, their success indicated that there is a widespread demand in the Defence Forces for an improvement in their conditions and the establishment of an association. It is not surprising either that, within the last few weeks, a Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks' Representative Association have been set up. The Government will have to accept that they cannot take any action to legally prevent members of the Defence Forces from establishing a representative body. The right of members of the Defence Forces to establish a representative body was explicitly recognised in a report of the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament in 1984 which noted that the absence of any such body in Ireland was based "not on a legal prohibition but on traditional discipline". Given the appallingly shoddy way in which members of our Defence Forces have been treated by successive Governments, it is not surprising that some personal have taken a unilateral decision to establish a representative association.

Soldiers are simply citizens in uniform and are entitled to the same democratic rights as apply to other citizens. The Department of Defence should now bow to the inevitable, accept the other ranks' representative association and seek to establish a working relationship with it. The representative bodies have posed no threat to order or discipline in the Garda Síochána and there is no reason why the organisation established for the Defence Forces cannot play a similarly constructive role.

Any refusal by the Department of Defence to recognise the new body or any petty attempts to restrict their development will sour the atmosphere in the Defence Forces and further damage morale. The worst possible development would be a repeat of the Macushla Ballroom affair in the early sixties when there were heavy-handed attempts by the Department of Justice and the Special Branch to prevent the formation of a Garda Representative Body, which almost led to mutiny. The Minister's response is particularly disappointing. I did not press him yesterday at Question Time on the issues surrounding this matter in the belief that something would be forthcoming today. He said there would not be substantial changes, I did not think there would be such a dismal response.

The Minister recognised that the association are not talking about a trade union. I hope Fine Gael will take note of this——

We do.

The association are simply asking for the right to consult others. The Minister also suggested that there is an issue of principle involved, that it is inconceivable to establish an organisation that would bring in a system of "organisation and control separate from that of the Defence Forces". Nobody said that control mechanisms or organisations would be established. They are merely talking about the right to establish a body, democratically elected by members of the Defence Forces, to represent their members and to be consulted. That right is available to Defence Force members in Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, our fellow members in the EC.

They do not have any difficulties relating to discipline, control or command structures. Let us bury this issue once and for all. I specifically want to address Fine Gael in the few minutes left. It is time to recognise the double think and prevarication in that party. Throughout the last Dáil they made scathing attacks on Fianna Fáil because of their inability to act on this issue but they have now clouded the issue by introducing the threat of trade unionism. They now also suggest that we should expand the complaints procedure. The redress of wrongs and complaints procedures within the Defence Forces refer to individual problems relating to rank, order and command. They have nothing to do with the conditions of pay, health service and educational and housing facilities which are so grossly neglected throughout the whole structure of the Defence Forces. A complaints board would have nothing to do with those issues. There is only one way to deal with these issues, Defence members themselves raising complaints through proper staff association procedures. I welcome Deputy Bell's suggestion that we use Private Members' Time to test this issue because it is time we made Fine Gael——

We have a better record than the Deputy's party.

They should stand up for the fundamental issues that are facing the Defence Forces, the right to establish a representative association and to accept that civilian conditions and democratic rights should exist for members of the Defence Forces. It is time Fine Gael members were called to account in regard to those issues.

We always stood up for the Defence Forces.

It is sad to hear the way Fine Gael Members have prevaricated on this issue. There is a need to hold discussions with the UN. We recognise the role our soldiers have played in peace-keeping exercises in the international arena. I should like to pay tribute to those soldiers who have served abroad and reiterate my condemnation, as expressed by the Leader of the Progressive Democrats in the last Dáil, of any suggestion that we should contemplate withdrawing our soldiers from UN operations. I put a request to the former Minister that an all-party delegation should be given an opportunity to visit Defence Forces installations throughout the country and meet personnel to discuss various issues but I did not get any response to it. I should like to repeat that request to the new Minister and I hope he will respond.

I should like to congratulate the new Minister, Deputy Lenihan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Vincent Brady, on their appointment. They will have a difficult task in the coming years. Changes will occur in the pay and conditions of Army personnel, moves which are long overdue. I was disappointed we had to listen to the same rhetoric that we heard in the 25th Dáil from two Deputies of the so-called left, Deputies Bell and McCartan. We heard the same easy talk in regard to Defence Forces issues in the last Dáil. I have no doubt that if those Members were on this side of the House they would have something different to say and would appreciate the difficulties the Government are facing.

All candidates in the general election were made aware of the discontent among the wives of Army personnel and their families in regard to pay and conditions. However, it is important to bear in mind that those problems did not arise overnight. Deputy Bell, who is from my constituency, received a respectable protest vote from Army personnel against Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. However, people have come to realise that the Labour Party had an opportunity on the day the 26th Dáil met to do something about the complaints they had heard during the campaign. Those who voted for that party looked to their Members to put things right.

The Deputy must not have been listening to my contribution.

People voted for Labour Party candidates on the understanding that they would help put things right but those elected to the House copped out on the instructions of the leader of that party who said he wanted to stay in Opposition. One cannot oppose all the time; one must try to change things. It is nonsense to consider tabling a Bill to test the sincerity of the Government. The Labour Party had an opportunity to enter Government and press for the introduction of a Bill.

The Deputy is in government and he should tell us what he intends doing to change things.

I should like to tell Deputies Bell and McCartan that in this short debate I will not tolerate any interruptions.

Deputy Ahern is getting very personal on this issue.

Deputy Bell's contribution could have been challenged, sentence by sentence, but that is not allowed; the debate does not follow in that way.

On a point of order, I would expect that when Members make a personal attacks on other Members the Chair would intervene. This issue is not about Michael Bell. I gave Deputy Ahern his answer in the election.

The expectations of Deputies in regard to their personal reactions is not accommodated in Standing Orders. Deputies are not allowed to interrupt and that is the position.

On a point of order, it was my understanding that we were discussing the Estimate for the Department of Defence but the debate has been broadened into a discussion of the role of Opposition and Government. In that event we will be delighted to extend the debate when we are making our contributions.

If Deputy Higgins had been listening to earlier contributions he would understand the debate has extended over a wide range of issues. He has not raised a point of order and the Deputy, who is an expert on Standing Orders——

I have not interrupted any Member.

The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt any Member to make commentary of that kind, or any other commentary.

I was raising a point of order.

That was not a point of order. The Deputy should not make little of his own intelligence because I know he knows he has not raised a point of order.

The debate is about the Department of Defence and people's lives are affected by this Estimate.

Deputy Ahern should be allowed to continue without interruption. If Deputy Ahern's contribution irritates Members, they must contain their irritation for some other time.

The two Deputies opposite have taken my comments personally but they cannot escape from the fact that their parties opted out of Government and did not avail of the opportunity to make the changes they have suggested. The people are aware of that. There is an Army barracks in my home town and in the course of the election campaign I was made aware of the discontent among Army personnel. However, I got the impression that basic pay was not the major issue. Their basic pay was considered to be reasonable but there was concern expressed about the fact that Army personnel do not receive recompense for the long hours they must work. The Government will have to try to reward Army personnel for their long hours of duty. There is no doubt that at the time of the search for the "Border Fox" gardaí were paid for the overtime they worked but Army personnel were not. That issue will have to be put right. It is easy to complain but it is more difficult to do something about it particularly when there are so many calls on the public purse.

Army personnel, in addition to their basic pay, receive daily and weekly allowances. In my view that system is out of date and any review of it will have to consider reorganising pay on different structures. Too many allowances are paid. Those serving in Border areas were delighted to receive the increase in the Border allowance but I wonder if it would have been better to spread such allowance throughout the Defence Forces. The wives of Army personnel were very forceful in their criticism at the lack of proper medical facilities for them and their families. In some cases those in possession of medical cards were in receipt of the same weekly income as Army personnel. The review committee should consider that anomaly.

Some Members suggested that a representative body should be established but I did not hear any great demand for such a body. People recognise that if a representative body is established for Army personnel the authority of the Army might be undermined. We will have to give careful consideration to such a proposal. It is important to point out that two former members of the Army will be appointed to the pay review committee. We should all welcome that decision because those people will be aware of the conditions in the Army. I am concerned that there is not a facility for communication between members of the Defence Forces and the review committee. If representatives of a barracks decide to make representatives to the review committee they could find themselves in hot water with the top brass.

I wish the Minister, and the Minister of State, well in their work. They have a very difficult brief. In the short term they will not be able to do very much about the whole area of Army pay but in the long term they will have to do something about it. There is very grave discontent among the people involved and the Minister and his Minister of State will have to do their level best to alleviate some of those fears. I know that many of the fears of the people involved have been whipped up unreasonably by both political commentators and the media. This issue will require very careful examination during the next few years. The way to do this is through a beefed-up pay review committee who would review the conditions of pay and possibly restructure the whole area of pay.

Finally, I should like to pay tribute to Private McNeela, who was a constituent of mine, and to the other members of the Defence Forces who were killed tragically while on duty in foreign places over the past couple of years. I agree with Deputy McCartan that we should never change our attitude of helping other countries by way of our Defence Forces serving with UNIFIL or any other body.

First, I should like to take the opportunity to wish the new Minister for Defence every success in his post. Long may he reign there. I should also like to offer my congratulations to the new Minister of State in the Department.

Of all the issues we have been made aware of in recent times the position of our Defence Forces, with particular reference to Army pay, conditions of employment and lack of morale, has been brought home very forcibly to each and every one of us in public life. It is unfortunate that this problem had to degenerate to the extent that the spouses of Army personnel had to take to the streets, in fact they protested outside this very House, in order to bring to bear on everybody concerned the seriousness of the situation.

I do not want to alarm anybody but I want to underscore what I have said here on previous occasions. I am not sure that the Government were fully aware of the seriousness of the situation in the Defence Forces. It is true that the Minister who had official responsibility for the Defence Forces was recognised as not been able to respond to the situation, but as previous speakers have said it should also be readily recognised that the Government and those who sat around the Cabinet table should have been as equally aware as the Minister of the lack of morale and the discontent within the Army.

It is all very fine to say that we are a small peaceful nation and, therefore, should not place great emphasis on defence. It is true that we are not an international super power but it is necessary in every democracy to have the ultimate defence force which people can rely on. It is equally necessary to ensure that that defence force are reasonably well paid, reasonably content and have a certain amount of pride both in themselves and in the other elements of the authorities within the State, the rest of the public service, so that they can take their rightful place alongside them with pride and dignity and know they are being treated as equal citizens.

Over the past couple of years it has become patently obvious to everybody that there has been serious discontent among members of the Army. This has been referred to by previous speakers in terms of, for example, special duties where one sector of the civil authorities are paid at a particular level while the Army, for doing the same job in support of those authorities, are paid at a miserable level. This augments the discontent felt by the Army. They are incensed by virtue of the fact that they regard themselves as second class citizens because they get a lower rate of pay than those alongside people whom they work. More importantly still — not only was this annoying to the Defence Forces themselves but also to those of us in this House — the then Minister, obviously expounding Government policy, repeatedly said here that there was no crisis in the Army and asked what lack of morale we were talking about. I plead with the Minister of State who is on the other side of the House at the moment that in the programme for Government which has just been announced — perhaps, from what we have seen this morning, some of the proposals in that programme will be no more than announcements — to take into account the serious situation which has developed in the Army. He should recognise that it will not go away and that if we want to have a Permanent Defence Force who are going to be reasonably content they will have to be reasonably well paid and their conditions must be comparable with those of other elements within the State. If this is not done the force will continue to be discontented.

I should like to refer to one other issue. Recently I attended a passing out parade of apprentices in Devoy Barracks. I was more than impressed with the standard of military training achieved by those apprentices. Obviously they were equally impressive in their technical training in the various categories. This was borne out especially by the apprentices who had passed out the previous year. Special mention is made each year of those who have attained high honours in the previous year. It was significant to note that the two apprentices who had achieved the highest honours in the previous class and who had gone abroad and achieved not only national recognition but world recognition in their specific categories had left the Defence Forces within one year. That, more than anything else, underscores the points which have been made by various speakers here today. They had sufficient pride to enlist in the first place, to spend the time required going through their apprenticeship and learning their trade but because they realised after one year that they could not remain within the Defence Forces and try to do the best for themselves and their families the only option they had was to get out. They achieved international recognition by virtue of the training they had received.

The problem now revolves around pay and conditions of employment. Fine Gael were mentioned as having a particular role to play in this regard. I thought we were out of Government. Nevertheless every opposition party have an important role to play. I do not necessarily agree that the representative body are the ultimate answer and neither do all the people within the Defence Forces agree on that.

I disagree.

The Deputy may dispute that but this is the suggestion. It is not the ultimate solution, but all suggestions are welcome. There is a need for some body to be chaired by, for example, a High Court judge who would examine in detail all that goes on within the Defence Forces so as to find out the fundamentals of the problem and report back to Government. This could be somewhat along the lines of the Conroy Commission. It should be done as a first step and I ask the Minister to please consider something along such lines. I know the present review body was set up with the best of intentions but it is not an independent review body, no matter what we say about it. In the short time available I do not wish to go down that road. If we really want to get to the bottom of the problem, to restore Army morale and restore national pride in our Defence Forces, that is the way we should go about it. There needs to be established within, and by the Army itself, a permanent commission whereby complaints and grievances can be aired, something along the lines suggested but not necessarily in the form of a representative body. There must be a means devised whereby — on a continuous basis — members of the Defence Forces can have their grievances aired knowing that that will be done in a fair, equitable fashion, giving them a fair hearing.

I was somewhat disappointed at the number of references in the Minister's introductory remarks to the economic position, the fact that one cannot pay in excess of other Government Departments and agencies because of the economic circumstances obtaining. That may well be the case. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that the deterioration of Army morale should be regarded as the first warning sign to any democratic Administration. A Government should never allow circumstances to develop as are developing here. It is most important for a Government to be able to respond quickly. If they do not do so then those people who are frustrated and annoyed will become even more so and will come to believe that Government do not care, that those in power do not care. As a result they will lose interest and, if that happens, the Minister knows perfectly well what will be the result.

I might refer to the increase in the buy-out provision which contributes further to the annoyance and frustration felt by members of the Defence Forces, particularly when people must thumb lifts to work because they cannot afford to drive there or back or cannot afford to avail of public transport. It is a well known fact that some personnel in the Defence Forces are thumbing lifts to work, which is very sad. If that happened in any other country, such country would be regarded as a banana republic, but, as a rule we do not have the right climate, with the exception of recent weeks. The increased buy-out provision will further annoy and indeed incense the personnel it affects.

Any member of the Defence Forces who intended to buy themselves out would be further annoyed and incensed by the fact that the Government have decided to increase the requisite figure rendering it more difficult for them to do so. We should be endeavouring to improve relations between the Minister, the Department and the Army rather than appearing to do the opposite.

We resort to the services of the Army whenever a river bursts its banks, snow clearance is necessary or fires need to be extinguished. We expect the Army to be at our beck and call 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, over Christmas, Easter, summer, winter, in effect, continuously. Yet we seem unable to resolve a minor matter fundamental to the very existence of that body on whom we must rely.

We have talked about the matter sufficiently long in this House, over the past few months in particular. I would appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State to disregard what has taken place before today, to forget what has, been said and to deal with the position as it obtains now and is likely to obtain in the future. If he does not, then I warn him he will be confronted by an even more serious position when there will be even more disenchantment among the members of the Defence Forces; then, on the Minister's head be it.

I am calling Deputy M. Higgins.

Before Deputy Higgins begins, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the Incorporated Law Society's entrance examination, the use of the Incorporated Law Society of examiners with no law degrees and the failure and refusal of the Incorporated Law Society——

The Ceann Comhairle will communicate with the Deputy on the matter.

The Chair has not heard my full submission yet. I want to raise the failure or refusal of the Incorporated Law Society to reveal the identity of all their internal examiners. I raised that matter yesterday morning. On the general issue I was refused because, I was told, the matter was sub judice. It is a serious barrier that should not exist.

The Ceann Comhairle will communicate with the Deputy.

I want to make a few points in relation to this debate so far which I find very interesting. I am sure that those people in the Army and their spouses must be feeling a sense of strangeness at the overwhelming tributes paid to him in recent weeks and months, which I presume had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we had a general election. I suppose we should welcome the fact that interest has been sustained into the month of July.

When considering the Estimate for the Department of Defence it behoves us to address the matters as seriously as we can in terms of what we should do. A few fundamental principles have already arisen. One of these is the question at the centre of the debate over the past year and beyond that, pay and conditions. Other speakers have already addressed this issue and I do not intend to delay the House unduly. However, I want to add my voice to those who find totally unrealistic what the Minister said in his introductory remarks this morning.

Like everyone else, I wish the new incumbent and his Minister of State every success but I find that the language used is entirely unrealistic. I also think it is unfair. For example, the Minister had this to say in the course of his remarks:

Firstly, the pay of the Defence Forces has for many years been linked to the pay of certain Civil Service grades and the benefit of all increases — both round increases and appropriate special increases — have been passed to the Defence Forces as a matter of course.

The most important word in that statement is the word "certain" because that means that the anomalies and inequities in the existing pay conditions are being regarded as given, as constant. Therefore, what the Minister is saying — without it being written there — is that the structure of public service pay has to hold together as an entity, that he cannot reduce the inequities, the unfairness in the Defence Forces in isolation but that they must wait until the whole of public service pay can be awarded. This is an absolutely absurd proposition.

There are many other areas also that illustrate how this has come to be. It would behove the Minister's colleague, the Minister for the Public Service, to address the history of some of these anomalies. I could argue that elected representatives travelling to the same meeting with their county manager and officers of a local authority will find themselves on different rates from the Members themselves. Many of them comment on that fact occasionally. That is something which is regarded as sacrosanct, something that can never be touched because it was drawn up by members of the public service in somewhat privileged positions, I am sorry to say, looking after their own interests.

It is absolute nonsense to say that one cannot deal with the inequalities in pay within the Defence Forces on their own as an aspect of public service pay. They must be dealt with on their own. If the case is morally correct it must be addressed in that way. If the Minister does not agree — as Deputy Bell has said — we will assist him by introducing our Bill, if necessary.

Later in the same page of the Minister's remarks he had this comment to make: "Attempts to isolate the pay of the Defence Forces from the wider picture are unrealistic". That is simply saying that any attempt to redress the issue of the inadequacy of pay and allowances — apart altogether from the balance between the two — must come at the tail-end of a general public pay review.

Earlier in the statement is an absolute piece of hypocrisy and I compliment those speakers, including Deputy McCartan, who mentioned it in rather strong language with which I agree. It states: "Our economic targets would become unattainable and all our sacrifices would have been in vain". Let us be clear about all our sacrifices. In 1981 there was a wealth tax of about 1 per cent but it was paid by very few people. We abandoned the effort not because of what it was yielding but what it was telling us about the wealthy. That was one of the decisions by the Fianna Fáil Administration, which Deputy Ahern would have the Labour Party join in his Mafiaesque construction of democracy. Their decision was to abolish the wealth tax at its tiny level. If it had been continued even at 1981 levels it would have yielded in the present financial year about £30 million, more than enough to meet the pay demand and to meet some of the health and education demands. It is part of the hypocrisy of this House to put language that is absolutely untrue, immoral and misleading into Ministers' speeches. I repeat that phrase in case it gets lost: "Our economic targets would become unattainable and all our sacrifices would have been in vain".

As far as the wealthy who are affected by the wealth tax and those whose corporation profit tax was reduced are concerned, they made no sacrifices. Not only that, but because they are regarded as such rarefied hyacinths in the world of business, it is though that if any tax at all is imposed on them they will be frightened away and will not invest their pennies so, therefore, we must create a climate of investment for them. As previous speakers have said, it is the workers who made the sacrifices in relation to restraint and it is insulting to those who need an increase in income and want decent pay to be trotting out that kind of rubbish. People who suggest that they are concerned, that their hearts are bleeding, that they like to see people going to Lebanon and Namibia and that they are continually thinking about, caring and praying for them while, at the same time, they are telling them they will wait for an adequate pay level until everyone else has got it, are simply hypocrites and that is what they should be called.

There is another gem of a phrase in the Minister's speech. Having said that these people cannot be taken out of line in relation to public service pay, he then makes a statement that is a flat contradiction to that. He stated: "the Defence Forces pay structure is quite unlike that of other public servants." It would be nice if he could make up his mind as to what he is saying. If it is unlike that of other public servants, why is he asking them to wait until all the public servants have received their pay increases? The Minister should tell us what he means. If he means their pay structure is quite unlike that of other public servants, why does he not pay for the difference? You do not have to be a very complicated person to know what makes it different. Many of us have visited the houses of Army personnel and met their wives and children. They can tell us very forcefully — and they have developed a nice direct line of language as well — what their lives are like in terms of the conditions under which they are forced to serve, the amount of pay they get and the amount of money that is available for their children, their health condition and that of their children and their lack of ability to send their children to third level education. That is what the phrase "unlike other public servants" means.

There is another amoral suggestion in this speech as well. That is, having recognised that there are peculiar circumstances attached to the occupation, there is no commitment to redressing an inequity based on a simple proposition, that is that the same people, doing the same work, under the same conditions and for the same amount of time should be entitled to expect the same remuneration. There is nothing earth-shattering about that. It is a fundamental principle of the ILO and most people have accepted it in civilised countries. It is accepted even in what a previous speaker over here referred to a few minutes ago in his unfortunate insulting language as "banana republics". There are many so-called banana republics who accept the principle of equal pay for equal work under equal conditions.

China does not.

There is another little phrase I would like the Minister to clarify. He stated in his speech: "In the longer term, it is intended to restructure the Defence Forces pay system completely so as to increase basic pay levels and reduce the dependence of soldiers on special allowances". What does "in the longer term" mean? Does it mean this year, next year, the four-year term that is part of the accord that is a coalition, that might be an inter-party agreement, that has no status in the Parliament, as we hard this morning? Does it mean the lifetime of the Minister, his children's lifetime, or what? No procedure is specified as to how it is to be implemented. If people over here are very sincere about their concern for the conditions of Army personnel, their wives and their children, they will be interested in flushing out what the "longer term" means by supporting our Bill in that regard when the time comes. That is one way of making language precise.

People are very worried that our Army might become contaminated by politics, trade unionism or organised representatives bodies. It is very interesting to know what is at stake here. The command structure of the Army is at stake, I believe. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches this morning. People come out with phrases like, "I would be against there being a trade union" and "I would be against a representative body but they should be allowed to make their views known". It would remind you of the days of the emancipation of slavery, that you are letting the slaves speak and there should be channels through which they could push up their little complaints.

The distinction has been accurately drawn between a complaints procedure and a representative body. We are not talking about the visiting committees of prisons but that is what it sounded like as I listened to these alternatives to representative bodies. It would be terrible to keep them silent totally. You should let them talk occasionally and have channels open through which they could write their little complaints and then you could put them in a bin. Why should these people not have a representative body? They are workers. To the people who claim to be speaking on behalf of the Army, I would say that I have talked to a number of Army personnel, their wives and their families and I did not hear anyone objecting to a representative body. If they are going to be excluded from discussing pay conditions in the future and the right to have a decent career structure, people should not be saying that they themselves are unhappy with that.

Everybody I spoke to said it would be a good thing if morale was restored by their being able to discuss conditions and prospects. Nobody mentioned this morning that a representative body might have a view, for example, in stopping political interference in promotions in the Army. In regard to those who are allowed to organise on behalf of people in our Defence Forces, their first demand, that has not been qualified, has been for a representative body. If you want to become converted to the cause of rights for the Army personnel, their wives and their families, do not deny them representation. I want to refer to the question of what is being kept intact by denying a representative body, this so-called command structure. Many people have been very concerned about the manner in which attitudes have been encouraged within the Defence Forces, for which we have very little accountability here. I am not talking about the people who are going on night duty, serving on the Border or enlisting for work abroad but, for example, the deep sexism that invades the Department of Defence at top level. Question after question in the last Dáil and the previous one revealed that there was a bias against the recruitment of women cadets and where women cadets went on to become officers in the Army there had been a decision — no one knows who took it — that they were suitable for administrative duties but not combat duties.

I must ask the Deputy to conclude. His time is up.

Therefore, when the Minister replies he might talk about the sexism that is clearly part of the policy of the Department of Defence for some time.

I will conclude by saying I welcome any innovation but what we are all after in the end is this. People want to be and are proud to be part of the Defence Forces, but they want a career structure, decent conditions, openness and not to be excluded, and the right to be represented. Any Member of this House who offers them less is not speaking truly on their behalf.

Two Deputies are wishing to contribute on this debate and I suggest giving them five minutes each. Would that be acceptable? Agreed.

I was hoping to get in.

On the Order of Business the Minister is to be called in about ten minutes or before 15 minutes. I am adhering now to the Order of Business.

So I cannot speak. My constituency has a large——

I want to use this opportunity, while acknowledging the Estimates for the Department of Defence, to make a couple of points about the Defence Forces. First, I offer my congratulations to the Tánaiste, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on his appointment as the new Minister for Defence. I wish him the best of success in his new appointment and a continued and full recuperation from his recent operation. His appointment comes at a particularly crucial time for the Defence Forces. Nobody needs to be reminded just how bad the problems in the Defence Forces are, particularly in the Army. It has been clear now for over a year how bad these problems are, particularly the pay conditions and the general morale. We have all heard stories of Army families depending on family income supplement, of families with loan sharks feeding off them and of so many Army personnel who are living and working in those terrible conditions. We have all seen over the last year a serious increase in the numbers of people leaving the Forces, the unpredecented attempts made by individuals to establish representative bodies for the Forces and Army wives standing in the recent general election for the first time ever to highlight the problems. Tackling those problems must be a priority for the new Government.

The Defence Forces play a crucial role. We depend on them to perform not just their normal role of protecting the security of the State, particularly against the terrorist threat we constantly face, but a whole host of other duties. We deploy them to help guard our prisons and escort large consignments of money, and we have used them during times of natural and industrial hardship to drive buses, collect garbage, deliver fuel and even clear snow. The relationship between the Forces and the State depends on mutual understanding. The fact that no representative bodies are allowed for the Forces puts extra responsibility on the Minister for Defence and the Government to ensure that issues like pay, conditions and morale are properly looked after and do not become problems.

Two aspects of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government are particularly important to the Forces. They are the long term objective of restructuring Army pay with the aim of improving basic pay substantially and reducing over-dependence of soldiers on special duty allowances, and the permanent interdepartmental committees, including two members nominated by the Defence Forces to consider the situation and problems of the Forces. Both of these are crucial, but they must be matched by determination to ensure urgent action is taken to deal with the problem in the Forces and that the situation is never allowed to deteriorate so much again. There is no longer the excuse for people to claim they did not realise how bad the situation was. There is no longer excuse for not tackling the situation urgently and effectively. I have every confidence that the new Government with PD participation will immediately tackle the urgent problems and achieve a satisfactory long term solution for the general grievances of soldiers and their families.

Coming as I do from a Border area I have had plenty of opportunity over the last 20 years to appreciate the role of the Defence Forces, both the Army and the Garda Síochána. In the last 20 years they have had a hard job to do to ensure the safety of the Border area against the threat to this entire country posed by various shades of IRA activity, the Provisional IRA, the INLA and the Official IRA. I have observed Army patrols who were working right through the night and I could not help but reflect, even long before I came into the Dáil, on why there was such a distinction made between the pay allotted to the Garda on the one hand and the unfortunate soldiers who until a few years ago had to work right through the night for absolutely no money at all. I would like to recognise the role the security Forces have played and will continue to play to ensure the safety of the State. I would also like to recognise the role we have played in overseas service and I hope that participation will continue. Indeed, only some months ago a young man from my constituency, the town of Dundalk, Private McNeela, paid the supreme sacrifice in foreign fields. We have a proud role and we have made a big contribution to international safety. I hope our role in international affairs will continue.

I ask today that a realistic appraisal be made of the situation in which the Army find themselves. As Deputy Higgins, said, the rate of pay should have nothing to do with the public finances. If they are performing a very useful and necessary job, surely that is justification for paying them a realistic and acceptable wage, but it is not just money that is the problem in the Army. In recent years we have seen a continuing deterioration in morale. That cannot be good for the Forces as a whole. In my town of Dundalk I am aware that two young men have recently left the Army. One has joined the Australian Army and the other has joined, of all things, the Israeli Army. There are many cases of people leaving the Force because of the lack of progress or career structure in the Irish Army.

I have to acknowledge the role played by the wives of the soldiers, NASA, in focusing attention at national level on the plight of the lower paid personnel in the Army. There is no doubt that they played a significant role in getting the Government to acknowledge, maybe begrudgingly, that there was discontent in the Army. I am a little cynical about whether a representative body will be formed; despite the fact that large numbers of personnel in the Army of all ranks will sign this petition, I feel it will not be recognised by the Government. That is a pity. Consultation is the answer to everything and it is in everybody's interests, the Government's and the Army's to sit down and compromise and come up with a rational solution rather than have simmering discontent, which is not good for the morale of the Army. It is not just money. Many of these people on Border duty are earning reasonable money but the hours they are being asked to work for it are ludicrous, in some cases 100 hours. Nobody should be asked to work for that length of time. I would ask the Minister to initiate some type of consultation regarding a representative body so that the Government can ascertain the feelings of the rank and file of the Army.

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate which reflect their feelings in regard to the members of the Defence Forces. Very often we are accused of indulging in clichés but it is true that Deputies on all sides have a genuine interest in the members of the Defence Forces and are anxious to ensure that if there are problems they should be resolved in the best possible way.

Deputy Connaughton referred to the helicopter to be based at Shannon. I indicated in my opening speech that the Dauphin helicopter will be positioned at Shannon from September this year and that arrangements will be made to have helicopter refuelling sites at various other parts of the country upgraded for 24-hour refuelling.

What about the long range one?

The advisory group have been set up and have had a number of meetings. The urgency of their terms of reference has been conveyed to them by the Government and I am satisfied that we will have a report in this House, possibly before the end of the year. A lot of work must be done and consideration must be given to various aspects. These are issues that cannot be resolved overnight since it has taken many years to tackle them. When the committee report to Government we will be in a position to initiate whatever measures are necessary to bring about a much more satisfactory situation for people in that part of the country.

The representative body has been the main theme of the debate. We all accept that this is an extremely important matter deserving very careful attention. It is continuing to receive attention but it is all too easy to dismiss as rubbish the process of setting up such a body and the time taken to consider it. It is very easy to say that. Many aspects must be examined. There is a fundamental issue involved. It would be foolish in the extreme for any Government to rush in and say either yes or no when such proposals are brought before them. The Government will be considering that matter in every detail as soon as possible and a decision will be made in due course. We all accept that consultation is absolutely necessary. Perhaps one of the reasons for the current problems is that there was insuficient consultation. This is an area which will be looked at in conjunction with every other proposal and suggestion coming to Government. It is extremely important that various members of the Defence Forces have access to the Department and to the Minister if they have grievances or suggestions. I am certain that the Minister will achieve a resolution of the problems experienced by the man on the ground.

Deputy Bell mentioned the proposal to extend the membership of the present committee. There is no such proposal. The committe was extended some months ago by the inclusion of two new members. Since the new committee was set up on a permanent basis they have had a number of meetings attended by the two new members. There are no proposals to extend the committee further at this stage.

Deputy Bell also said that special increases paid in other areas of the public service were not passed on to the members of the Defence Forces. I dealt with this in my earlier contribution. I would point out that all increases to employees in the public service were passed on at exactly the same level to members of the Defence Forces.

That is not the problem.

I know it is not the problem. I am merely correcting a statement made here this morning. We in Government consider this matter to be extremely important. I appeal to all Members not to make a political football of the issue. It is too serious for that.

His speech today suggests that the Minister is doing absolutely nothing.

Most contributors to the debate have been very constructive. It has already been said that it is very easy for The Workers' Party to make all sorts of proposals and suggestions since they are not in a position to implement them in legislation. It is very easy for them to oppose for the sake of opposing.

This debate has been constructive. I should like to feel that we are all acting cohesively on this issue. We recognise that there is a problem which requires resolution. It is the firm commitment of this Government to pursue the matter as quickly as possible to bring about a resolution of all the problems.

On behalf of the Government I assure all members of the Defence Forces that their position is considered at all times by the Government in a very positive way. That will continue to be the case. Whatever the problems may be, we intend to resolve them as quickly as possible.

I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the House: "That the Estimates for Defence and Army Pensions for the year ending 31 December 1989 are hereby agreed to."

I move:

That, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 130 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, the Committee of Public Accounts be appointed;

and that the Appropriation Accounts, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, for the year ended 31st December 1987, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of Public Accounts appointed on 16th June 1987, be referred to the Committee for examination and report."

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £1,144,905,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Health (including Oifig an Ard Chláraitheora) and certain services administered by that Office, including grants to Health Boards, miscellaneous grants, and a grant-in-aid.

First, I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Noel Treacy, on his appointment as Minister of State at my Department. The Deputy is very welcome and I look forward to working with him. I hope he will have a very pleasant and productive time in the Department of Health.

The exercise we are engaged in here today has, as the House will appreciate, been overtaken by recent events. I will therefore begin by addressing what actually was provided in the Estimates.

The gross non-capital provision in the Estimate amounted to £1,251.405 million. Allowing for appropriations-in-aid at £141.5 million, the net non-capital grant provision was £1,109.905 million. The net non-capital grant provision represented an increase of £39.357 million on the corresponding out-turn figure for 1988.

The 1989 Estimate included provision for an increase of 3 per cent from July in the rates of allowances for disabled persons. The provision also took account of the cost of second phase pay increases arising under the 1987 agreement on pay in the public sector.

The net capital provision made in the Estimate amounted to £32 million. Allowing for certain non-Exchequer receipts this provision allowed for capital expenditure within the year of £39 million. In addition, a provision of £3 million was made for systems development and related services in the health agencies.

The level of non-capital expenditure approvable on the basis of the subhead provisions in the Estimate was £1,256.5 million in net terms, or £1,363.5 million taking account of the direct income of health agencies. The net non-capital expenditure represented almost 20 per cent of total Government expenditure on supply services as compared with 19 per cent in 1986.

The gross estimated expenditure of £1,363.5 million was an increase of £25 million over the 1988 outturn. It comprised £850.5 million in respect of pay, £440 million in respect of non-pay and £73 million in respect of cash allowances.

The total health capital provision for 1989 was £39 million. These funds are being spent on priority projects that are designed to maintain and consolidate the physical structure of the health services. Capital provision has been made for the major general hospital projects at St. James's, the Mater, Cavan, Mullingar, Castlebar, Sligo, Wexford, Waterford Regional Hospital and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda; for psychiatric units at Naas and Roscommon and for the provision of a new 34 bed geriatric unit at St. Patricks Hospital, Waterford. The planning of the new Tallaght Hospital will be continued.

I have examined the capital requirements of the health services for the period up to the end of 1994 and I am finalising the phasing of a multi-annual programme for that period, which will take account of much-needed capital developments in all programmes.

As Minister for Health I have always recognised that, given the precarious economic situation which has existed in recent years and the essential requirement to reduce public expenditure, the funding available for the health services has inevitably had to be less than I or my Government colleagues would have liked.

The acute hospital sector has been the centre of the drive to restrain public expenditure and naturally became the public focus of the previous Government's efforts in this regard. The change that has taken place in this sector has long been identified as necessary. The measures which were undertaken concentrated on achieving maximum efficiency; introducing improved methods of service delivery; and ensuring that patient care was the centre around which the delivery system must function. These objectives will continue to be necessary if we are to meet the changing health needs of our population.

We have a well developed acute hospital system with dedicated and committed nurses, doctors, paramedical and administrative personnel providing a high level and quality of service. We have a level of high technology that compares favourably with that available anywhere in the world. However I am concerned about some aspects of the service.

The number of patients on waiting lists particularly in some specialities and the variation in the numbers and period of time a person is awaiting admission to hospital in different parts of the country is a matter of concern. At present I am having a detailed and minute study of individual waiting lists carried out in a number of hospitals throughout the country.

There is a widespread public perception that patients on public hospital waiting lists can receive priority admission if they are prepared to pay. This could not be tolerated and I have directed the Secretary of my Department to contact each health board and voluntary hospital asking them to make returns to my Department indicating the number of public and private patients treated in their hospitals.

Some of the results of the measures introduced over the past three years have been an increase in the number of inpatients treated; a very large increase in day care activity and major advances in the equipping of our new major units. These success factors are very often overlooked. For a number of reasons they have been overtaken and hidden by increased demands for services. Demographic factors, AIDS and indeed advances in medical knowledge and technique have all led to increased demand.

New methods of investigation and treatment are constantly being developed and are being introduced into our system. All of these factors have placed increasing pressure on our services, as shown by the numbers on waiting lists for certain services. To alleviate this problem the present Government have committed themselves to the provision of an additional £15 million to the health services.

The additional resources are being allocated as follows: (a) introduction of sectoral accident & emergency service in the Eastern Health Board area: £1.5 million; (b) operations this year to reduce waiting lists, with priority for ear, nose, throat and hip-replacement operations: £1.7 million; (c) cessation of planned bed closures, restoration of bed weeks already lost through summer closures, and the opening of additional beds: £9.0 million and (d) the acceleration of the planned opening of new beds, including the purchase of new equipment: £2.8 million.

These provisional allocations will, if necessary, be revised within the same total provision, £15 million, following detailed discussions with the health boards and hospital authorities.

The additional funding which will be invested in the services will be allocated in a targeted purposeful manner and in a way which will ensure the best return on investment in the interests of patient care.

I moved a token Supplementary Estimate this morning on the basis that there will be an opportunity for a full discussion of the entire matter after the summer recess when the detailed allocation of the additional funding has been finalised.

As indicated also in the programme for Government, my Department will be having discussions with the Haemophilia Society to identify the specific requirements of individual claimants with a view to putting into effect through the AIDS fund a revised system of support to haemophiliacs who have contracted the HIV virus.

It is important to place on record that the Government's decision to increase the overall level of service does not mean that health agencies may set aside the spending parameters laid down by my Department. The existing cash and control mechanisms must continue to remain in force. I have stressed continually the importance of good, effective management and management which concentrates on achieving pre-set objectives. The structures through which management can operate and deliver must continually be addressed to improve efficiency.

Regardless of how services are organised in the future the requirement to have capable and productive management throughout the services will be a priority of this Government. A continuing review of the management of the system both in terms of structures, personnel and relationships will be a feature of this new Administration.

It is particularly opportune in my first address to the House on my reappointment as Minister for Health to refer to some of the major areas which will require particular attention over the next four years.

There is a tendency in referring to health to concentrate on the important and necessary services which provide treatment for illness and care for those who are suffering. However, to do so in isolation from the role of health promotion and preventive initiatives is to ignore an important element of public health policy. The House will be familiar with the health promotion structures I put in place during my previous term in office. I will continue to utilise these structures in the interests of achieving worthwhile results.

I have spoken at length in this House on the negotiations and changes that have taken place in the GMS. It is not necessary today to go over that ground again. However, let me say that discussions are continuing on possible additions to this arrangement. The duties of doctors under the new contract are specified and they include a requirement to take account of information and advice on prescribing matters agreed between the profession and management. Provision is also made for the introduction of a national drugs formulary to be operated by general practitioners. A joint working group has produced such a formulary for use in the GMS.

In recognition of the fact that general practice is undergoing significant change and that the contract itself is designed to foster particular aspects of change, the agreement provides that it should be subject to regular review, initially after 12 months and at three-yearly intervals thereafter. Provision is also made for reference to third party adjudication of matters of interpretation of the agreement which may give rise to dispute. New and straightforward arrangements are included in the contract for dealing with complaints about performance by participating doctors to ensure that the are dealt with fairly and efficiently. The agreement also provides for the establishment of a new part time post of practice support medical officer who will liaise closely with participating doctors to assist them to provide a high level of service and to identify and respond to aspects of practice which are capable of improvement in the interest of patients.

I am satisfied that this new agreement constitutes a sound basis, not only for the future of the GMS on a cost effective basis but also for the development of general practice as a whole, enabling it to fulfil its full potential as the primary core of an integrated and comprehensive health service.

The mental handicap service is an expanding service in that the life expectancy of mentally handicapped persons is rising. As a result, the level of financing of mental handicap services has steadily increased as a percentage of overall health expenditure over the past number of years. There have been dramatic improvements in the community services provided by State and voluntary agencies, but more must be done to ensure that all people requiring a service receive it in the appropriate setting. I am committed to ensuring the continued development and improvement of these services.

Much has been achieved in the past two years in developing the community based psychiatric services. There are, however, still too many people in psychiatric hospitals who have been assessed as requiring care in the community setting. I will strive to accelerate the implementation of the recommendations of the report Planning For The Future which forms the basis of my policy for these services.

The elderly are the highest users of health services. The incidence of many physical and mental conditions increases greatly in later life and dependency on medical and social services grows accordingly. The number of persons over 65 is growing as a proportion of the overall population. The growth in the number of very old — those over 80 years — will have important implications for the health services in the coming years.

The recent working party reports, The Care of the Elderly — The Years Ahead, has identified the measures necessary to provide adequate and appropriate services for the elderly, with an emphasis on care in the community. Significant progress has already been made in implementing the recommendations of the report, and improvements in these services will continue to be made.

The Government are committed to improving the lives of all children who are not receiving adequate care and protection. The Child Care Bill, 1988, had completed its Second Stage in the last Dáil and the Government propose to proceed to Committee Stage at the earliest possible date.

Some months ago, I announced my intention to introduce a new community drug subsidisation scheme for persons with limited elegibility who have a regular and continuous need for expensive medication. At present these persons pay the full cost of their prescribed medicines and must claim from the health board the balance over £28 in a given month. I recognise that this places an unfair financial burden on many individuals and families. Under the new scheme, these patients will pay only the first £28 of the cost of their drugs in a given month. The balance of the cost will be met by the pharmacist who will be reimbursed by the GMS payments board. Under these arrangements, the financial outlay of patients will therefore be kept to a minimum. Negotiations are proceeding and it is hoped to introduce the new scheme before the end of the summer.

The priorities which I have just outlined reflect some, but by no means all, of the areas in which the ongoing development of our health services will continue over the next four years in response to the ever changing demands which must be met. The basic principle underlying all of our policies will be to ensure that resources are directed to providing services for those most in need and in the appropriate setting. This inevitably will call for a continuation of my policy of redirecting resources to community care.

The House will be aware of the establishment of a Commission on Health Funding which are currently examining core issues which affect the funding, managing and organisation of health care in the future. I expect to receive their report in the near future and will study the recommendations and review the entire system of management of the health service nationally, including the health boards, to ensure an adequate and efficient public health service providing the best possible patient care. I will then submit to Government an outline of what needs to be done to meet this commitment.

The background to the financial difficulties of the VHI Board has been discussed at length in this House, so it is not necessary to detail once again the various factors which were causing the VHI's costs to escalate out of control. Suffice it to say that decisive action had to be taken to prevent the Board's insolvency and this was done. As a result, the board are no longer operating at a loss and can now begin to restore their reserves to an adequate level provided that the co-operation of hospitals and the medical profession is maintained.

In conclusion, I would like to stress again that the Government's commitment is to the provision of an adequate and efficient health service providing the best possible patient care in an equitable way.

First, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his reappointment and wish him well in his new office. He has proved himself to be most resilient in difficult circumstances. Similarly, I should like to congratulate Deputy Treacy on his appointment as Minister of State and assure them both that I shall be as vigorous as I have been in the past in keeping them on their toes.

The general election campaign proved conclusively that the general public are deeply concerned about the deterioration in the health services under Fianna Fáil and the present Minister for Health. They want immediate action to reduce the hospital waiting lists. They are appalled at the lack of basic dental and optical services for medical card holders and they are fed up with platitudes rather than plans for the proper provision of essential services for mentally handicapped and psychiatric patients in the community, child care facilities and AIDS patients.

Since the election, the health crisis has deepened. At present health boards are unable to cope with their budget allocation for 1989 and will have a substantial overrun. Across the country summer hospital ward closures are coming into effect. We have seen two serious industrial disputes at St. James's and Ardkeen Hospitals. Among health managers there is confusion as to how additional resources will be spent. The Minister's response to this during and since the election has not been thought out and was ill-considered. It is obvious that the additional £15 million secured in the Progressive Democrat deal with not be enough to meet the various commitments in the joint programme for Government relating to the reopening of beds and the 24 hour accident and emergency services in Dublin, let alone reduce substantially waiting lists.

It is incredible that this Government are still, after two years, depending on the Health commission report for any semblance of health reform. They are still totally undecided whether to continue with the health board structure or if more resources are needed. They are still without any proposals as to the future funding of the health services. It is because of this fundamental lack of planning and sensitivity, as well as inadequate resources that Fine Gael will be voting against this Health Estimate.

I wish to refer in some detail to the contents relating to health in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Programme for Government, 1989-1993. The first commitment relates to waiting lists and acute hospital services. The Fine Gael proposal to spend £30 million this year and next year to clear the backlog of waiting lists was based on costings at VHI rates for the necessary units of treatment required for the 22,000 patients who are awaiting hospital care. Specifically this included joint replacements and ear, nose and throat operations, including cataract operations for blindness and child deafness.

The present Government programme only allocates one quarter of this amount and they expect that this £15 million will also pay for a major increased capacity of accident and emergency facilities in Dublin on a 24 hour basis. This will not work. The Minister must obtain from the Cabinet additional resources and more importantly must earmark and spend these moneys to ensure that they relate directly to patients on waiting lists. This must involve revising the method of financial allocation to hospitals. We must link additional moneys with contracts of specialised levels of service. For example, for orthopaedic hospitals costings must be established for extra hip replacement operations and the money spent on the basis of an agreed increased level of surgical activity.

The programme for Government also deals with the new accident/emergency facilities to be provided for 1 September in Dublin. If this is to be done properly we must establish cathment areas for each hospital. Too often in the past repetitive costly diagnostic tests have been performed on patients of an identical nature in different hospitals in Dublin simply because of the lack of co-ordination between hospitals, with particular reference to medical records. It is also vital that the extra beds in each hospital required for the daily emergency admissions do not occur at the expense of day hospital facilities or elective admissions, as this can only lengthen waiting lists. It is also vital in this context of improving casualty departments to appoint more senior doctors for quicker and better diagnosis and to co-ordinate the availability of general practitioner services, especially at night, throughout Dublin. This comprehensive approach represents the best solution to the litany of complaints and crises we have witnessed in recent months in this area.

I wish to refer briefly to a further commitment by this Coalition Government in their programme, namely, the allocation of £1 million for haemophiliacs who are HIV positive or who have Aids. I welcome this announcement and I call on the Minister to ensure that this fund will be set up in a separate trust between the Government and the Irish Haemophiliac Society rather than through the AIDS fund. The Government should also seek additional finance for the fund from the pharmaceutical companies whom I have already named in this House for their role in the cause of infection. It is regrettable that we still have no national aid plan for all AIDS patients despite promises made some months ago in the House that we would have such a policy within a week of a Dáil vote. The events since then have proved who in this House was sincere about helping all AIDS victims as opposed to discriminating between different patients on the basis of the cause of infection. I repeat my call in that debate on the Minister to ensure that on a means tested basis all HIV-AIDS patients have proper access to care and medical attention with dignity and adequate welfare assistance to meet their special heating, dietary and other expenses.

I have always believed that part of the role of Opposition includes the responsibility to set out an alternative strategy for the development of our health services. There is little evidence to date that some of the inevitable changes that Fine Gael have been calling for will be implemented by the Government. There is no central executive for the management and delivery of health care in this country. The Department of Health have authority without responsibility, which falls upon health boards and hospitals. This lack of a management structure, coupled with the bureaucratic nightmare of our health boards, prevents planning and its implementation.

There is no good reason that some hospitals should be accountable to the Department of Health and others accountable to health boards. We have no national hospital plan with a clear allocation of national and regional specialities. The way finance is allocated to hospitals actively penalises efficiency, as hospitals that live within their budgets are reduced in expenditure the following year in the same way as hospitals that overrun their budgets. The management structure of many multi-million pound hospitals is inadequate to meet modern complexities. Access to diagnostic facilities in hospitals is not such as to facilitate more efficient practice at the primary care level of general practitioners. Hospital catchment areas do not exist. All this amounts to the current as hoc crisis management and indecision from which so much public concern has arisen.

Fine Gael believe that a national hospital plan to be set out under a new central executive, Bord Sláinte, with finance allocated on the basis of clinical budgeting is the only way forward, thereby relating money to treatment. We have also identified an alternative to the Minister's approach of cash limits to hospitals and health boards and a public service embargo — whereby certain savings can be obtained through more prudent management and control.

I refer principally to the spiralling cost of medicines especially through the GMS from their latest annual report. It is obvious, from price comparisons on the cost of drugs, that being linked to a British price base is simply not in the taxpayers' interest. The present deal between the Department of Health and the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries whereby we pay UK prices plus 10 per cent with a trade weighted average of UK prices plus 4 per cent is contrary to value for money and more jobs in the Irish pharmaceutical sector; 95 per cent of all our medicines are imported. In the near future I will be outlining specific drugs of a generic nature which can be substituted for expensive branded medicines. A national formulary with voluntary implementation by doctors is inadequate. I understand that Ireland and Luxembourg are the only two countries in the western world that do not have a comprehensive system where by at doctor and pharmacy level it is only within a range of generic drugs that certain prescriptions can be taken from. I specifically call on the Government to adopt the British or American approach in this area.

I had hoped that the Taoiseach when appointing his Ministers of State would have taken the opportunity to create the post of a Minister for the disabled. Ten per cent of our population are disabled in one form or another. In many cases, such as mental handicap, they cannot speak for themselves. It is vital that at overall governmental level there is a raised consciousness of the special needs of the disabled. Earlier this year some progress was made in relation to disabled drivers. We need new laws concerning the rights of employment of the disabled in the public and private sector and new laws to ensure accessibility to public buildings for the physically disabled. Some of these issues go beyond the Department of Health and need a clear office with responsibility.

Ireland will assume Presidency of the European Council for the first half of next year. This is a golden opportunity for our Minister for Health Ministers, to of the Council of Health Ministers, to pioneer new European Social Fund funding for sheltered employment. At present our community workshops and rehabilitation centres are limited in their intake of new recruits because of the lack of placement in open employment. After five years ESF funding is not available as it is no longer considered vocational training. It is vital that new centres of sheltered employment are established and funded. A European initiative is the best way to achieve this.

The planned provision of extra residential places for mentally handicapped persons is overdue, especially for adults. Many ageing parents are extremely fearful for the future, after their own lifetime, of their adult sons and daughters who are handicapped. Decisive action is now necessary to provide across the country the correct number of such places in hostel and residential setting.

Earlier this year Fine Gael proposed a new initiative in relation to the dental services. This involved all dental services being brought in under the Department of Health, including the PRSI dental treatment benefit scheme. The health board service would have a specific role in relation to dental prevention and orthodontics, with a new management structure. New grades of dental auxiliaries are required to reduce costs. Most of all medical card holders should have a right to be referred through their local health clinic for routine dental treatment such as fillings, extractions, root canal treatment and the provision of dentures. It is simply an outrageous injustice that at present old age pensioners and those on unemployment assistance are asked to pay for these services while company directors and bank managers have free treatment under the PRSI scheme.

It is a tragedy that the Child Care and Protection Bill is still not enacted. Fine Gael favours a clear set of rights for children with their welfare as the paramount concern; we favour a modern legal framework within which their rights can be enhanced and protected and we will seek to ensure that accompanying any such legislation there will be adequate resources for social workers, residential centres, and family support.

Our psychiatric services account for approximately 10 per cent of our total health budget. Over the last year I have visited many psychiatric hospitals and I have consistently been told of the problems of inadequate nursing levels and in some cases an undue haste in discharging patients into the community. It is vital that very careful scrutiny is observed in relation to the suicide statistics so that voluntary patients are adequately supervised and cared for in any community setting. It will require resources, especially in the short-term, to provide adequate numbers of hotels and community nurses to meet this programme of deinstitutionalising patients. Any shortcuts in this area will have to be resisted and carefully monitored. Fine Gael favour the maximum participation in society for the mentally ill but this must be based on their best interests and not on the expediency of financial book-keeping.

It is tragic that the fine report The Years Ahead setting out a detailed policy for our care of the elderly has been neglected by the Minister. At hospital level geriatric patients are often shuffled between acute, psychiatric, and long stay facilities. We need to establish, at least in every community care area, a geriatric assessment team to ensure the most appropriate placement of the elderly. We need more geriatricians appointed to get better direction on the care of the elderly in acute hospitals. In this regard often elderly patients who cannot be cured by physicians can obtain great benefit in the quality of their life from geriatric specialist advice. This is rarely available in our general hospitals.

We need clear guidelines as to the ratios required of long stay beds within the region and above all we need coordination between the different aspects of State authorities to provide sheltered housing for the elderly living alone in the community. By this I mean the back-up facilities of home helps, meals on wheels, security systems, and a central location to essential services. There is no co-ordination between local authorities and health boards currently in this area, while all the statistics show there is an increased need for this type of planning.

It was a disappointment that in his last term of office the Minister for Health did not succeed in re-negotiating the common contract for consultants. Such a review is urgent and should seek to differentiate between the varying circumstances of hospital based doctors. Greater recognition also needs to be afforded to non-consultant foreign hospital doctors who have been treated disgracefully in the past by both the Medical Council and their employers. These issues have been neglected in recent years and must be tackled in the lifetime of this Dáil.

On the legislative side we need to introduce a new sale of food Bill to modernise our regulations to deal with the almost daily occurrences of different scares concerning consumer products. Not only are stiff penalties required, there is a need for proper enforcement through adequate numbers of environmental health officers. Modern catering techniques have made the current regulations outdated.

Finally, I wish to assure this Government that Fine Gael in opposition will be vigorous in exposing inequality and injustice in our health service. We believe that access to medical care should be based solely on clinical need and not on one's ability to pay. We deplore the fact that the pain of waiting lists can be avoided through access to expensive private medicine. Simultaneously we will support objectively the decisions that are necessary to modernise our health service. This Government are on notice of the public's growing impatience in relation to health care. Failure to resolve these issues a second time will be unacceptable. This Coalition Government have an obligation to urgently rectify the situation and failure to do so will have a high political price.

May I begin by paying what is a rare compliment to the Minister for Health not for his stewardship of the health services, I hasten to add, but for his undoubted political skills of maintaining his job in the heat of the information that has become available to the Government and to the Taoiseach in recent weeks? I hope that the learning process will see a reversal of some of the dreadful policies implemented in the last two and a half years. I wish the Minister and the new Minister of State, Deputy Noel Treacy, well in the very difficult and onerous job they will both have in steering the health services of this nation in the next four years.

Unfortunately, in the years since Deputy O'Hanlon became Minister for Health our health services have gone into a state of deep crisis as a result of the policies of his Government and, particularly, as a result of a policy decision taken by the Government to reduce the financial allocation to health year after year. In the four years during which former Deputy Barry Desmond, was Minister for Health, health spending remained constant at 7 per cent of GNP, that is, £7 out of every £100 of national wealth. In 1987 it was reduced to £6.60, in 1988 to £6.30 and by the end of this year it will stand at £5.80. That is the crisis that has beset the health services since they came under the stewardship of Deputy O'Hanlon. The crisis in our health services is reflected in the following statistics: 5,000 health workers have gone, charges have been introduced for a range of essential services, 4,000 beds have been removed from our system, up to 24 hospitals have been closed outright and the closure threat still hangs over others, for example, Temple Street and the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear hospitals. Statistics alone cannot convey but a cold impression of the suffering caused by the health cutbacks. It is necessary to point out the treatment that has been meted out to people who suffer from, for example, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, mental handicap, psychiatric illness, asthma or AIDS. A host of other particularly vulnerable people have been subjected to this treatment also. There has been hardship and indignity caused to the elderly and to the infirm. What all these groups have in common is that they are to a large extent defenceless and voiceless.

It has taken a general election to being home the reality of the people's suffering to the politicians who caused it. These are the politicians who proposed the health Estimates of the last three years and also those who refused to vote against those Estimates. For those three years, three budgets and three sets of Estimates, the Labour Party sought to bring home the extent and the depth of the crisis to the previous Government and to the other parties who were part of the consensus which dominated the last Dáil. It was not until that Dáil was dissolved and the candidates in the election started to knock on people's doors that they began to realise that what we had been saying was true. I find it all the more remarkable, given the Taoiseach's extraordinary admission during the election campaign, that the response of the new Government to the crisis has been so pathetic. Their proposals can only be described as a "let us look again" attitude. They have failed to grasp the message which was hammered home emphatically on the doorsteps during a three week campaign.

Under the last Fianna Fáil Government we discriminated positively against the poor, a fact that has now been recognised in the joint health commission report of the Catholic Church. Their just published document unequicovally describes health care as a basic human right, so basic a right that there is an explicit obligation on the community to discriminate positively in favour of the community. The £15 million which the new Government have now allocated, or are about to allocate, or promise to allocate as an extra increment in health spending will not reverse that trend. At best it will help to stave off some of the worse consequences of the cutbacks for a short period. We will never have equality of access and, therefore, we will never be able to describe ourselves as having a basic human right, until we face up to the need for a proper level of resources for the health services.

The Government claim they are awaiting the report of the Commission on Health Funding which was established on an emergency basis nearly three years ago. My information, based on reliable sources, is that the interim report is now ready and could be published today if the Government had a will to do so. Why has the report not been published? I understand the reason it is not being published until this Dáil goes into recess is because the Government are faced with two choices, which are unpalatable to an administration which has already been badly bruised by the effects of the cutbacks which they have forced through the House. I am informed that the basic conclusion of the commission is that the health services will collapse if they are allowed to continue at the present level of resources. Therefore, the commission will be recommending to the Government that either a substantial additional allocation of resources is made or further substantial closures must be effected. In other words, the independent commission will not get the Government off the hook. The decision which must be made is a decision of principle. No final decision can be made on how much should be spent on our health services until we decide whether health care is a basic human right. If we decide it is then we make the necessary decisions that will give effect to that fundamental decision.

In a document published during the election campaign, we in the Labour Party, committed ourselves to both short term and medium term measures based on a total acceptance of the principle that health care is a basic human right. Our ultimate aim is the development of a comprehensive unified national health service but we recognise that in the interim action must be taken to ensure that the services provided are capable of meeting the community's need. To that end we believe that the following steps are necessary: the Health Estimate for 1989 must be increased by £48 million, the £15 million referred to by the Minister and included in the coalition programme and which presumably will be the subject of a supplementary estimate in October, is simply not enough.

When the Dáil resumes we will have a motion on the Order Paper for a supplementary estimate for an additional £48 million for the remainder of this year. We will seek in this Dáil, in the context of the 1990 Estimate, to secure additional health funding on top of the present allocation of £70 million. We will take similar action in respect of the 1991 and 1992 budgets. The achievement of this objective would mean £245 million more to be spent on health by the end of 1992.

Health spending with this additional allocation would then be restored to the equivalent of 7.2 per cent of GNP. We have spelt out very clearly where the immediate needs of the health service are in current and capital terms. A sum of £20 million is needed immediately for the reopening of public beds in the regional hospitals, the major hospitals and the public voluntary hospitals. Included among those would be Galway, Limerick, Tralee, Cork, Ardkeen in Waterford, Kilkenny and, in Dublin, Beaumont, St. Jame's, St. Vincent's, the Mater and James Connolly Memorial Hospital, Blanchardstown. In order to open these beds it is necessary, obviously, to provide additional staff to ensure that all hospitals can remain functional during holiday periods and also to make permanent 7,000 staff who are employed on a temporary basis in the health services at present. Without the provision of beds and appropriate staffing levels it would be meaningless to open an accident and emergency unit in the Dublin hospitals on a 24 hour basis. A sum of £5 million is needed immediately to provide for community care services in the areas of additional public health nursing staff and of social work staff in the child care area.

The Minister referred to the Child Care Bill, saying it is a priority with Government. This Bill has been on the rounds for many years now but there are no resources in the Estimate to provide for the extra duties that will be devolved to health boards when that Bill is enacted.

The re-instatement of public service transport to hospital for the elderly must also be a priority. A sum of £3 million will be provided immediately for the provision of at least 300 long stay beds in health board areas, and £2 million for the provision of additional staff for the adult mentally handicapped. A particular priority in this area is the recruitment of additional speech and occupational therapists. Two million pounds should be used to extend the long term illness scheme to children under the age of 16 years who suffer from asthma. The Health Education Bureau should be re-established. A sum of £2 million should be allocated for a public health education programme dealing with AIDS. Five hundred thousand pounds should be provided to open the accident and emergency unit at St. James's Hospital, Dublin. A further £3 million should be made available to employ additional consultants and back-up staff in the orthopaedic and cardiac units in Dublin and Cork, and £1 million should be provided for the purchase of prosthetic equipment. To ensure a full intake of student nurses this year £.5 million is required. One million pounds should be made available to open 60 additional residential places for the mentally handicapped in Cheeverstown and these places can be made available to persons on the waiting lists. All the health charges introduced by Fianna Fáil during the last Dáil should be abolished, and this would cost approximately £8 million for a full year.

Arising out of the dispute over dental treatment, £6 million has been saved by the Department of Social Welfare and we advocate that this money should be used to hire additional public health dentists and othhodontists to deal quickly with the enormous waiting lists for dental services. In eliminating this waiting list we believe that priority must be given to children, many of whom will be deformed before they get the orthodontic treatment they require.

We publish a list of the urgent capital spending that is required in the health area. We believe the following should be a priority: the immediate commencement of the new regional hospital in Tallaght; the completion of the developments at Ardkeen and Wexford, the provision of properly equipped accident and emergency services and fully professional back-up beds on the northside of Cork city, the upgrading of Temple Street Children's Hospital at its present location so that we can continue to provide essential services for the deprived of Dublin's inner city and a programme of capital spending to make additional residential and training places available in the mental handicapped area at a cost of £5 million a year.

I will comment briefly on the Minister's contribution on haemophiliacs. I welcome the £1 million in the joint programme for haemophiliacs who have contracted the HIV virus or full blown AIDS. Had that money been given six weeks ago, the Minister could have saved himself a great deal of hardship and probably there would be one or two extra Fianna Fáil Deputies on the benches opposite. I appeal to the Minister not to dig himself into a hole again and face us with the same obduracy that we faced that night, to allow the £1 million to be given directly to the Haemophiliac Society and not through a third party agency. I support Deputy Yates's call for the establishment of a trust fund. We can co-operate with the Minister in establishing this fund. The Minister should not allow the obduracy that we faced that night blind him to the right thing to do for haemophiliacs. These people are suffering now and need immediate help. I appeal to the Minister to make it available to them in the most efficient way possible.

In the short time available it is not possible to deal with every aspect of the health services that need attention — I would need two hours instead of 15 minutes. But in the minute or two I have left I would like to say a few words on an area of increasing anxiety and crisis — the mentally handicapped. As I have said, services for the mentally handicapped are in acute crisis. The crisis covers many aspects. Its most worrying feature is that there is little or no planning for the future. A great deal of lip service is paid to the concept of planning but the reality is that the agencies and their staff in the field are too busy dealing with the crisis in current services to worry about next year's financial allocation or to look beyond today. We believe that the human hardship associated with mental handicap will get a great deal worse unless planning starts now and the development of plans must take place in the knowledge that resources will become available. That is why we believe it is imperative that the Minister for Finance and the Government should commit themselves now to improving the funding available to the mentally handicapped for a period of years. We believe that the agencies in the field should come together to ensure that all extra funding is spent in a rational, planned and co-ordinated way.

According to estimates prepared by the Eastern Health Board there will be a need for 1,645 new residential places for the mentally handicapped by 1991. Residential places are required where the serverity of the condition is such that the person is incapable of being cared for at home or whose parents are ill or aging. In the Dublin area last year between ten and 20 additional residential places became available to cope with the demand that outstripped supply by a ration of 50-1. One of the largest full time residential centres in Dublin has been unable to admit a new patient for four years. Last year they had to approach the parents of some of their residents to ask them to take home their children — aged between 12 and 40 years — for long weekends to enable the institution to cut down on staffing.

Tá an t-am istigh.

There is much more I could say to the Minister, and I hope over the next number of years I will have an opportunity of addressing all the key issues that face us all with responsibility for looking after and caring for the sick. As I have said, it is impossible to deal with everything. I hope this Government have learned one lesson in the past three weeks, that is, that the allocation they have made to the health services is totally inadequate and that we will have some positive results from the clamour of the people for a better health service as evidenced during the general election campaign.

I do not want to break with the tradition of the House by not wishing the Minister well in his difficult portfolio, but I very much regret that the Taoiseach ignored the clear wishes of the electorate in reappointing Deputy O'Hanlon as Minister for Health. The only thing I can say is that I hope in his term of office that he applies himself immediately to undoing the damage he did during his first term of office in the Custom House.

Over a short period of less than three years, this Minister has gone from being the champion of the public health service when in Opposition to presiding over the most calculated rundown of public health service since its foundation. These Estimates expose the gross inequities and lack of planning in our health services which cash injections alone cannot resolve. Cash injections are certainly welcome but cash injections greater than promised in the Minister's statement are necessary, they alone are not sufficient to tackle the problems in the health services but it would be churlish of me not to welcome them, having been one of the last people, in a different capacity, to meet the Minister's loyal agents shortly prior to 15 June who assured me that it was impossible to find an additional penny to put into the health services.

The Minister has made no attempt in his contribution today to address the structural factors within the hospital services which ensure that those who buy private medicine have quicker access to better services than those subsidised by the State. While there is this growth in the private health sector, it is parallelled by a decline in the service available to public patients. Since the sixties there has been consistent progress towards a comprehensive health service. By 1982, 100 per cent of our population were entitled to a bed in a public hospital free of charge; now only 38 per cent of the population are so entitled. Eighty-five per cent were then entitled to free consultant care, now only 38 per cent are so entitled. There has been a major reverse for the concept of a free comprehensive health service. I acknowledge that the cutbacks did not start with the Fianna Fáil Government in this decade, but nonetheless this Minister has undermined the concept of a comprehensive health service free at the point of delivery, available on the basis of need and not on the ability to pay.

I am glad the Taoiseach learned from the people the harsh facts of the health service which apparently his Minister for Health had concealed from him, namely, that the public health service is in tatters and that intolerable and unnecessary hardship, pain, stress and suffering have needlessly been inflicted on tens of thousands of our people.

That damage and suffering was inflicted with the full support of the party that now claims to be in Opposition, Fine Gael. That party may now add to their identity crisis by voting against this Estimate today but people will not forget the Tallaght strategy. For people in Tallaght, and working people everywhere, the Tallaght strategy meant longer queues for health care, longer queues outside labour exchanges and longer queues for the Passport Office. I am delighted that Deputy Dukes has joined us because in a rare display of parliamentary vigour he added to his identity crisis by attacking Deputies of the left for what he called espousing divisive class politics. Nowhere in our society is class and privilege more manifest than in our two-tier health service. If one has wealth one is entitled to immediate access to deluxe hotel-style private clinics but if one cannot afford private insurance then access to an increasingly deprived public health service becomes a lottery.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the impact on Irish emigrants to the United States of the Kennedy-Simpson Bill; and whether he has any proposals to improve the position of Irish illegals in that country.

10.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of money which will be provided for immigrant groups in the United States, under the terms of the Programme for Government 1989-1993; the manner in which the money will be allocated; if it is intended to provide similar financial support for immigrant groups in other countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

11.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the current estimate of the number of undoucmented Irish in the United States; the new initiatives which he proposes in relation to achieving legal status for them; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

21.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of funding which the Government intend to provide for immigrant support services in the United States as outlined in the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government 1989-1993; and when these finances will be made available.

36.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the plans the Government has to promote further legislative initiatives in the United States to ease the plight of the undocumented Irish.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 10, 11, 21, 36 together.

As has rightly been pointed out the recently published Programme for Government makes provision for emigrants' welfare funding in the US. This is the first time such provision has been made and is a firm demonstration of the strong interest on the part of this Government in the welfare of all of our emigrants, but more especially that of the estimated 50,000-60,000 out-of-status, in the United States. The question of the amount of funding and its utilisation to maximum effect is under active consideration at this time.

Deputies will be aware of the singular success of the Donnelly Visa Extension Programme which is expected to make 10,000 extra US visas available to Irish citizens in each of the years 1989 and 1990. While this programme has proven to be most effective it was nevertheless a short term response to a long term problem. The Government would view the Kennedy-Simpson Bill, which was recently approved by the US Senate and which contains provisions which are most favourable to potential emigrants from this country, as going a long way to solving the problem of reasonable access to the US on a regular basis for Irish people.

I would like to publicly express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and also to Senator Simpson for their commitment and dedication in steering this bill through the Senate. The majority 81-17 vote by which it was passed is a fitting testimony to their hard work.

While the Government, and our friends in Congress, will watch with particular interest the progress of a complimentary bill to Kennedy-Simpson in the House of Representatives, Deputies can be assured that we will continue to explore every available avenue to assist, and regularise the position of, our out-of-status citizens in the US.

I welcome the Minister's reply and his promise to take immediate action in regard to funding for immigrant groups in America. Will the Minister give details of who will get the money? Will the Minister say if funding will be available for those groups in the US in 1989?

The question of funding is being considered and I will inform the Deputy when we have reached decisions in regard to it.

We warmly welcome the position in regard to the Kennedy-Simpson Bill but is the Minister aware that one will need up to 60 points before one qualifies to enter a lottery for a visa under that Bill? Is the Minister aware that to be English-speaking is no longer an advantage with the result that Irish applicants will not be in as advantageous a position as they were under the previous Bill? Will the Minister accept that the Kennedy-Simpson Bill will do little to help the undocumented aliens in America? Will the Government pursue further initiatives to help them?

The Deputy will be aware, that the Kennedy-Simpson Bill was passed by Congress by a big majority and that it is now before the House of Representatives. Deputies can rest assured that their views on the Bill will be conveyed to the friends of Ireland in the House of Representatives.

Deputy De Rossa rose.

I am sorry Deputy, the Chair is obliged to call firstly Deputies who have questions tabled in respect of the subject matter.

When they are not offering the Chair should at least call a Deputy who is offering.

I am calling Deputy Jim Higgins who has a question on the matter.

My question, No. 11, asked the Minister the estimate of the number of undocumented Irish in the United States but the Minister does not appear to have addressed that issue. Is the Minister in a position to say how many people of Irish origin in the US are listed as undocumented?

They have passports.

I dealt with that issue in the course of my reply but I will repeat the relevant portion of my statement for the benefit of the Deputy. I said that the recently published Programme for Government made provision for emigrants' welfare funding in the US. I pointed out that this was the first time such a provision had been made and that it was a firm demonstration of the strong interest on the part of the Government in the welfare of all our emigrants, but more especially that of the estimated 50,000 to 60,000 out-of-status in the United States.

I want to put a supplementary question to the Minister in regard to Question No. 10 from The Workers Party and in the name of Deputy McCartan. As the Chair will be aware spokespersons table questions in the name of other Deputies when they have used their allocation.

The Deputy will appreciate that Members who table questions and are in the Chamber when those questions are called will be called by the Chair.

I do not have any problem with that procedure if those Deputies offer. On this occasion they are not offering.

They offered and I called them.

Will the Minister say what financial assistance the Government propose to give to immigrant organisations other than those in the United States, particularly those in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

That will have to be dealt with by way of a separate question from the Deputy. Information in relation to the US scene is all that is contained in my brief.

I do not think I need table a separate question because Deputy McCartan asked the Minister if it was intended to provide similar financial support for immigrant groups in other countries. Deputy McCartan asked the Minister to make a statement on the matter and that is what I am asking the Minister to do.

I will have to communicate with the Deputy on that point. I assumed, probably incorrectly, that Deputy McCartan's question referred to the United States. I apologise for that but I will obtain the information and convey it to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Will the Minister define for the benefit of the House and, perhaps, the press gallery, what is meant by "undocumented" and "out-of-status emigrants"? Two terms have been used and from the point of view of clarity it might be useful if he defined them. Are they people without passports?

No, as the Deputy knows full well there is no question of people being there without passports. It is a question of people working there without the necessary documentation.

Illegals.

Yes.

Reference has been made to the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats document as a basis for some of these questions. That document says the Government are going to channel money through the consulates to the emigration working committees. The money which goes to emigrants in Britain, the only place money goes to from this country, is channelled through DÍON from the Department of Labour for social purposes, to help people who are homeless, etc. Is the intention the same with regard to the United States or will there be a different emphasis on the money there? Will it help emigrants to change their illegal status, as Deputy Quinn said, to legal status or will it be for social purposes only?

This matter is under consideration at present. As I said, I hope to be in a position reasonably soon to make a more comprehensive statement on it. Perhaps it would be best if the Deputy waited until such time as the matter has been decided and then I will let him know.

The figure of 50,000 to 60,000 emigrants which the Minister referred to is not generally accepted; it is thought to be much higher by other groups in America.

Media estimates have put the figure much higher than that but the Central Statistics Office figures and data produced by the United States Immigration and Naturalisation Service indicate a true figure of 50,000 to 60,000 out-of-status Irish citizens. I would not like to say that my figure is definitely correct but the indicators to us show that it is propably nearer to the true figure than some of the figures being suggested by the media. We could argue but the Deputy knows full well that——

Nobody knows the answer.

Nobody really knows.

Let us deal with another question. Question No. 2.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's plans for the maintenance and development of the Dublin-Belfast rail link; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

It is a matter for Iarnrod Éireann and the Northern Ireland Railways to maintain and develop the Dublin to Belfast railway line.

The Deputy will be aware from previous statements that the Government are most concerned to ensure that the line is kept open and safe for travel and that they condemn in the strongest possible terms the attacks which have occurred since last December. The Government are also concerned at the threat that these attacks constitute to the livelihoods of those who work on the line.

I welcome the Minister's reiteration of his support for the railway line and the Government's opposition, which I know is shared by everybody in the House, to the disruption of service and destruction of the line. Would the Minister not agree it may come to a point if the attacks on the line continue that as a matter of political decision assistance would have to be given to Iarnrod Éireann, to maintain the line because of the loss of trade on it?

With regard to maintaining the line as such, that is a matter for another Minister but the Deputy is correct, and would be interpreting the views of the Government, and I am sure of this House, that the line should be kept open and operative. It would be the intention of the Government to ensure that this would be so.

It is the responsibility of both security forces to see that the railway line is kept open.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the total amount allocated for Irish Overseas Development Aid for 1988 and 1989; if he will give these figures as a percentage of gross national product; if the achievement of a level of 0.7 per cent of gross national product is a policy objective of the Government; if so, when that target is likely to be met; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

13.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will restore the level of funding for Overseas Development Aid in view of the urgent need for such aid.

43.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the absence of any mention of development assistance in the agreed coalition pact for government, if he will outline the Government's intentions in relation to our reaching the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 13 and 43 together.

The Government remains committed to achieving the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for Official Development Assistance. This was first adopted by Ireland in 1970 and has been accepted by every Government since then. No date has ever been set for its attainment and in the present budgetary circumstances it is not possible to set a date at this point. However, it is the intention of the Government to work towards it as our economic circumstances permit.

The amounts allocated for Official Development Assistance for 1988, revised, and 1989 were £32.9 million and £33.8 million respectively. A further £700,000 is being allocated this year for disaster relief. The percentage of GNP for each year is 0.18 per cent approximately.

May I ask the Minister if he would like to reflect again on the information he gave the Dáil when he stated that no year has ever been specified for the achievement of the UN target? Would the Minister not agree that recent developments have involved the abandonment of expressing any percentage increase one year taken following another or any percentage increase as applied in 1982 towards meeting the target of the UN? Is it not true that it would be useful to establish the base figure for overseas development aid that is accountable within the Department of Foreign Affairs?

I do not agree with the assertions made by Deputy Higgins in his question. I said the target was first adopted by this country in 1970——

Correct.

——and has been accepted by all Governments since then. I am sure it is the regret of all Governments that we have not reached that target but it is still a target of this Government to try to reach that level of our GNP. The reality is that as our economic circumstances improve we will make greater progress in reaching that target.

I will clarify my supplementary question a little. It is a fact that in 1981 and 1982 there was an expressed achievement one year taken following another of improvements which it was estimated were necessary in overseas development aid taking a base figure. I repeat my question to the Minister: is it not true that not only has that increase been abandoned but in addition any commitment to the base of overseas development aid has also been abandoned and the figure he quoted to this House included lottery moneys which are not accountable within the realm of his Department?

It is true to say that there were greater efforts to achieve the target for a considerable number of years but when our economic circumstances deteriorated, as they did, that annual increase as a percentage of GNP did not materialise. In fact, there has been a reduction in recent years. I am not telling Deputy Higgins anything he does not know; this reduction did take place. It is not true for the Deputy to say that there is an abandonment of the ideal of achieving that target. The achievement of that target still exists and, hopefully, as economic circumstances improve the quicker we will achieve it.

May I finally ask the Minister when we might anticipate the return of overseas development aid to the Department of Foreign Affairs as a policy item rather than depending on the lottery? Would the Minister not agree that making this aid reliant on lottery funding is a removal of overseas development aid from the policy realm of the Department of Foreign Affairs?

The Deputy is bringing in extraneous matter.

The Deputy can rest assured that as far as this Government are concerned we will do everything we can — bearing in mind the reality of the economic position as it obtains — to try and push that figure closer and closer to the target set and accepted my us and all Governments since 1970.

The Minister has learned the language of diplomacy very fast indeed. That is the most polite way I have ever heard of saying "no".

The target set many years ago was 0.7 per cent of GNP and it now stands at 0.18 per cent. Will the Minister give the House a commitment today that he will seek an increase in overseas development aid in next year's Estimates? Will he agree that, at a minimum, that figure should be doubled?

Deputy De Rossa knows full well that it is grossly unfair of him to ask for a personal commitment from me to bring about the increase we would all desire.

To seek to do so.

The Deputy knows as well as anybody else that the decision in this area will be reached by the Government but he can rest assured a good case will be presented to the Government.

I am asking the Minister to give the House a commitment that he will seek an increase. I know he is talking about seeking an improvement but an improvement might well turn out to be simply a restoration to the 1987 level. Will he seek a real increase in overseas development aid? Furthermore, will he acknowledge that overseas development aid is not money we simply throw away, that it does feed back into our economy in many ways?

The Deputy must wait until such time as the Government give the matter due consideration. Then if the decision arrived at does not please him, he will have an opportunity of a further input in this House.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he has taken to ensure his Department will utilise recycled paper in the course of their normal activities and correspondence within his Department, with other Departments and with the public; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The paper used by my Department generally is supplied on foot of contracts placed by the Government Supplies Agency. The technical composition of the paper, including whether it is of recycled origin or not, is a matter for that agency.

In view of the new coalition Programme for Government for the next four years and the stated support for environmental measures, is the Minister now in a position to indicate whether his Department are prepared to request from the supplier of Government paper that for internal circulation, for the day-to-day purposes of communications, they will move towards trying to recycle paper, thereby avoiding some of the detrimental environmental impact of normal consumption?

I have no objections whatsoever to using more recycled paper provided an adequate standard is maintained. Members of the Opposition parties when in Government — Deputies Quinn, Barry and others — will know that, in many instances, envelopes have been recycled and file covers and folders used repeatedly. I know there is an additional cost involved in recycling paper. I am told by the Government Supplies Agency, which is part of the Office of Public Works, that there is an extra cost involved. Where possible, I see no reason items of paper, such as envelopes, covers and so on cannot be reused.

Will the Minister agree that when he refers to extra cost he is looking at one side of the equation only? Will he not agree that the real cost of the continued use of primary paper resources is to the environment? If we were to recycle such paper, the real saving would be effected in reducing the detrimental impact the use of such primary paper has on our environment.

I accept fully the main thrust of the Deputy's question. My reply, which I hope he will take in good faith, is that I would have no objection whatever to the recycling of such paper. In fact, I would welcome its use if that can be managed.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he raised the Loyalist march in Keady, County Armagh at the most recent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference.

I know the House will join with me in welcoming the generally quiet passage of the 12th of July period in Northern Ireland.

The last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 24 May 1989 was concerned exclusively with the conclusion of the review of the working of the Conference and the question of the 12th of July parades did not, therefore, arise. I can inform the Deputy, however, that the Government's concerns about a number of parades were presented through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast and were the subject of the most detailed exchanges in the Secretariat in the weeks leading up to the 12th

In particular, the Government directed that the question of the parade in Keady be raised in the strongest terms with the British authorities. It was quite clear from our contacts with local nationalist opinion that the proposed parade in Keady was greatly resented. This is a small, overwhelmingly nationalist town. In fact, my attention has been drawn to remarks by a representative of the Orange Order indicating that there are only two members of the Orange Order living in the town.

In the Government's view, the parade should not have been permitted through the town centre and that view was forcefully communicated to the British authorities.

The Government recognise the right of peaceful demonstration but they also recognise the principle that parades in Northern Ireland should not go where they are clearly not acceptable and where, on the basis of past experience, there is a serious risk of disruption, disorder and damage to property.

We recognise the difficulties facing the Northern Authorities in maintaining public order at this time of the year. We also accept that progress has been made in the more effective and impartial policing of parades in recent years. However, the kind of situation which occurred in Keady this year, and which has occurred in other overwhelmingly nationalist towns in the past, is clearly unacceptable. I will be pursuing this matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity.

I appreciate that the meeting of the Conference in May was concerned with the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Would the Minister agree that cannot be advanced as an excuse or reason for the Irish Government not fulfilling their obligations under the agreement, that they must look at forthcoming events and, if they consider such will cause problems, ascertain how they can be avoided? Would the Minister agree that there is no visible, forthcoming event, over 300 years in the North of Ireland, than what is known as the marching season? Nobody wants to deprive the Unionist community of marching in their areas, celebrating their history or fulfilling their traditions in any way but where marches are deliberately designed to be provocative, then it is the obligation of the co-chairman — as an aside, I presume the Minister has been appointed by the Government as co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

I have, yes.

——then there is the obligation on the co-chairman of the Conferene to look at these events and ensure that what has been a cause of division and tension in the North of Ireland for 300 years is avoided in the future because that is what the Anglo-Irish Agreement is about?

I understand the concern expressed by Deputy Barry in his supplementary question. There is not any great difference between us on the approach but I want the Deputy to understand that the last meeting of the Conference was for a specific purpose, already well known. Since then, because of the circumstances with which we had to contend, the Government felt that the views mentioned in my earlier reply about the parade in question should be conveyed in the strongest possible terms through the Secretariat which the Deputy knows full well is a very important and effective conduit on occasions such as these. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure Deputy Barry will agree, that the other side were left in no doubt whatsoever as to what were our views in this instance. I propose to raise the matter at the next meeting of the Conference.

Would the Minister agree that if the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to be measured as a success in any way, it must achieve a position in which any group of citizens wanting to march peacefully in any part of this country — whether in their own areas, as described by the previous speaker — can do so. That should be the only rule of thumb used at the end of the day to judge its success. By way of emphasising that point, I ask Members to consider carefully their phraseology when they talk about Loyalist, Nationalist or other groups and talk about their own areas. If we substitute women, blacks or travellers and then talk about these people marching in their areas only, we will realise we are talking tribal politics. We should really be pursuing, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement as the method that exists, a normalisation of society in Northern Ireland which will enable groups of people, regardless of their politics, so long as they are prepared to march peacefully, to march in any part of this country.

I am sure I am expressing a common view of all those present when I say we are all relieved that the parade passed off peacefully. Many parades cause no difficulty but unfortunately there are a number of Loyalist parades which are triumphalist and provocative. In regard to Keady, it is difficult to understand why thousands of people should wish to travel to a town to parade against the wishes of the inhabitants.

I know all deputies will share my hope that progress in Northern Ireland will eventually lead to a position where parades, whether orange or green, will be accepted everywhere. However, a condition of genuine reconciliation and dialogue between Unionists and Nationalists is mutual recognition and acceptance of each other's rights. The identities of both communities in Northern Ireland must be recognised and respected. These principles are reiterated in the preamble to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We believe that very many Unionists, whatever their views on the Agreement, will subscribe to them and we expect the British authorities to make every effort to implement them.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in view of the great shortage of skilled people and the limited educational resources available to the people of Mozambique, if he has any plans to provide assistance for training of Mozambiquans; and if he has received any applications from Mozambique in relation to assistance.

My Department have received a request from Mozambique for fellowship training in Ireland and I expect to award a fellowship for the coming academic year.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have received from the United Nations the result of the UN inquiry into the deaths of four Irish soldiers in Lebanon earlier this year; if he will outline the main findings of the report; if any action will be taken as a result of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The UN investigation into the deaths of Corporal Heneghan, Private Walsh and Private Armstrong, killed by a landmine explosion on 21 March has recently been completed. However, the investigation was not able to establish who was responsible for placing the landmine there or against whom it was directed. The report concluded that there was no reason to expect a mine had been placed there that day, that all procedures were carried out correctly, and that no UNIFIL personnel can be made responsible for the incident.

The UN investigation into the death of Private McNeela, killed on 24 February this year, has not yet been completed.

Immediately after these deaths, the Minister for Defence asked the Chief of Staff to visit Lebanon to assess the situation there. Arising from this visit, a series of additional security measures to protect Irish personnel serving in UNIFIL were put into effect.

Firstly, is it the Minister's intention that the report from the United Nations will be published or placed in the Library of the House? Secondly, arising from his reply, is it possible to determine the type of mine that was used, is it common to any particular group operating in Lebanon and is it possible to deduce from this who may have been responsible for the deaths? Finally, when is it expected that the report on the death of Private McNeela will be available?

With regard to the first supplementary raised by the Deputy, it is not the practice to publish reports of this kind. I have indicated in my reply the main findings of the report which has been completed. As I said in the reply, the other report has not been finalised. With regard to the third supplementary from the Deputy, it is not possible for me to give a precise answer to that question but we have been pressing the United Nations in New York to have the investigation completed as soon as possible. With regard to the final supplementary, I have no information with me as to the type of mine used. If such information is available I will consider sending it to the Deputy.

I have no particular interest in knowing what type of mine was used but we know from experience in Northern Ireland that the security forces there, and the security forces here, can often deduce what group has placed a particular mine by the kind of device used and it may be possible for the United Nations to do likewise.

I might be given permission to say that when I was wearing a different hat — and as far as this country is concerned the belief is held — at times we found one supplier supplying both sides.

When this matter came up previously on 19 April the Taoiseach answered questions on behalf of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs. On that occasion, as the Chief of Staff had been instructed by the Minister for Defence to conduct an investigation into the deaths, I asked the Taoiseach if he would publish the result of that investigation. I do not want to push that point in particular because I can see difficulties with it but I would like to ask the Minister if the investigation by the Chief of Staff reached the same conclusions as the United Nations investigation. On that occasion also I asked the Taoiseach if he would consider calling in the Israeli Ambassador, and not just the Chargé d'Affaires to convey the very strongly felt feelings of this House about the actions of the Southern Lebanese Army and he said he would consider the matter. I would ask the Minister if that has been done.

With regard to the first part of Deputy Barry's question, I have given my view on whether or not the report will be published and I am glad the Deputy is not pressing that. With regard to the second part of his question ——

There are two reports: one by the United Nations and one by the Chief of Staff.

Yes. As Deputy Barry knows, the Chief of Staff was directed by the Minister for Defence to go and assess the situation in Lebanon and have a look at the overall security precautions being taken by the members of UNIFIL.

And to conduct an inquiry into the death.

I am not quibbling with the Deputy about this. I just want to say to him that, as I said in my reply to the question initially, the Minister for Defence asked the Chief of Staff to visit Lebanon, to assess the situation there and to report back to us. With regard to the position in relation to making our views known to the Government of Israel, the Deputy can readily take it from me, without any conditions or qualifications whatsoever, that we will continue to make clear to the Israeli authorities the total unacceptability to us of their failure to comply with resolutions of the Security Council which require them to withdraw from Southern Lebanon and their continued support for the South Lebanese Army, which was responsible for the death of Private McNeela. We have repeatedly conveyed to the Israeli authorities that we regard them as responsible for the actions of the South Lebanese Army and expect them to exercise effective control over that body. The Government will make strong protests to any State whose actions or omissions demonstrably contribute to attacks on Irish troops.

I accept that but my question referred to the statement the Taoiseach made on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in April. My point then was and continues to be, that the level at which these views are made known has its own significance. An officer from the Department of Foreign Affairs speaking to the Chargé d'Affaires is not the same, nor is it taken as seriously, as the Minister talking to the Ambassador.

The Israeli Chargé d'Affaires, Mr. Cashton, was immediately summoned to the Department. I am not too sure if we had an Ambassador from Israel at that time.

That is what the Taoiseach said in April when I said that the matter should be raised at a higher level.

If that is what the Taoiseach said, I would like to know why it was not possible to do so.

He did not say it was not possible. He said he would consider doing that.

I do not doubt what Deputy Barry is saying. I think — and I am open to correction on this for very obvious reasons — that there may not have been an Israeli Ambassador at that time but I will find out what the circumstances were and I will get in touch with the Deputy. If he then wishes to raise the matter at another time he can do so. I agree fully with him that if the Israeli Government are to gauge the strength of our comments by the level at which they are made, then there is a heavy obligation on us to make sure they are made at the highest possible level. I also understand it was the Chargé d'Affaires in New York who was summoned to the United Nations — I just read that in my brief. I take Deputy Barry's point and there is no disagreement whatsoever between us.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he intends to take to end the unacceptable delays at the Passport Office, Dublin 2, in particular to prevent people having to queue for lengthy periods for service; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The queues to which the Deputy refers arose mainly in May and June when the receipt of a record 59,100 passport applications coincided with a postal strike in the Dublin area and its aftermath. To deal with these queues the following steps were taken: The staff of the Passport Office was increased by a further 15 per cent in addition to the normal summer intake of extra staff bringing the number employed to nearly 120. Overtime was worked for several weeks. The office was open until well past normal working hours to take care of those who applied in person. The media were kept informed of the situation and of the steps taken in an effort to avoid people queuing unnecessarily.

Despite the unprecedent demand and the pressure to which the system was subject, all normal passport applications were processed within seven working days and no intending traveller was disappointed.

I do, of course, regret the queues that appeared during the period in question. However, I am satisifed that all was done that could have been done by the Passport Office to cope with them. I would make the point that an Irish passport is a valuable document of identity which can only be issued following careful checks on identity. It would not, I believe, be in the interest of the Irish public to sacrifice security for speed or otherwise put at risk the integrity of the Irish passport. For this reason a passport cannot simply be available on demand except in the case of a genuine emergency which will always be dealt with quickly and sympathetically.

Having said that I would repeat the appeal the former Minister made some months ago that all those who intend holidaying abroad this year or for that matter any other year, should check that they have an up-to-date passport and, in the event that they do not have one, they should apply in good time by post.

I accept that the staff of the Passport Office are doing a good job in the circumstances but the question related to the queues. My information is that the queues continue to be up to two hours even up to today. What increase in staff does 15 per cent constitute? Secondly, if nothing can be done to prevent our young people leaving the country in such numbers, could we at least take some steps to cause normal toilet facilities to be provided for the people who must wait in these interminable queues?

I will do the percentage sum for Deputy Rabbitte from the answer I have already given him. There was a 15 per cent increase in staff and the number employed now is 120.

What does that mean?

If there was a 15 per cent increase and that gives you 120 you can work from that. As a matter of fact, it is slightly less than 15. We are not getting into the mathematics of the percentage of increase——

Let us hear the Minister out.

In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, I feel he should understand that the suggestion in his supplementary question that all these passports were issued to young people emigrating is not one I accept, so I just put down a marker for that. I use the words, "holidaying", "holidaymakers".

Are there any old age pensioners in the queue?

Thirdly, in regard to the final part of Deputy Rabbitte's question, space is insufficient in the present Passport Office to permit the provision of public toilet facilities. That is the reality. What we can do about it I do not know. Right now there is no space there. Does it mean shifting to a new building? Can we get a new building? There are a number of problems there.

Some years ago in an effort to facilitate citizens outside Dublin, of whom there is quite a number, a passport sub-office was opened in Cork which helped greatly to relieve pressure on the Passport Office in Molesworth Street. I think that has proved very successful. I am sure the Minister's file will give him figures to support that claim. Would he now consider opening offices also in Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Sligo, population centres like that? The ordinary person in Dublin who applies for a passport just has to pay his £30. If you want a passport and are living in Cork you have to pay out the train fare as well to get to Dublin, something Dublin Deputies sometimes forget. It is very much more expensive to live outside Dublin. Will the Minister agree that opening an office in Cork was a success? If he agrees with that, will he then consider opening offices in other population centres?

I will tell you what I will do for Deputy Barry. I will have an examination carried out on the success or otherwise of the office in Cork, the cost involved etc. and if I think it is practical——

And toilets?

——we will see what we can do in Limerick, Galway and a few more places. I will not readily take the suggestion on board but I will examine it and see what is involved and whether we would be justified in adopting it.

I think the Minister's predecessor thought it was justified.

I remember in earlier times there was talk about closing down the office in Cork. That was when we were pulling back a little because money was scarce.

That would be typical. There was no question of closing down Dublin of course; it had to be Cork.

The Deputy would probably have mixed feelings if that happened. He may have liked it to happen but with his former Foreign Affairs hat on I am sure he would not have liked it to happen.

That would be the thinking of the Pale.

I am reluctant to interrupt the ministerial nostalgia but I would like to ask the Minister about this percentage of staff. How many of them were retrained? Were they appointed to the office by way of transfer or were they new recruits? To make matters easy, let me ask the Minister if he will agree there is a case for a submission to the Office of Public Works from his Department and from him as Minister calling attention to the disgraceful lack of facilities for the public as Deputy Rabbitte's question has elicited?

With regard to the first part of Deputy Higgins's supplementary question, staff were transferred to the Passport Office from other parts of the Department and they are still there. Not alone were additional staff brought in, bringing the total figure up by 15 per cent to a total of 120, but long overtime hours were worked in an effort to reach the very high turnover figure we succeeded in reaching, that was a passport in, on average, seven days. I think the people involved are to be complimented on that.

With regard to the other part of the Deputy's question, we have already been in touch with the Office of Public Works to see how best we can be advised to deal with that problem.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to take any major international initiative as regards concerns expressed about international environmental issues such as global warming, the destruction of tropical rain forests and the ongoing destruction of the ozone layer having regard to the various global implications of these issues.

I believe strongly that there is need for urgent action at international level to deal with the rapidly growing threats to our global environment posed by the greenhouse effect, the thinning of the ozone layer and the destruction of tropical rain forests. There is clearly a new sense of concern internationally about these issues and I welcome this.

I consider, however, that an effort by Ireland to take major initiatives itself on these matters at this stage could lead to duplication of effort and inter-organisational conflicts, and that it is better to build on, and press for further development of the work already under way both at EC level and in other international fora.

I will, therefore, be supporting moves to strengthen existing agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in order to make them more effective. We will also follow closely, and fully support, the steps to be taken shortly within the Community to set up the European Environment Agency announced at the meeting of the European Council in Madrid at the end of last month.

I welcome the approach as outlined by the Minister. When he makes his traditional speech in the United Nations in the autumn, will he ensure there is a specific section in that speech detailing our concerns about environmental issues and the worries we have in this country as to the possible impact of climatic changes? Will he indicate whether he will take a supportive approach to the proposed international convention on climate change that was discussed at the recent Paris Conference and as referred to in the Communique of the seven major states participating at that Conference over the weekend?

I welcome the Deputy's supplementary. With regard to the first part, I would be glad to give his suggestion every consideration. To tell the truth I had not got down to planning out the framework of the speech at the UN but I share Deputy Shatter's view that that would have to be part of any contribution being made. The second part of the Deputy's question was concerned with the recent meeting in Paris.

It is the proposed convention which the seven nations discussed in Paris last weekend.

This is something I will have to take into consideration and take advice on from the officials in my Department.

I would suggest that rather than our stepping on toes and creating difficulties we are in a unique position in Europe and in the context of the United Nations to act as an intermediary between Third World countries and the more developed countries in that particular steps are required with regard to the environment in Third World countries which those countries do not have the financial wherewithal to tackle. We should pay a role as an intermediary between the industrial nations and the Third World seeking to resolve some of the ongoing problems, such as the destruction of the tropical rain forest in Brazil and the implications of their ceasing to destroy those forests vis-á-vis their debt position. Another case would be the introduction of a ban on CFCs within other Third World countries where they do not have the technology to cater otherwise for some of the uses to which CFCs are currently put. This is a new area in the Department of Foreign Affairs in which we could play a very significant role on the global stage.

I take on board the comments by Deputy Shatter and I will give them every consideration. I do not think I could differ from him on anything he said.

Is there a specific senior official within the Department who has been appointed to prepare material on these matters? In view of the Minister's emphasis on the Community position and the United Nations position, is he in a position to place in the Library of the House any working papers such as a person or sub-Department might have prepared?

I would have to make inquiries within the Department to answer that question in full. I believe the person responsible is in the economic division but I am not sure if a specific person has been appointed. Also, I am not sure what role will be played by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, in co-ordinating on behalf of the rest of us. As soon as these matters are clarified, I will get in touch with the Deputy and let him know what is happening.

Thank you.

Questions Nos. 10 and 11 have been disposed of. Question No. 12.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have been in communication with the British Prime Minister in connection with the conviction of the Birmingham Six in Britain, in view of the recent dissatisfaction and unease over a number of convictions in cases involving police officers who investigated and prosecuted the case against the Birmingham Six; if the Government have brought to the attention of the British Prime Minister the fact that evidence would appear to have been fabricated in a number of cases involving the police officers and some decisions involving some of the police officers would appear to have been set aside; and if he will outline the result of the discussions he has had with the British Government in this urgent matter.

41.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action, if any, he has taken in relation to recent reports that a police officer who was involved in the Birmingham Six case and subsequently been involved in another case where the person charged was released because it was alleged his confession had been fabricated.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 41 together.

The Government's serious concern about a possible miscarriage of justice in the Birmingham Six case has repeatedly been made clear to the British authorities. The Tánaiste and former Minister for Foreign Affairs has conveyed our concern in a series of meetings with the British Home Secretary and I myself as Minister for Justice have also discussed the matter with Mr. Hurd.

The developments referred to by Deputies Barry and Enright can only add to existing concern about the soundness of the convictions in the Birmingham Six case. I have instructed our London Embassy to submit a full report to me on these latest disclosures. I would also hope to avail of an early opportunity to have a further meeting with the British Home Secretary; this will provide an occasion for detailed discussion of the implications for the Birmingham Six case of these recent developments.

I accept what the Minister has said. We have been very careful to keep this matter out of party politics. I agree with what the Minister is doing and wish him luck.

As there is a certain amount of cross-party agreement in the House of Commons and some Conservative MPs have joined with the Labour Member in trying to have this matter finalised, has the Minister demanded a meeting with the British Home Secretary? I ask this question in view of the fact that there have been a number of cases in which some of the police officers involved in the prosecution of this case have had their evidence proved to be false. Since evidence tendered in these cases has been set aside, would the Minister not now seek to have an urgent meeting with the British Home Secretary? Would he not seek to have an international independent tribunal set up involving members of the Judiciary in order to have this matter investigated since these six people are allowed to languish in prison for crimes which they deny they committed and of which the weight of evidence would appear to show they were not guilty?

I thank Deputy Barry and Deputy Enright for all their help in this area, which is very much appreciated. The Tánaiste had discussions on a number of occasions with the British Home Secretary on this issue, as I did. I hope to avail of an early opportunity to have a further meeting with the Home Secretary. The Deputy will know that I have asked our Embassy officials in London to send me a full report on the situation as it has developed to date. As soon as I have that report I will be in a position to make sure that the concerns of this House are made known where they will have the greatest effect.

Question No. 13 has been disposed of. Question No. 14 in the name of Deputy Flaherty.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the concern that Koevoet, the infamous South African controlled secret police, have infiltrated the Namibian police force and are seriously inhibiting the peace process; and if he will support calls for an increase in United Nations policing and monitoring.

16.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that the peace agreement in Namibia is sufficiently strong to allow elections to take place in November of this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

31.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is the Government's intention to contribute to the international monitoring of the moves towards free elections in Namibia; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 16 and 31 together.

The Government are happy at the way the United Nations plan for independence for Namibia is currently proceeding. After initial difficulties at the launch of the independence process the UN plan is now back on schedule and everything at present on course for the elections in early November. On 26 June agreement was reached between the UN Special Representative and the South African Administrator General on the proclamation on the registration of voters. The election campaign opened at the beginning of July and has so far been free of any major incidents. The UN Special Representative, who is charged under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 435 with ensuring free and fair elections in Namibia, will naturally continue to reassess progress right up to the elections.

The United Nations Secretary General is visiting Namibia, including the northern region, this week and will have an opportunity to see for himself how the independence process is proceeding. The United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) has the main responsibility under Resolution 435 for monitoring the implementation of the transition arrangements and its personnel requirements is a subject which is kept under constant consideration by the Secretary General in conjunction with the Special Representative and the Force Commander. Ireland has made available to the force 20 military observers and a total of 50 Garda officers, the Government having responded to a recent request by the Secretary General to increase the original 35 gardaí by a further 15. These are due to leave for Namibia at the end of the month.

On 6 June it was announced that agreement had been reached between the Special Representative and the Administrator General on a general amnesty and on the repeal of a first set of restrictive and discriminatory laws held to be an impediment to the holding of free and fair elections. This paved the way for the repatriation of refugees by the UNHCR which started on 12 June. As of 17 July, the total figure of returnees was 20,584 out of an approximate 41,000 refugees registered with the United Nations. The flow of refugees out of the holding centres, which had initially been slow, reflecting fears of intimidation reported in the north of the country, has now increased substantially to 14,471 in line with an improvement in the general climate.

The continued presence of personnel from the former counter-insurgency unit, Koevoet, within the ranks of the South-West Africa Police (SWAPOL) and the actions of certain elements of that force, especially in northern Namibia, is naturally a cause of major concern to all those interested in guaranteeing the transition of Namibia to independence. It is a matter of ongoing discussion between the Special Representative and the Administrator General and the Government fully support the demands of the United Nations Secretary General that such personnel should be removed from SWAPOL on the grounds that their past behaviour calls into question their suitability for continued employment during the transition period.

While this issue has not so far been resolved, it is not seen at present as constituting an obstacle to the continued implementation of the peace process. The most recent report from the UN in Namibia suggest on the contrary that the situation in the north of the country appears to be normalising and stability and confidence to be returning. This would seem to be confirmed by the increased numbers of returnees leaving the holding centres to settle in the area.

I would like to thank the Minister for the assurance he gave to the House that things are improving in Namibia. We are all grateful for that. I want to ask one question. There have been suggestions recently that observers from this House should be sent over to see the elections in November to make sure they are fair. When the Minister is discussing this matter with his colleagues in Europe and in the United Nations, will he make the point that there should be not just one country sending representatives but a representative group from a number of countries so that if there are observers going we would not be the only group? Unless there is a very big multinational group it would be pointless sending anyone.

I thank the Deputy for that question. I can see the merit in what he is saying. I had not given the matter any consideration up to now, but I am conscious of the newspaper comments about it. What Deputy Barry suggests would probably be the wisest and most sensible way to do it, if we are doing it.

I am calling Deputy Michael D. Higgins but I should ask him to co-operate with me in striving to come to deal with the priority questions which I should be onto now.

I will be very brief. Would the Minister agree, in view of his suggestion that he will reflect on what has been suggested by Deputy Barry, that an international delegation looking at the Namibian elections would be of most value if they went in time to look at the registration process? Would the Minister not further agree that if the registration process is not observed accurately it would be of less value and somewhat meaningless to be looking at the process of voting itself?

I thank Deputy Higgins as well for his comments. This too would have to be looked at very seriously as to the timing and effectiveness. Naturally it would only be effective if the timing were right. There would be little point in going there if the registration had already slipped off the rails.

Deputy De Rossa, I am three minutes behind for priority questions.

I will be brief. I am cutting into my own priority time. Would the Minister assure us that even if we do not get agreement for an international observer group, that the Irish Government will seriously consider sending an Irish parliamentary group to observe the election process from begining to end? It is important because it is the South African authorities who are organising this election.

That is another aspect that would have to be looked at. Again, I cannot give a guarantee of anything other than that. In the context of whether or not we would have observers there Deputy De Rossa's suggestion would have to be looked at too.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he or his Department have made representations to the Chinese Government to protest about the manner in which student protestors were treated in that country in the past month.

39.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the precise content of the protest, if any, communicated to the People's Republic of China, in view of the recent events in that country which has included executions and suppression of protests in a brutal fashion.

17.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the protest, if any, the Government have made to the Chinese authorities regarding the recent killings of civilians in Beijing by Chinese security forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

28.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the protest which has been made to the Chinese Government about the brutal suppression of the demonstrations for the creation of a democracy in that country; and the reply; if any, which has been received.

30.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the steps the Government have taken to date to express the horror of the Irish people at the appalling atrocities which took place in Beijing and other parts of China.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 38, 39, 17, 28 and 30 together.

The events which took place in Beijing and elsewhere in the People's Republic of China in early June have been a source of profound shock to the Government. With our partners in the Twelve we have placed on record our revulsion at these events and have taken a number of steps designed to convey our concern to the Chinese authorities.

Immediately the scale of the events became known, the Twelve issued a statement in the strongest terms condemning the violent repression used against peaceful demonstrators. The Twelve advised the Chinese authorities that continued repressive actions in violation of universally recognised human rights principles would greatly prejudice China's international standing. The Twelve also decided to suspend high level contacts with China.

On 15 June the Presidency made a demarche on behalf of the Twelve to the Chinese Ambassador in Madrid to express concern about and call for an end to the wave of arrests and other acts of repression. On 17 June the Ambassadors of the Troika and a representative of the European Commission went to the Chinese Foreign Ministry to express the Twelve's disapproval of the imposition of death sentences on three workers in Shanghai.

The European Council at its meeting of 26 and 27 June strongly condemned the brutal repression taking place in China and expressed dismay at the executions which were taking place. It called on the Chinese authorities to stop the executions and to put an end to the repressive actions against those who claim their democratic rights.

To underline the gravity of the situation the Twelve agreed at the European Council to adopt a series of specific measures, including suspension of high level visits and postponement of new co-operation projects.

Copies of twelve statements on the recent events in China have been deposited in the Oireachtas Library. The Twelve's views on these developments have also been conveyed to the Chinese Embassy in Dublin.

At the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers in Paris on 11 July it was decided to make a further approach to the Chinese authorities on the humanitarian aspects of recent developments in China and to pursue efforts to gain admission by independent observers to prisons and trials. This further demarche is now going ahead.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree with the actions the Twelve have taken. I think they have got the balance absolutely right in this regard. One does not want to have the Chinese create a wall around themselves so that they are impervious to outside influences. Has the Minister seen reports that Chinese ambassadors all over the world are being called back for discussions on, I presume, public reaction in different countries to the events in Beijing and other parts of China? To go back to a point I made an hour ago, the seriousness with which events are taken in different countries is conveyed by the level at which concern has been expressed to the ambassadors. I would urge the Minister, before the Chinese Ambassador leaves for that conference in Beijing, to personally see him. I had my party, and presumably the House, would want the Minister to convey to him our serious concern about the u-turn that has been done on the road to democracy in China and about the executions that have taken place. We would like the Minister to convey that to the Ambassador personally so that when he goes to Beijing he can say at this conference that he was seen by the highest political figure in the Department of Foreign Affairs and not by somebody lower down.

As I have already said, this country is participating fully in the measures agreed by the Twelve in their deliberations since early June and the Twelve's views have already been conveyed to the Chinese Embassy in Dublin. I take on board the point of view offered by Deputy Barry. I can see the reason for it and will give the matter every consideration.

My priority question asks specifically the content of the communication of the Department for Foreign Affairs to the People's Republic of China through their embassy. While I welcome and would like to act in co-operation with everything the Minister is doing. I am concerned that we have not been given the rough principles of a direct Irish communication which would be valuable, as Deputy Barry suggests. Is the Minister not concerned about the tone of the communications that have issued in response to the documents? I am talking about a statement issued in Dublin on 29 June 1989 and the one issued in Beijing on 17 July 1989 which more or less tells the international Community that if they express a concern they could be harming themselves in doing so. Does this not create certain tensions in the international environment of diplomatic relations? I support Deputy Barry's request that it would be valuable to make clear to the Ambassador our view on this, that they cannot have it both ways.

I thank Deputy Higgins for his contribution by way of supplementary questions. I agree with Deputy Barry that we have to be very careful as to how we handle this. With regard to the suggestion that I should see the Ambassador, I will take that suggestion on board and I will give it serious consideration.

There are two remaining Priority Questions and I would very much like co-operation in disposing of them. Question No. 40 is next.

asked the Minster for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Austrian Government to apply for membership of the EC; if it is intended to support the Austrian application, especially in view of the country's neutral status; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Austrian application for membership of the European Communities, which refers to Austria's status of permanent neutrality, was lodged in Brussels on Monday 17 July.

In our view Austria, as a democratic European Country which fully respects human rights, is eminently qualified to apply for membership of the Community.

After an application is made set procedures have to be followed, involving an opinion by the Commission and the assent of the European Parliament. In the Government's view, these procedures should now be set in train. Pending the outcome of these procedures, it would not be appropriate for the Government to express a view on possible future membership of the Community by Austria or any other country. In accordance with the Community treaties, it will be for the Council, which of course includes Ireland, to act at a subsequent stage. This Act of the Council has to be unanimous.

Will the Minister confirm the report of a fairly positive response by him at the recent meeting concerning an application by Austria because he has questioned the veracity of part of the report with regard to his comments or alleged comments on Irish neutrality? Will the Minister confirm that the Irish Government welcome the application by Austria and support it, and that his comments with regard to Irish neutrality were not misquoted?

There is no doubt with regard to what I said in Brussels to a number of journalists on Monday afternoon last with regard to the attitude of this country to the application for membership of the Community by Austria. In The Irish Times there was a different angle on what I said but this angle does not appear in any of the other reports in newspapers or on radio and television. The position underlying our approach is that neutrality was not an issue when Ireland joined the EC and has not been since. When we joined we accepted certain conditions and now accept what has already been agreed between the Community, including a commitment to progress towards European union. In so far as any issue with regard to neutrality may arise at some future date, that is something to be discussed at that time. When we lodged our application of the Single European Act in 1987 the Government made a declaration of Irish neutrality saying that the Government of Ireland noted that the provisions of Title III did not affect Ireland's long-established policy of military neutrality and that coordination of positions on the political and economic aspects of security did not include the military aspects of security or procurement for military purposes and did not affect Ireland's right to act or refrain from acting in any way which might affect Ireland's international status of military neutrality.

Austria explicity raised the question of its neutrality in a letter applying for membership. That is a matter that will be discussed in due course. Austria is a democracy with a good human rights record and is eminently qualified for EC membership. The application will have to follow normal procedures which will no doubt give rise to an in-depth examination by EC institutions. It would not be proper for us to comment in advance of the normal procedures which involve referral to the Commission and the opinion of the European Parliament. That is our position.

Are you saying anything to that?

I want to give you time to ask a question.

I have no right to ask a question on priority time.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to hold the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference; and the matters which will be discussed at it.

The next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference is planned to take place shortly.

As this will be the first Conference since the conclusion of the review, we will obviously wish to discuss the programme of work for the period ahead. The Conference will also discuss the full range of issues of current interest and concern.

These will include developments during the marching season, the passage of new fair employment legislation at Westminister, the question of issuing plastic bullets to the UDR, progress in relation to prison releases, as well as a review of the security situation.

The Committee of Selection reports that it has nominated the following Members to serve on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges: David Andrews, Monica Barnes, Vincent Brady, John Bruton, Donal Carey, Peadar Clohessy, Jim Higgins, Colm Hilliard, Brendan Howlin, Liam Lawlor, Pat McCartan, Fergus O'Brien, Martin Joe O'Toole, Nora Owen, Seán Power, Dick Roche and John Stafford; and that it has nominated the following Members to serve on the Committee of Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts for the year ended 31 December 1987: Michael Ahern, Bernard Allen, John Connor, Séamus Cullimore, John Dennehy, Chris Flood, Michael P. Kitt, Charlie McCreevy, Brendan McGahon, Gay Mitchell, Pat Rabbitte and Mervyn Taylor.

I move: That the report be laid before the Dáil."

I have a small point of elucidation. In the English text of the report it is stated that Members have been nominated to serve on the Committee of Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts for the year ended 31 December 1987, whereas in the Irish version it refers to "don bhliain dar chríoch 31 Nollaig 1989". To which year does it refer?

The Deputy will appreciate that in order to facilitate some Members of the House we rushed this announcement.

I appreciate that.

The year should be 1989.

There has been a slip of the tongue there; the year should be 1987.

Perhaps 1987 is the correct year.

Messages have been received from Seanad Éireann stating that it has passed the following Bills without amendment: An Blascaod Mór (National Historic Park) Bill, 1989, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Bill, 1988, the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1989, Dublin City University Bill, 1989, University of Limerick Bill, 1989, the Building Societies Bill, 1988, and the Central Bank Bill, 1988.

Deputy Rabbitte is in possession and he has ten minutes left of the time available to him.

I want to make some definite proposals to deal with the gross inequities I referred to earlier of the two tiered health service in a way that the provision of finance alone cannot do. I would like to believe that this Minister, unlike his counterpart in Britain, does not believe in the two tiered health service as a means of controlling public expenditure on health, but everything that happened during his first term office would seem to indicate that he does.

As I said, class and privilege are evident in the stratification of our hospital population and in the delineation between public and private which is sanctified by legislation here. I want to deal with two major reforms — the need to recast the consultants' common contract and the need to reform the VHI. As we are aware, the common contract emerged in the mid-seventies where consultants were paid a salary for their commitment based on the number of hours spent in public work. This should have brought about a greater commitment to public patients, and in some individual cases and specialties it did. However, since the salaries for those in public commitment are assured, consultants in general have an economic interest in maintaining the status quo in order to boost their income from private practice by forcing eligible patients who can afford private insurance to take it out in order to get the service they should be getting as entitled patients in the first place.

Half of the people in the VHI have cover for services to which they are already entitled. Therefore, the economic interest of consultants is to ensure that access to these services for private patients is considerably superior than for public patients. Under this Minister the VHI have become a promoter of private health care per se and have encouraged the multi-tiered health service. The VHI must become the body through which the State can ensure equity and quality of care for all patients, public and private. If all, or part, of the consultants' salaries were channelled through the VHI and paid on a fee per item basis, it would break the present disincentive to care for entitled patients and establish a similar or same economic relationship with all patients. Why should not the VHI payments to hospitals and consultants be dependent on certain standards of access and facilities being achieved? I am not overly concerned about how much money consultants actually make, but I am appalled at the fact that public and private patients are not treated equally.

The Catholic Bishops and Superiors of Religious Orders in their report published today entitled Health Care — Let's Look Again point out that the burden of health cutbacks have “very definitely fallen disproportionately on the poorer section of our society”. The report goes on to say, “the current policy emphasis seems to focus on ensuring an expanded role for private medicine in Irish health care. Evidence suggests that the present policy is drawing people into private insurance which they can scarcely afford”. I submit that the VHI should have one premium system which allows private care in publicly funded hospitals.

Successive Ministers have disowned any responsibility in this area but, in fact, the 1957 Act gives the Minister a central role in the matter of directing the VHI. He can give directions that would implement some of the reforms to which I have referred. For example, it is absurd that fees charged for back X-rays to private patients should vary in the five or six hospitals I have taken as a random sample as follows: in St. Vincent's public hospital it costs £16 for a back X-ray, but in St. Vincent's private hospital it costs £37.70; in St. Colmcille's hospital, in the Eastern Health Board area, it costs £50; in St. Gabriel's private hospital it costs £35; in the Charlemont Clinic it costs £28 and in the Blackrock Clinic it costs £38. It was reported in today's The Irish Times that the council for the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital have claimed that patients are becoming legally blind on waiting lists and cancer patients are having to wait for surgery. It is most unusual that the council of a hospital would make such a grave statement.

This problem has been exacerbated by the retirement of three ENT consultants who have not been replaced, and one consultant anaesthetist who has not been replaced also. Indeed, during the interruption of this debate I had contact on a particularly harrowing case which is typical of the incidents the eye and ear hospital refer to. This harrowing case is a little boy who has been waiting for 18 months for access to the eye and ear hospital to have a tonsillectomy and an operation on his nose. This is multiplied thousands of times.

Under the proposals I have made for the revision of the common contract it would be necessary to increase the number of consultant posts. This would partially be paid for by a reduction in the number of NCHDs thus allowing, indeed ensuring, a greater direct input by fully qualified specialists into the day to day management of public patients. This would also help to reduce the career bottleneck for junior doctors who suffer from the closed shop mentality of their elders. It is interesting that the eye and ear hospital say in their statement today that "specialist junior doctors cannot get enough experience in the management and surgery of more common eye conditions".

Of course, it is true that the supervision, management and in-service treatment of private patients is at present carried out by the consultants themselves with little or no input from non-consultant hospital doctors. Most of the day to day management of public patients is carried on by the non-consultant hospital doctors supervised, presumably, by the consultant. The proposals I have made would increase the number of specialists and reduce the number of NCHDs. Consultants must have the same economic relationship with public and private patients. The new role proposed for the VHI in channelling part or all of the consultants' remuneration on a fee per item basis would help to bring this about.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to comment on the current controversy surrounding the Adelaide Hospital and to specify what measures he proposes to take to preserve the ethos of that hospital and to protect the procedures that are available in that hospital, and not available publicly in any other hospital in the city or in the rest of the country.

There are a number of aspects of the Minister's speech to which I would like to refer, but time does not permit it. For example, the reference to mental handicap displays a completely inadequate appreciation of the suffering inflicted on many people in the community in this area.

It is nothing short of a scandal that the tremendous facility available at Cheeverstown House is still only half used when there are several patients in the community awaiting access to that institution, and similarly in the area of the psychiatric services. Lip service is paid to implementing planning, but we know that for all the professional arguments that may be offered for decanting our psychiatric hospitals, no commensurate provision is being made for the development of our community services.

I would have liked to refer to the necessity for a free GP service, but time does not allow for that. I hope the experience in the general election has nailed the lie that we spend too much on our health services. At 6.4 per cent of GNP, it is well lower than the average of the OECD countries. In real terms, it is lower than other developed countries generally.

Finally, with the caveat I entered earlier, I would impress on the Minister the necessity to reverse the damage he did at the Custom House during his first term in office and to commence that process immediately. I would recommend that he put more reliance on his professional and dedicated advisers and civil servants, rather than permitting the mandarins of the Department of Finance to continue to run our health services as they have done for the last two and a half years.

I should like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the new Minister of State on his appointment. I wish him every success in his new portfolio. At present the health services and the cutbacks are a source of great concern. Indeed that was evident during the election campaign. However, what we fail to realise is that there are adequate finances for the health services and, contrary to what Deputy Rabbitte has said, we are spending more per head of population in this area than Britain, for instance, in spending——

Britain is no example.

We spend between 6.4 per cent and 6.9 per cent of GNP and in Britain they will spend exactly 5.1 per cent for this year.

5.5 per cent.

There is enough money there. It is the utilisation of that money that is involved. We are not getting value for the money we spend. We should bear in mind that throwing more money into the health services does not necessarily mean we will get better health. Extra money would not have prevented the tragedy of the 776 perinatal deaths that occurred a couple of years ago; antenatal health education would. Family planning might help a lot more and, indeed, nutrition and general physical health would go a long way towards improving the health of the people, rather than throwing more money into hospital services.

Would more money being spent on the health services improve life expectancy at the age of 50 years? It would not. When you realise that £1 in every £5 spent by the Government is spent on health that puts matters into perspective. What is wrong is that, first, too much reliance is placed on the hospital services and tertiary care and not enough attention is paid to primary care. Too many patients are being referred to hospital. Of patients presenting at primary care, 50 per cent are referred to hospitals and their admission rate is 18 per cent as compared with 12 per cent or less in Britain. That is a lopsided approach. We place too much importance on this tertiary care and on the hospital services. This is where we have fallen down and it is a very costly service. The diagnostic services associated with that service are extremely costly and are using up too high a proportion of the funds devoted to the health services. We must put the matter into perspecitve first.

We find that patients are referred to consultants in hospitals and being kept there by consultants, returning there week after week. This chokes the system, so that few if any new patients are being seen by consultants as these patients who should be referred back to their family doctor are still being retained by the consultants.

The next point is that patients are being detained too long in hospital. Their bed occupation is higher than in any country in Europe. We find that patients are being admitted on a Friday and tests do not commence until the following Tuesday. This is unnecessary. We must look properly at things from the initial stages.

Tackle the consultants.

A sum of £50 million or £100 million will not solve our problem.

Tackle the consultants.

Deputy Rabbitte is new to the House, I know, but——

I would be prepared to be fearless about it.

——it is not normal when another Deputy is in possession to attempt to have dialogue with him. You have had your contribution, Deputy Rabbitte, and you are obliged to listen patiently while other people do the same. Go raibh maith agat.

I shall be as patient as possible.

Deputy Rabbitte has very rightly said "Tackle the consultants." They have a common contract which allows them to provide 33 hours per week of public health service. That is an ideal situation but what is wrong is that there is no monitoring. Like any trade union members — and they are the same as anybody else — they have a contract which is copperfastened and they will not very readily change that. Deputy Rabbitte, who until recently was a union executive or secretary, knows quite well what contracts mean for workers.

That should be so.

The consultants regard themselves in the very same light. I do not agree with that; I would like to see a more magnanimous approach. Perhaps they might work a little harder and for longer hours. I would very much like to see that. However, we are now dealing with human nature and when people have a contract they are not very willing to let it go. I agree very much with what Deputy Rabbitte says. I am delighted that he said it, many more should be saying it.

I was very impressed with his knowledge of the health services. He is very well informed on them and I do not mean to be patronising. The money that we spend on the health services is being wasted. All the Deputies here are experiencing the same kind of problems I am experiencing in trying to have patients seen as out-patients or to have patients admitted to hospital. A lady from Cork, suffering from a very painful condition, told me recently that she cannot be seen until the end of next January and that irked me, I got in touch with the hospital involved and I cannot understand why she cannot be seen sooner. The consultant sees the patients only once a week. There is something radically wrong there.

I ask the Minister if he would give serious consideration to the question of a standing committee of the Oireachtas, drawn from both the Dáil and the Seanad, with terms of reference which would allow the committee regularly to monitor delivery of health care, to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of funding, to debate the setting of priorities in the health services and to establish, right from the top down, the question of accountability. It would be of great significance if we were to have such an Oireachtas committee. They would have the power to cross-examine anybody who carries responsibility in the health services, from the Minister down. They would not try to usurp the function of the Minister for Health, but would be a constant watchdog on the health services. It could play a very useful role and I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to establishing such a committee. I am sure all Members of the House would welcome the idea as a committee of this kind would work with the Minister in the interests of the health service.

Deputy Yates favours the abolition of the health boards and I agree with him. However, he and indeed all Members should realise that the health boards will resist any attempt to do away with their powers. This would particularly apply to rural areas and this is what we are up against. We will have to initiate a public debate on priorities in the health service. At the moment high-tech medicine is going at such a pace that it can absorb all the health funds because there have been breakthroughs in medicine which could not have been envisaged 50 years ago. I am thinking of hip replacements, kidney and other transplants. People are aware that these transplants are possible and they demand them. However, the public must realise that these services are very costly and that extra funds and skilled people are necessary to ensure that the demand is met.

We must establish priorities because I am worried that the high-tech medicine will absorb all the funds with the result that the unglamorous side, the psychiatric and the geriatric, will be deprived of a service or relegated to the bottom of the queue. Who will decide whether a person should get a kidney transplant or whether the money should be devoted to the care of geriatric patients? People could well be deprived of essential medical care because the high-tech medicine has absorbed all the funds. A medical council, with lay participation, should decide these issues. The decision should certainly not be left to doctors. Indeed, at the rate of progress in medicine, it could absorb the whole GNP. In Europe they have corrected this by establishing long waiting lists, that is how they are curtailing the costs. Efficiency in hospitals is not necessarily the answer, it is often more costly as there is a greater throughput of patients.

In regard to the dental service, it should be compulsory for graduates to serve one year in the public dental service——

Hear, hear.

Such a scheme would be of great benefit to the State as at present they emigrate as soon as they are qualified. However, they have an obligation to the State, which has paid for their education. This would relieve the burden on other dentists and it would not be too costly. Deputy Yates referred to dental hygienists, a post which should be established as quickly as possible. Basic dental work could be undertaken by a person who had been trained for two years. It would be a very nice career and would relieve the burden on dentists. I ask the Minister to look at this because it is the only way to tackle this very serious problem.

I should like to share my time with some of the Deputies on this side of the House.

Perhaps you will indicate what is involved? Are you giving five minutes to another Deputy or Deputies?

I will go ahead and we will see what time is left when I have finished.

As long as you do not expect me to stop you until your 15 minutes are up.

The last speaker put his finger on the problem and perhaps he will be kind enough to stay for a couple of moments to hear my diagnosis. He said we have not been getting value for money in the health service but I can suggest ways of getting better value for the money already committed.

I wish to refer to the problems concerning children in Counties Westmeath and Longford. At present they do not have a paediatric service in their own area because of the non-availability of the paediatric unit in Mullingar General Hospital. So far, in excess of £12 million has been spent on an extension to Mullingar General Hospital but it is lying idle. It is a little bit like buying a new car and not having money to put petrol in it. The paediatric unit in the hospital is fully equipped down to cots, nappies and so on. The rest of the hospital will be open on 1 August but the paediatric unit will remain closed because it would cost £900,000 to run it for one year. That is the figure given by the health board and I am sure it is right. They will need staff for the hospital to look after our children. However, by the prudent use of the unit we could recover some of the money and get better value for it. At the moment well informed parents are going to hospitals where general services are available as well as a maternity unit. They are paying for these services which are outside their own areas and this money could be used by the Midland Health Board to open the paediatric unit.

At present our area is served by a paediatric unit in Portlaoise which, as the Minister is probably aware, was built to cater for Counties Offaly and Laois. At present it is catering for four counties with resultant overcrowding and other difficulties. Last Saturday we experienced a not uncommon problem which I hope will not arise again. A child was hospitalised in Mullingar before 3 o'clock in the afternoon. A doctor then decided that the child should be sent to Portlaoise to the paediatric unit there. This was against the wishes of the parents as the child had previously been hospitalised in Crumlin and they had expected that the child would be sent back there. However, the doctor insisted that the child should go to Portlaoise. The long trek ensued, an ambulance, a driver and a nurse went with the child to Portlaoise and on arrival it was found that some person needed to look after this child was not available. However, the ambulance had departed when it was decided that the child should go to Crumlin. However, because of some other emergency the child could not go to Crumlin until 11 p.m. that night. Is that the kind of treatment we want for our children? Is that value for money? Could not a lot of that money be saved and go towards the cost of the unit we are talking about? The parents of that child are acutely aware of the problems in the health service. They did not need an election to be told that the Government were not aware of the problems, they know it at first hand.

The Minister may not be aware of the location of Portlaoise in relation to the two counties I am talking about. Portlaoise is 45 miles from Mullingar and 70 miles from Longford and a most important aspect is that it is not accessible by public transport from either town. You cannot get a bus or a train from either Mullingar or Longford direct to Portlaoise. In order to go to Portlaoise you must first go to Dublin and then back down to Portlaoise. This is causing a great many problems. Some people have not the time to make this long journey by public transport to visit their children, as they would prefer to be with their child than travel on public transport. They have to hire a car or a taxi in order to visit their children. Unfortunately, many people have to borrow money from the moneylenders to do that and thus they are running into debt to visit their child in hospital. This problem could be solved.

Another problem associated with the distance is that only one parent can be so far away at any given time and the other has to stay at home to look after the other children. If we had a unit in our own area this would mean that both parents could share the responsibility of looking after the family. Surely this is a worthwhile suggestion. The cost to the health board of ferrying children up and down to this hospital and occasionally ferrying their parents could be set off against the £900,000 needed to open this unit. We have also to consider the parents' need for beds in Portlaoise Hospital. We have seen examples of parents who cannot get home sleeping on the floor so that they can be with their children. If we had a unit in our own area, the people in the area could be in and out and would not need to sleep there overnight.

The Midland Health Board have been very responsible over the years. They have responded to all the calls for rationalisation. They cut back when asked to cut back. A hospital in Longford was closed down on the understanding that a unit would be completed in Mullingar. Part of that unit will be opened on 1 August but the Minister is letting down the people in the area and the health board — one of the few health boards who lived within their means. It will be thrown back in their faces. The health board have made this their priority and I ask the Minister to respond to that.

Up to 50 new jobs would be created by opening this new paediatric unit. Many of the young people, the nurses and attendants would have to otherwise emigrate. I beg the Minister to include in the Estimates the sum of money needed to open this unit.

In the limited time available, I wish to confine my remarks to the health services in County Clare, my own constituency, as Deputy Ivan Yates has dealt in fine detail with the situation at national level. I would like to put on the record of the House, for the benefit of the Minister, in case he is not so aware, that there is a major crisis in the health service in County Clare.

Over the past two years the health service has degenerated to such an extent that a poor service is being provided in County Clare. Since February 1987 when Fianna Fáil took office we have suffered very gravely from the inaction by Fianna Fáil on the health service. We have seen a reduction of 90 nursing posts in the county. The number of hospital beds has been reduced. We have lost 47 beds in Ennis General Hospital, 200 beds in Our Lady's Psychiatric Hospital, 50 beds in St. Joseph's Geriatric Hospital, and in addition the very fine maternity facility that was opened in Cahercalla Hospital has also been closed. At present we have absolutely no maternity facilities in County Clare. No babies are now born in County Clare and their mothers have to go to either Limerick or Galway. If they are fortunate enough to get to hospital their babies are born there but babies have been born on the road to both of those hospitals and that is a very serious situation. The health of both mother and baby is being put at risk. This is just a synopsis of the intolerable things that have happened over the past two years.

I am appealing to the Minister, now that he has taken up a new term of office, to seriously investigate the health service in County Clare and to have his officials carry out a serious examination of what is happening. I ask the Minister to improve the service at Ennis General Hospital, to provide a maternity service in the county and to take an over-view of the situation in the county.

I was interested to hear Deputy McGrath refer to transport in his area. He is fortunate that there is some form of transport available because the reality in Clare is that there are almost no transport facilities. It is very serious to see in the middle of winter pregnant women or sick people who have to attend outpatient departments hitching on the road from west, north, or east Clare into Ennis General Hospital or to the hospital in Limerick. That is what is happening.

The Government propose allocating an additional £15 million to alleviate the situation. That is totally inadequate. Prior to the general election, the Fine Gael Party proposed that an extra £30 million would be provided for two years in order to relieve the immediate difficulties until an overall view was taken of the health service and a plan put in place. Deputy John O'Connell suggested that a committee of the House be set up to deal with the health service. That is a good idea and is something that the House should support. However, of itself that will not solve the health problem. Deputy O'Connell also suggested that many people would agree to the abolition of the health boards; that is quite true, but the boards would not give up their power. I put it to the Minister that we in this House have the power and we must have the will to ensure that priority is given to providing the people with a proper health service. Bureaucracy must suffer in the interests of a good health service for the people on the ground. Sick people and not the administrators should be given priority. I ask the Minister to examine that seriously. In many instances it is a case of life or death.

My colleague, Deputy Bernard Allen, wishes to have a few minutes of my time. With your permission a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to give him the remainder of my time.

Deputy Allen has two minutes.

I was over at the Committee of Public Accounts and thus lost my place in the queue. I congratulate the Minister on his reappointment. I was surprised that the Minister was reappointed because he is personally responsible for the crisis that exists in the health services. The crisis has deepened since the election. I was expecting to hear the Minister give some hope to the health services in the course of his speech but we were treated to more of the same, a totally unimaginative contribution. I accept that £15 million is being added to the Estimate but that is like pouring water into a leaking bucket. The health service is full of holes, inefficiencies and problems and the Minister has not made any attempt to deal with them.

The Minister has uttered the same phrases about a commission on funding considering the issue and so on but that commission has been in operation for two years. It was said that the purpose of their work was to deal with a crisis but I understand there is deep disagreement among the members of the commission. Fine Gael, in their health policy document, suggested ways of dealing with the fundamental problems of the health services. It appears that the Minister is a prisoner of the powerful groups who had been referred to, that he is a prisoner of his own profession and of the politically based health boards. It appears he does not have the willingness or the courage to tackle them. Until such time as we have a Minister who has the courage to take on the powerful groups who operate in the health services and to make real changes we will have a crisis in the health services. We are not talking about pouring in more money but about tackling the fundamental problems that exist. I regret the Minister has not the ability or the courage to do that work.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment but I regret that a fresh face has not been appointed to the Department of Health. We need new ideas in that Department but instead we will have more of the same.

I should like to share my time with Deputy Callely. I congratulate Deputy O'Hanlon on his reappointment and Deputy Noel Treacy on his appointment to the Department of Health. Contrary to what the last speaker said, there will be a fresh face in that Department. While I do not intend to respond to the remarks of Opposition Members it is important that I should draw attention to the fact that in the election campaign they promised £60 million for the health services, money that was not in the coffers. They failed in their efforts to hoodwink the electorate on that issue.

It went down very well.

I take from that comment that the Deputy is admitting that he tried to hoodwink the electorate.

We told the electorate we would put money into the health services.

The electorate knew the money was not there. Like other speakers, I intend to be parochial in my contribution. In particular, I want to refer to the Louth County Hospital in Dundalk. In recent newspaper report, particularly in the issue of The Sunday Tribune of 2 July, it was stated that an executive officer of Comhairle na nOspidéal said that it was intended to close 16 small hospitals around the country, including the hospital in Dundalk. When I read that report I contacted the then acting Minister for Health, Dr. O'Hanlon, and I was glad that on the day following the publication of that report he denied the story. He said that no more hospitals would be closed and that there would be no change in the position of the Dundalk hospital.

Subsequently, the person who wrote the newspaper report had a letter published in The Sunday Tribune in an effort to clarify what he had said. He tried to convey that his report had been misconstrued and had been blown out of all proportion. However, that person, according to my local paper, reiterated his original claim in the course of a conversation with a local action group. The people of Dundalk will not allow their hospital to be closed. I am pleased the Minister has made it clear it will not be closed and I appeal to him to reiterate that statement today for the benefit of the people of Dundalk.

The Louth County Hospital caters for a catchment area with a population of 50,000 people. Other hospitals would have to be closed before a decision could be made to close the Dundalk hospital. I was interested to hear other Members, including Deputy O'Connell, call for the abolition of the health boards. I am not so sure that their abolition would be a solution because if matters were left to the members of Comhairle na nOspidéal and others, all our local hospitals would have been closed. The involvement of members of the medical profession and local representatives in health boards has guaranteed the survival of those hospitals and we should all welcome that. Those who suggest that the Government should abolish the health boards should put forward alternative proposals. I would not like decisions in regard to hospitals and so on to be made by officials of the Departments of Health or Finance.

I note the Minister has allocated £9 million for summer bed closures. The position in the Dundalk hospital following the closure of wards has been catastrophic. Men, women and children with varying types of complaints have been sharing the same wards. That is not right. Money may be saved but a lot of distress is being caused. Savings could be made in other areas, particularly on administration.

Deputy McGrath complained that the paediatric unit in his local hospital had not been opened but I should like to tell him that he is very lucky. The paediatric unit in our hospital has been closed. I should like to ask the Minister to consider reopening that unit or providing specialist services for children in the Louth County Hospital. I do not think it is right that there is not such a unit in a town with a population of 30,000 people.

I am pleased the Minister is making every effort to appoint a speech therapist for the area. It is unfortunate that the official who retired was not replaced. As a result patients have to travel to Dublin for treatment. A local man whose wife had a stroke told me he has to bring her to Dublin periodically for treatment.

It is important to record that the staff of the Louth County Hospital provide an excellent service. We have one surgeon, one gynaecologist and one physician but hospitals of a similar size have two specialists in those fields. The hospital continues to provide an excellent service due to the dedication of the medical staff. I have no doubt they are providing a service beyond the call of duty. We should do everything possible to provide the funding necessary to employ extra staff. I am proud to be able to say that the hospital is providing the best service of all hospitals in the region. It is the most efficient hospital in the region.

I congratulate the Minister on his reappointment and Deputy Treacy on his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Health. I welcome the decision in regard to accident and emergency services in the Dublin area. To have those services operating on a 24-hour basis was a logical move. There has been a great need for that change and I have no doubt it will be welcomed by patients. The unfortunate people who are injured in accidents or need emergency medical attention will be able to avail of a first-class service within minutes at a hospital near their home. The change is in accordance with the views I expressed at a recent meeting of the Eastern Health Board.

Other Members, particularly Deputy McGrath, were parochial in their contributions. I appreciate the problem highlighted by Deputy McGrath in regard to the 50 paediatric beds. When his colleagues were in Government the same problem existed in my constituency, and again I am being parochial with regard to Beaumont Hospital, where 730 beds, fully equipped and partly statted, were closed. I am pleased to say that a very short period of time after the present Minister came into the Department of Health the hospital was opened. I hope he can do the same in the case referred to by Deputy McGrath.

I welcome the move by the Government to carry out a comprehensive examination of hospital waiting lists to identify where the major difficulties exist. Of course, some of the lists are questionable, and I have no doubt there will be ghosts on some of them. It is totally unacceptable that elderly people needing hip replacements or cateract operations should have to wait long periods for these operations. With regard to ENT services, I am concerned that people, especially young children, should have to wait many months for treatment. A child who is slightly deaf and who has to wait up to seven to 12 months, or even longer, for an operation may be deprived of hearing during his early learning years. I have no doubt this will cost the State extra funds in the long term. These areas must be tackled without further delay.

I welcome the move, in line with the next phase of national recovery, the Government are making to tackle these problems. I look forward to the development of the new agreement between the Department of Health, the health boards and the Irish Medical Organisation in relation to the payment of capitation to doctors participating in the general medical scheme. However, I want to express my anxiety in relation to medical cards, long-term illness categories and the drug refund scheme. I look forward to the new initiatives outlined here today by the Minister in relation to the first £28 and the rebate, via the GMS payments board, directly to pharmacists. I do not fully go along with the opinion that generic drugs will be the answer to the rising costs of the general medical scheme but I look forward to when the national drugs formulary will be announced. I hope I will be able to participate at that stage.

In the past number of years there have been a number of welcome developments in the health services. I should like to mention some of the developments which have taken place in regard to psychiatric services, planning for the future, and the care of the mentally handicapped in the community. Further developments are badly needed in these areas particularly in relation to autistic children who require long-term nursing and independent care. These are just some of the areas of health where I hope to make an input in this Chamber or at committee level. I am concerned about the long and unacceptable waiting lists for orthodontic treatment. I welcome the additional funding of £600,000 which has been allocated to the Eastern Health Board area to deal with these waiting lists. I hope to have an opportunity of coming back to the Minister to let him know exactly what kind of waiting lists there are when the additional funding has been allocated in this area.

There is another area I should like to touch on, and again I am being somewhat parochial, with regard ambulance cover in the north Dublin area. I welcome the change-over from the Dublin Fire Brigade to the health board in the manning of the phones but I ask the Minister to consider funding a cardiac ambulance base for the north Dublin city and county. A cardiac ambulance is badly needed on the north side.

I conclude by congratulating the Minister who courageously tackled the problems he inherited in 1987. I intend to help to develop the framework which has been put in place over the past two years so as to ensure equality and the right of all to avail of a proper health service.

As I have indicated to Deputies, I am now calling Deputy Foxe; who will be limited to five minutes. He will be followed by Deputy Michael Moynihan, who will have a similar amount of time.

At the outset I should like to contratulate the Minister on his reappointment and Deputy Noel Treacy on his appointment. I wish both fruitful days in their respective offices.

I know it is not unique but it is most unusual for a person to be elected to the Dáil on one particular issue, and that is exactly how I have come to be in this House. I was elected by the people of Roscommon on the health issue. When a third of the electorate of any area cross the political divides to vote for a person who represents one issue they must regard it as a very real problem. I should like the Government to take note of this. These people are merely expressing their feelings on the state of the health services.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he is to investigate the waiting lists in the hospitals throughout the different health board areas and the difference in practice between the treatment which private patients and public patients receive. In the past few days the Taoiseach has been quoted as saying that no one in this country should be more than 30 or 40 miles removed from a hospital. That is very good thinking and I hope the Government put it into practice. When people in the city talk about visiting people in hospitals it may have a different connotation to people who live in the country. If a person has to travel 70 or 80 miles to a hospital, especially when transport is not the greatest, it could mean a day's work to travel that distance and spend some time with a patient. Because of the present condition of some of the roads it could be a rather hazardous day's work. I welcome the Taoiseach's comments about the 30 to 40 mile limit.

I have been told that the composition of the new governing body of hospitals is to be comprised solely of public representatives. I do not think that is a very good idea. There should be some room on that body for medical people. Perhaps 50 per cent of the board could be comprised of public representatives and the other 50 per cent comprised of representatives of the nursing and medical staff. This would give better representation. After all, doctors and nurses are the people who meet patients and who have to deal with day to day problems in hospitals. They are also the people who must bear the full brunt of the criticism when it is discovered that certain patients have to remain for seven or eight hours in a corridor waiting for a room when, at the same time, wards in a hospital are closed. The general public find it very difficult to understand this.

I know we should all be forward thinking and looking.

I do not know whether we are forward-looking or backward stepping in Roscommon but we have reached the stage at which male and female patients are being accommodated in the same ward. At the initial stage of illness there might not be too much wrong with that but, as one expects to recover health and vigour in hospital, it is not very practical — to say the least — to have male and female patients accommodated in the same ward.

Some weeks ago a representative of the Western Health Board arrived at Roscommon County Hospital and informed the staff that the hospital were overspending on bandages and drugs and, in order to effect a saving in that regard, it would be necessary to close the hospital for one month. However, common sense prevailed and that step was not taken. Certainly it does not make much sense that there should be such restrictions in one area while there appears to be none on capital spending. There are now moves afoot to reconstruct a building erected during the Famine years — in 1843 in fact — to provide accommodation for psychiatric patients while at the same time closing down the existing psychiatric hospital built 100 years later in the forties.

I must advise the Deputy that he is now poaching on Deputy Moynihan's time.

I understand that money is scarce but we should not effect savings by inflicting hardship on the most vulnerable sector of our community, namely, the sick and the elderly.

I must ask Deputy Moynihan to conclude before 4.55 p.m.

I am glad that you have found at least those few minutes for me at the end of the day. I should like to welcome the Minister and his Minister of State and wish them well in their onerous and responsible duties. I hope their policies will be aimed at alleviating the hardships and sufferings imposed by the cutbacks of the past two years.

With the few minutes at my disposal it would be impossible to range across the whole series of cutbacks and say how they have impacted on the standards of health services formerly available. Suffice it to say what has happened in the Southern Health Board, the area with which I am most conversant. In that area, in the period May 1987 to May 1989, 1,200 staff have been removed from the health service. This has led to a very serious void and has made an enormous impact on the level of services there. We are now faced with huge waiting lists in respect of adults needing surgery or investigation and children with normal illnesses requiring hospitalisation and/or investigation. I can assure the Minister and his Minister of State that we in this party will be monitoring very closely the programme enunciated today to ascertain what progress is made in this area between now and 31 December next.

Deputy O'Connell has said there is ample money available if only it were properly utilised. For example, a patient on the western seaboard, say, on one of the peninsulas off south Kerry, receiving a notification that they must attend the Regional Hospital in Tralee, fasting, at 9 o'clock on any morning must hire a car to get there. They will be refused transport, even though they may be medical card holders. Indeed having spent two, three or four hours in that hospital they will then be told that, unfortunately, they cannot be treated that day. That is a common occurrence, something that the Minister and his Minister of State must investigate. That constitutes another serious instance of hardship on medical card holders who heretofore had been provided with transport by their health board or who received a subsistence allowance in relation to the hiring of private transport. All of that has been abolished. I have heard examples of patients living 60 to 80 miles from a hospital to which they might be directed for investigation or treatment and who could not keep their appointments because they did not have the resources from their unemployment assistance or disabled person's allowance to enable them hire a car. This constitutes real hardship that must be tackled and abolished.

Surely we have not abandoned the principle that the nature and severity of a person's illness must determine his or her admission to treatment, not whether he or she has or has not the requisite money. That is a principle I hope will never be abandoned by our society.

I am afraid the Deputy's time has now expired.

I will abide by your ruling, Sir.

I should like to thank all Members who contributed to what has been a very worthwhile debate. Indeed any Members who have been present and who listened to all the different speakers will have gleaned that there is a wide range of opinion on how the resources available for the health services should be spent. A number of Members were anxious that additional money would be spent on the hospital system. Deputy O'Connell made the point that we could spend too much money on the high technology hospital system to the detriment of community services. We encounter the same problems as every other developed country, that is, that there is a finite resource, choices have to be made and priorities decided. It is a matter for Government to decide those priorities.

I accept that there are problems. Indeed, Deputy Moynihan highlighted one when he referred to the case of a patient going to the General Hospital in Tralee at 9 o'clock in the morning, fasting, only to discover that the service was not available on that day. That highlights a major problem, which is the urbanisation of health services at local level. That is certainly one problem that needs to be addressed. We have accepted that there are a number of problems remaining to be resolved and we are addressing them through spending another £15 million on the service.

It is very important that we maintain a balance. The Labour Party and The Workers' Party would have us believe the service is in crisis. I was surprised at Deputy Rabbitte, a former member of a trade union who had been very much involved with their members in the delivery of services in this country because nobody should be better equipped than he to know the very high level and quality of service provided for so many public patients. That is a fact. Having said that, I accept that there are problems but we are addressing them. We are providing £15 million in the current year, which will be used mainly to reduce the long waiting lists in a number of areas — hip replacements, ear nose and throat complaints, the removal of cataracts and on the various hospitals where, for one reason or another, there are long waiting lists.

We also intend to have the accident and emergency service opened in the five major Dublin hospitals in September. We believe that not alone will that be beneficial to the people in the neighbouring areas but will also help to reduce the backlog of elective admissions. It is important to recognise that over 50 per cent of admissions to hospitals are elective.

Deputy Yates said that the Fine Gael Party intended to provide £30 million rather than the £15 million we are providing, and I was very interested to hear Deputy Yates saying that they had costed this £30 million at VHI rates. I would have expected — and I believe Deputy Yates in the terms of the last Dáil accepted — that VHI rates would be much higher than what we in the public sector would expect to pay. Deputy Yates complained here on many occasions about the right rates charged by places like the Blackrock Clinic. In the light of what Deputy Yates said, I feel the £15 million we are providing is adequate for our needs in the current year, as distinct from the £30 million proposed by the Fine Gael Party, which would be costed at that very high rate.

Deputy Howlin referred to the mentally handicapped and the lack of planning. The mentally handicapped have been protected over the last number of years and indeed the allocation to those looking after the mentally handicapped has been maintained above the rate of inflation. A number of co-ordinating committees in each health board area have been established for the purpose of co-ordinating activity between the health boards and the voluntary bodies who play such an important role in the delivery of service for the mentally handicapped, and our Department are also involved.

It is not possible to go through all the points that were raised but I want to assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that there is in place, and continues to be in place, an effective, efficient and caring health service for all who need it.

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 18 July 1989: "That Votes Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive, 31, 33 together with a Supplementary Estimate, 34 to 36, inclusive, 39, 40 together with a Supplementary Estimate, and 43 to 46, inclusive, for the year ending 31 December 1989 are hereby agreed to".

Before proceeding with the Adjournment Debate let me announce for the information of the House that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 15, I have nominated Deputies Monica Barnes, Michael Barrett, Andrew Boylan, Joe Doyle, Colm Hilliard, Joe Jacob, Séamus Pattison, Joe Sherlock, John Stafford and Pearse Wyse to be members of the panel of Deputies who may act as temporary chairmen in the Dáil or in Committee of the whole Dáil.

We can now proceed with the Adjournment Debate. Deputies Monica Barnes and Eamon Gilmore gave me notice of their intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the present and future position at Carysfort College.

I want to thank you for granting time to me, Deputy Seán Barrett and Deputy Eamon Gilmore. I indicated this morning that three of us would like to share the time. Since this is the first public opportunity I have had, I congratulate the Minister for Education and wish her success in office. I should like to believe that the matter we are discussing will be one of her succesess.

It will be recalled that there was much public debate inside and outside the House some years ago regarding the future of Carysfort College. It is timely for us to recall what was said about what the college had offered to the community and what it was hoped it could continue to offer in the future. A press release from Carysfort College on Tuesday, 18 February 1986, highlighted the resources and facilities which made it such an appropriate and desirable facility for education. It pointed out that in 1982 a new library, a 700-seat auditorium, a sports centre and an audio-visual centre with professional quality video equipment were officially opened by the then Minister for Education.

The facilities at Carysfort were compared very favourably with those in other third level institutions. The lecture theatres and tutorial rooms could accommodate up to 1,000 students. The ultramodern resources included an impressive library of books, slides, audio and video tapes, micro-teaching facilities, closed circuit television, a computer centre and facilities including reprographic equipment for producing teaching materials. There was also a fully equipped gymnasium, a new 700-seat multi-purpose auditorium furnished with a retractable stage and highly flexible sound and lighting equipment. The press release went on to extol the extensive grounds containing sports fields as well as basketball and tennis courts and the college's superb restraurant.

We would seem to be faced with a decision that will not allow such superb resources and facilities to continue to be used for third level education, where the great need is just beginning to become apparent. Those facilities may be demolished to make way for a profit-sharing development which would not only remove one of our greatest third level institutions but would have serious negative results for the environment and the community who share those superb sports facilities.

I now refer to the obligation of the Sisters of Mercy in this regard. In a newsletter sent by the college in 1986 they actually say that Dr. John Colohan, educational historian, has referred to the present proposal to close Carysfort as one of the most monumental of missed opportunities in the history of Irish education, this at a moment when Irish education is facing the greatest quantitative needs and qualitative challenges in its history. It is absolutely astonishing that this view was held so strongly at that time by the Sisters of Mercy and that the same order now, a few years later, can so lightly decide that these facilities should be removed, without any reference to the huge State investment which went into creating the superb facilities and also without reference to their moral obligation to allow Carysfort to continue as an institution of education and to pay back what is owed to the taxpayer.

I urge the Minister to take these points very seriously and not allow the State to be done out of such a wonderful facility into which so much State investment has been poured. We ask for the moral and economic obligations of the Sisters of Mercy to be recognised.

I join Deputy Barnes in wishing the Minister luck in her reappointment to the Department of Education. She will have to act very quickly if the wishes of the Deputies from the constituency and her own wishes are to be realised in this case so that the fine facility at Carysfort will be retained in educational use.

The Minister's Department have a lot of answering to do to some very serious questions. In reply to parliamentary questions which I put down to the Minister today and yesterday we were told that from 1977 efforts were being made by her Department to make some arrangement whereby the State's investment in Carysfort would be protected for the State. Somewhere along the line those efforts seem to have gone astray and do not appear to have been followed through by the Department. There are very serious questions to be answered by the Department as to how we find that a large State investment has been made and the State has not been protected.

The Sisters themselves have some serious questions to answer. I am informed in one of the Minister's replies today that the authorities of the Mercy Order did not specifically inform the Minister or her Department of the intention to sell the college. I am not quite sure what "specifically inform"" means exactly, but it is quite clear that the Sisters put the college on the market at a time of fairly low political activity. Considerable pressure will have to be brought on the Order to ensure that the college is not sold from under our feet on 14 September. It is important that this facility be retained in educational use. It would not be sufficient to allow the Sisters to sell the property and make some recoupment to the State.

This is a fine educational facility. A builder will not have much use for lecture halls and language laboratories. There is a specific educational proposal before the Minister which was put to her by Dún Laoghaire VEC, to the effect that the proposed regional technical college should be accommodated at Carysfort. This would also make economic sense because it would save the State the estimated £15 million it would cost to build a regional college in the first place and, secondly, it would release the lands which are currently designated for the regional college for some other use.

I urge the Minister with great urgency to persuade the Sisters of Mercy not to go ahead with the sale on 14 September. If they cannot be persuaded, the Minister should take whatever legal remedies are necessary to prevent that sale from going ahead and should enter into negotiations to ensure that the facility is kept in educational use. We do not want a situation where the facility is sold and we then regret the loss to us. There is a great need for third level educational places in the greater Dublin area. In our constituency, beside Carysfort college, there are young people who are travelling to Waterford, Galway and Athlone to attend regional technical colleges. They could be facilitated in their immediate locality. It would be quite wasteful, wrong and immoral if this fine facility were to be sold at a time when it is needed for the young people of the area and of greater Dublin.

I join my colleagues in congratulating the Minister on her reappointment and I wish her well. I also thank my colleagues for sharing some time with me. I had endeavoured to raise the matter on the Adjournment yesterday as a result of a very unsatisfactory reply to a written question. The reply consisted of three lines.

There were better ones today.

I am speaking for myself. All of us would share the same concern. We want Carysfort retained as an educational centre. It is nearly four years since the initial decision was taken not to allow Carysfort to continue as a training college for primary teachers. The reasons were obvious and I do not think anybody would want to keep a college open when the need is catered for in other locations. In March 1986, Deputy O'Rourke, who is now fortunate enough to hold the position of Minister for Education, was then Opposition spokes-person on Education and made an excellent argument in favour of retaining this centre. Having read the report very carefully, there is very little I could disagree with her on. All I am asking her to do is to implement in 1989 what she suggested in 1986. Because of the shortage of time——

Do not be unkind.

——I will not list all of the good points she made. Having read the report, I felt that if there had been a free vote on that occasion I probably would have supported her — I am referring to the Official Report of 4 March 1986. If she has forgotten what she said on that occasion, she might take a few minutes off to read it because what she said then is even more relevant today.

I also want to put it on record that it was never the intention of the then Government to close Carysfort College as an educational centre. The Minister, if she looks at her record, would have to agree that it was decided to no longer use the college as a training centre for primary teachers. If I recall correctly, the former Deputy Cooney who was then Minister for Education set up a committee to review the position and to see what other uses Carysfort College could be put to. I have never seen the report produced by that committee, but I am certain it contained some positive suggestions which could easily be implemented.

It would be an absolute scandal if over £2 million of taxpayers' money, invested in this excellent centre since 1979, could not be recovered. I do not want to recover that money; all I want is for Carysfort College to be retained as an educational centre. We continually discuss the problem of unemployment but anybody who has any sense would realise that it will be impossible to obtain employment in the future without adequate skills and proper education because of the arrival of the machine. The more people we can get into education, even at a late age, will benefit the economy. I am certain whatever this would cost, we would recoup it in the long term.

There are also the recreational aspects. In an area like Blackrock it is very difficult to find open space——

It is the last open space there.

It is already overcrowded. There would be absolute chaos, in terms of the road network, if more houses were built. All these arguments do not need to be put on the record as they are well known and will be made in other places. However, it is vitally important before we reach the wire that some steps are taken. If necessary, we should purchase Carysfort from the sisters. I am quite certain, as Deputy Gilmore has said, we will ultimately save money because we will have to purchase land to build third level colleges in the area. Carysfort College can be used if adapted properly. It has all the necessary facilities, and surely we are not going to show bad leadership by allowing this centre to be sold and the facilities demolished so that houses can be built, when, a couple of miles down the road, we will have to spend taxpayers' money erecting new buildings.

Let us be realistic. This centre is located near a DART station. It can service the south-east, because there is a rail line from Wexford. It is a better location for a third level college than the site planned. It has everything going for it. Before the Minister replies let me make a final plea. If the only way to retain this centre is for the State to purchase it, so be it. I am not in the business of spending money for the sake of it but a direct swap can be made with the land we already have and the money that will have to be spent providing a third level college. We could look at the possibility of providing third level education there, providing in-service training courses in language skills and so on for existing teachers and so on. All these suggestions were made by the present Minister in March 1986 and all she said then is even more important today.

At the outset let me thank the Deputies for their good wishes. I hope in turn their time in the House will prove fruitful. In particular, I pay a special welcome to the new Deputy, Deputy Gilmore. However, this does not take from my welcome to the longer serving Deputies.

I thank the Deputies for raising this matter and I am glad before the House adjourns to have an opportunity to place some of the facts on the record. Questions were dealt with during the week and the precise facts were produced. Deputies Gilmore, Barrett and Barnes pooled their information and we now have the background to the issue.

As the Deputies are aware from the replies given to questions raised, in the seventies the State invested about £2.5 million in the extension and adaptation of Carysfort College. At that time it seemed the number of births would continue to increase and everybody kept thinking that there would be more children and bigger families. Of course, it later became apparent that this trend would not continue. It was against that background that the then Government decided to scale down or close one of the major primary teacher training colleges. Deputy Barrett and Deputy Barnes have said that was the correct decision at that time. The former Deputy, Mrs. Hussey, who was then Minister for Education, announced in February 1986 that the Government's decision could best be implemented through the closure of Carysfort College. The State made a very substantial investment in Carysfort College and it would be unfortunate to say the least if this if magnificent resource were lost to the educational system.

Since the decision to close the college was announced I have been, and still am, very anxious to secure the continued use of the premises for educational purposes. Considerable efforts have been made — it is important to put this on the record — since the decision to close the college was announced to negotiate arrangements with the Mercy Order — who own the property — under which educational activities could continue in the Carysfort premises. In April 1986 the then Minister, former Deputy Cooney, established a working group whose terms of reference included the making of firm proposals to the Government regarding the future role of Carysfort College. This group had discussions with the authorities of the Mercy Order and reported in February 1987. The principal thrust of the proposals in the report was that the partnership between the Minister for Education and the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy should continue and that the facilities should be used for the operation of appropriate courses. That involved the secondment of Carysfort staff to serve in UCD, in other colleges of education and in other third level colleges. That was the first report.

At that time the Mercy Order presented their own proposals. They did not quite agree with the report and came up with a proposal for the future use of the college which included initial and in-service training of primary and post-primary teachers, degree-diploma courses in various areas and in the humanities, as well as adult and continuing education. Discussions were held on those proposals. There was the working party under the then Minister, Deputy Cooney, and the response to that was the Mercy proposals which were of a different nature. Following on that, discussions also took place on a number of options further proposed by the Department.

I became involved then and a further working group established whom I met several times in 1987. In March 1988 a further working group was established to consider the possibility of establishing a National College of Music and Dramatic Arts on the Carysfort campus. The then President of the College, Sr. Regina, served on that working group. My colleague, Deputy Liam Fitzgerald, who was then chairman of the City of Dublin VEC, was also chairman of that working group. Unfortunately, for various reasons which I do not propose to detail here, none of those efforts led to a satisfactory conclusion in relation to securing the continued use of Carysfort for educational purposes. Discussions were also held with the authorities of the Mercy Order on the possible use of the premises for third level educational purposes approved by the State.

I want it noted that I was somewhat surprised to find the entire property advertised for sale on 21 June since, so far as I am concerned, discussions on this latter option were ongoing at the time. In this regard I feel I must point out that, in order to show my good faith in efforts to secure an alternative educational use for the premises, I gave a commitment to make payments for the care and upkeep of the premises up to 30 April 1989, even though the final student groups had graduated in 1988.

Much has been talked about the question of the security of the State's investment in the college. I dealt with that in a reply to Deputies Barnes and Gilmore, so it is a matter of public record. I just wish to reiterate that I was interested, and remain so, in securing the continued use of the Carysfort premises for educational purposes because it is such a fine facility and also in view of the State's investment in it.

I must make the following matter clear. I would be talking about using the premises with whatever element of the site would be considered appropriate. This would, of course, in no way preclude the authorities of the Mercy Order selling off a substantial portion of the associated land which they own. I cannot prevent them from selling what they own. We live in a country where one is allowed to have private property and to sell it if so desired. With this in mind, I shall make every endeavour to reopen discussions with the authorities of the Mercy Order in the matter.

There are several interwoven strands in this matter, but two main concerns. The first is the actual building and the surrounding area of land which would be considered appropriate for the future use of that building as an educational establishment. There is then the wider community matter to which Deputy Sean Barrett referred, and other Deputies also. The ownership of that land is with the Mercy Order of nuns. On my behalf as Minister for Education, I bear in mind the long tradition which the Mercy Order have in education, not just in this century but in the previous century also, and their commitment and care to the cause of education. We never put a price tag on that and many in the Order long ago have worked under very difficult circumstances. Many of the fine educators and the young people who come from the primary schools owe their place in life, particularly in much worse times than now, to the dedication and care, commitment and financial resources of the Mercy Order through this college, where the young teachers were trained. That is my own personal opinion and I want to put it on record.

To conclude the debate, the discussions were ongoing when the advertisement referred to appeared in the newspaper. We read that the sale could fetch £20 million — I am very careful to say that that is what we read in the papers. One does not know what offers would be made. The point raised by Deputy Barrett is, of course, relevant, that down the road one might purchase premises and build colleges and so forth. One wonders what other sphere of education would have to suffer if that sum put on the whole property were found to purchase it, some of which seems to be the concern of the community and of the residents in the area. That is a separate issue.

The first issue is the building and the land on which it immediately stands and the other is the wider issue of the use of the landscape and beautiful grounds involved there. I certainly shall continue to bear the whole issue in mind and will now endeavour to reopen discussions between the senior officials in my Department and the Mercy Order, bearing in mind that the several proposals, reports and papers which were produced always appeared not to find full favour on one side. One can only conclude that a long-term view was being taken.

Would the Minister agree before the closing date to meet Deputies of the constituency?

Certainly I shall, to bring the Deputies of the area up to date with the current state of play.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 October 1989.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the continuing operation of the apartheid system and other human rights abuses in South Africa, the Government will consider introducing mandatory economic and trade sanctions against that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

A number of measures against South Africa in the economic and trade fields are already in force in Ireland and the other member states of the Twelve. The Government's attitude to unilateral measures has been stated on several occasions and remains unchanged. It continues to be the view of the Government that common action by the Twelve will always be more effective as a means of exerting pressure on South Africa to abolish apartheid than any unilateral ban Ireland might introduce.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the context of a shortfall of finance for Army pay, the timescale he envisages for the payment of the £14 million owing to the Government by the United Nations in respect of peace-keeping services of the Defence Forces overseas.

As of 31 December 1987, a total of £19.5 million was outstanding in payments due to Ireland by the United Nations in respect of costs arising from peace-keeping operations. This was reduced to £15.1 million as of 31 December 1988. Of this amount, £14.5 million relates to our involvement with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) since May 1978. In the past two years, the major defaulters in payments to the UNIFIL account have either begun to pay their full assessments and their arrears or have made a commitment to do so over a period of years. This explains the reduction in the amount due as of 31 December last. I expect that the deficit in the UNIFIL account will be made up gradually over the next few years as the outstanding arrears on the UNIFIL account are repaid to the UN. It should be added that the extra cost to the State of providing troops to UN peace-keeping operations, that is, those costs exceeding normal pay and allowances, have been more than covered by the reimbursements by the UN.

The remaining amount outstanding, £0.6 million, arises out of our participation in the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). This force is financed by voluntary contributions from member states, and these fall considerably short of the costs incurred. Because the operation is voluntarily funded, it is unlikely that early progress can be made in reimbursing the sums outstanding. The Government will continue to support changing the financing from a voluntary to an assessed basis and any other measures which offer the prospect of increasing the funds available to the force and of reducing the amounts due to troop contributors.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there have been any recent developments in relation to the reopening of Aghalane Bridge at Belturbet, County Cavan; if the matter has been raised with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Aghalane Bridge was destroyed by terrorist action in 1972 and a subsequent replacement bridge was also destroyed by terrorist action. In recent years the British authorities have maintained the view that the bridge cannot be reopened for security reasons.

I am aware of the security situation but I am also very conscious of the effect of the closure of Aghalane Bridge on the inhabitants of Belturbet and the surrounding area. The closure cuts Belturbet off from its natural hinterland in County Fermanagh and is a considerable inconvenience to the people of the area.

The Deputy will appreciate that the co-operation of the British authorities is necessary if the bridge is to be reopened. The question of reopening has been raised with them on a number of occasions. I will continue to ensure that they are kept aware of our view on this matter. For their part, the British authorities have assured us that all road closures are kept under review.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has any initiative planned to seek the release of Brian Keenan; if he will consider sending a special delegation from Dáil Éireann to visit Iran; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Government attach very great importance to efforts to obtain information regarding the wellbeing and whereabouts of Brian Keenan with a view to securing his release. I can assure the House that I will do what I can to resolve this very sad matter as quickly as possible. In this connection, I am reviewing what possibilities for action may be open to me and will follow those which appear to be most likely to produce results. However, Deputies will appreciate that I am not in a position to go into details.

In the meantime, the Government will continue to pursue inquiries with the Iranian authorities as well as other parties which might be of assistance. While I appreciate the Deputy's question I do not feel that a parliamentary delegation would be appropriate at the present time.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will request the Israeli Government to allow the reopening of UNRWA schools in the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

We have made our concerns about the closure of educational establishments on the West Bank, including the UNRWA schools, clear to the Israeli authorities both bilaterally and together with our partners in the Twelve. The most recent bilateral approach was made by Ireland's Ambassador to Israel (who is resident in Athens), in the course of a recent visit to that country.

The Twelve have made a number of demarches to the Israeli authorities and on 31 May issued a statement expressing their serious concern at the presistent decision of the Israeli authorities to keep the schools on the West Bank, including the UNRWA schools, closed. In their statement the Twelve again called on the Israeli authorities to reconsider their policy urgently. In a declaration on the Middle East issued at the European Council meeting in Madrid on 27 June 1989 the Twelve appealed for the reopening of educational facilities on the West Bank. Ireland and its partners in the Twelve consider that the closure of schools is contrary to the basic right to education, threatens the future of a whole generation of young Palestinians and contributes to increasing the level of tension in the occupied territories, thus obstructing the task of building confidence which is essential if the peace process is to prosper.

I welcome Israel's statement of 12 June that preparations had been ordered for the reopening of schools on the West Bank. It is my hope that, as soon as possible, all schools will reopen, thus enabling Palestinian students again to exercise their fundamental right to education.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the attempts which have been made to seek political dialogue with leaders of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland; and his further proposals, if any, in this regard.

The Taoiseach, on a number of occasions, has publicly invited the leaders of the Unionist community to meet with him without preconditions or prejudice to the position of either side. This invitation still stands. I am hopeful that, with the election period behind us, both in the North and South, it will now be possible to strengthen and deepen our contacts with Unionists over the coming months.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the view, on behalf of Ireland or the European Community, that has been expressed to the Bulgarian Government expressing concern for the Turkish community in that country, who it would appear are being summarily deported from Bulgaria.

44.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has made any representations to the Bulgarian Government about the position of the Turkish minority in that country; and if he has requested the Bulgarian Government to accept the intervention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on this matter.

46.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will raise with the Bulgarian Government their treatment of the Turkish minority in that country; if he will impress upon them the Irish Government's wish to have this minority and their culture and traditions treated with respect; and if he will raise this matter at the next meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Council.

I propose to take questions Nos. 24, 44 and 46 together.

The Government are concerned at the numerous reports of violations of the human rights of members of the ethnic Turkish community in Bulgaria. Since we do not have diplomatic relations of any kind with Bulgaria, we consider that the most appropriate way to make this concern known to the Bulgarian authorities is through the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). Accordingly, the Head of our Delegation to the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, which held its first meeting in Paris last month, voiced our concern at the treatment of this community and pressed the Bulgarian authorities for assurances that steps would be taken to ensure that all Bulgarians can enjoy their full human rights and fundamental freedoms.

I am informed that the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has provided assistance towards transportation, care and maintenance of certain ethnic Turks who have made their way to Turkey through third countries. I also understand that he has made an informal offer of his good offices to assist in negotiating an orderly settlement of the question, but that this has not been accepted by the Bulgarian Government.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will apply for membership of the movement of non-aligned nations; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Government do not envisage applying for membership of the non-aligned movement.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in respect of the 1992 European project and the completion of the internal market and in respect of the 279 directives which together comprise the legislative task necessary to give legal effect towards the completion of the internal market, he will give the following information in so far as it impacts upon his Department: (i) the number of directives that have been passed and the title of each directive so categorised; (ii) the number of directives which remain to be passed and the title of each directive so categorised and (iii) the number of directives which have been passed, delayed or otherwise held up as a consequence of reservations entered by his Department; if, in respect of such delays or reservations, he will give details of the Irish position; the action, if any, he proposes to take in order to ensure that the 1992 project is achieved and Ireland's interests are safeguarded; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

My Department co-ordinate the national position on three directives arising in the area of the completion of the internal market for which specific responsibility is spread over a number of Departments.

These directives concern rights of residence for students, retired people and other economically non-active persons. The proposals were introduced only in the last few weeks and have not yet been the subject of detailed negotiation. However, Ireland has expressed support for the overall aim of the proposals which is to make it easier for the three categories of people concerned to obtain right of residence within the Community.

The proposals replaced an earlier draft directive on rights of residence which had been on the table since 1979 and on which we had negotiated constructively until it was withdrawn by the Commission in May because of failure to find consensus on the draft in Council.

Ireland has adopted a positive and supportive attitude towards the measures required to complete the internal market by 1992 and will continue to do so while, at the same time, of course, being careful to ensure that our national interests are safeguarded.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps being taken by his Department in conjunction with other Government Departments to co-ordinate Ireland's preparation for the Presidency of the EC which commences in January 1990; whether it is the intention of the Government to consult in a formal and on a regular basis with the Oireachtas Committee on Secondary Legislation with a view to maximising Ireland's position in European affairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

As the Deputy is aware, the successful conduct of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities requires thorough and co-ordinated preparation. Since the beginning of last year my Department, and all Departments with Presidency responsibilities; have been working together on the necessary preparations. These include the compilation of the Presidency calendar — a complex operation which has recently been completed. Arrangements have been made for the deployment of the necessary staff, including the nomination and training of chairpersons and national delegates for the 200 or so committees and working groups which process Community legislation. Provision has been made for conference accommodation, transport and other facilities in respect of those meetings which will be held in Ireland.

We are keeping all Community policy areas under special review to identify the issues which are likely to be before the Council of Ministers during our Presidency. It is from amongst these issues that the Government will draw its priorities.

This will be the fourth time on which Ireland has assumed the duties of the Presidency. On each of the three previous occasions, the duties were carried out in a competent and efficient manner. I have no doubt that on this occasion, also, the Presidency will be conducted in the efficient fashion which has come to be the hallmark of Irish Presidencies.

As regards the Oireachtas Joint Committee' on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, the Deputy will be aware that the role of the committee is to consider and comment on both community draft legislation and implementing legislation adopted at national level. It has ably discharged this role since it was first constituted and, I am sure, will continue to do so. The committee's role does not, however, extend to consultation by the Government on the Presidency and I would not propose to depart from this position during the 1990 Presidency.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has had any contact with the IRFU regarding any visits by Irish rugby players to South Africa.

I presume the Deputy's question refers to plans for a World XV to tour South Africa in connection with the South African rugby board's centenary celebrations this summer. There have been no direct contacts with the IRFU on this subject and while there have been press reports that players from Britain, Ireland, France, Australia and New Zealand are to be invited, I am not aware of any indications that Irish players have indeed been invited.

The views of the Government on sporting contacts with South Africa, with specific reference to rugby football, were made very clear during the controversy surrounding the IRFU tour of South Africa in 1981, which caused it to lose Government financial support, and also more recently with regard to a proposed tour of that country by a World XV last year. The IRFU can be in no doubt as to the Government's position on this issue, which is that sporting contacts of this kind only serve to bolster the apartheid system. This system, which denies fundamental human rights to the vast majority of South Africans purely on grounds of their skin colour, is morally reprehensible and has been condemned by the international community. The Government believe that participation by Irish players in the proposed tour would not be in the interest of justice in South Africa or of Ireland's international reputation. The Government would hope, therefore, that any Irish players who may be approached will carefully consider their decision in the light of Government policy.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government has made any recent representations to the Israeli authorities regarding the continued killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli security forces; if the Government favours the holding of a UN sponsored International Conference on the Middle East to try to secure a solution to the problems of that region; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In a statement issued after the European Council meeting in Madrid on 26-27 June Ireland and its partners in the Twelve deplored the continuing deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and the constant increase in the number of dead and wounded and the suffering of the people. The Twelve appealed urgently to the Israeli authorities to put an end to repressive measures, to implement resolutions 605, 607 and 608 of the Security Council and to respect the provision of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Populations in Time of War.

The policy of the Twelve on the Middle East conflict is defined in the Venice declaration of 13 June 1980 and other subsequent declarations. It consists in upholding the right to security of all states in the region, including Israel, that is to say, the right to live within secure, recognised and guaranteed frontiers, and upholding justice for all the peoples of the region, which includes recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination with all that this implies.

Along with our partners in the Twelve we consider that these objectives should be achieved by peaceful means in the framework of an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations, as the appropriate forum for the direct negotiations between the parties concerned, with a view to a comprehensive, just, and lasting settlement. The Twelve have also stated their view that the PLO should participate in this process.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the main provisions agreed with the British Government in relation to the review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Copies of the document containing the review of the working of the conference, which was published by both Governments on 24 May 1989, have been placed in the Dáil Library.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in light of responsibilities which Ireland will assume under the EC Presidency, it is intended to agree to the opening of an Israeli embassy in Dublin.

The question of Israel opening an embassy in Ireland is a matter for discussion between the two Governments concerned and it would be inappropriate and contrary to international practice to speculate publicly on these discussions.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will pursue the killing of the three IRA members in Gibraltar before the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Government have received a request from the solicitor acting for the next-of-kin of those who died in Gibraltar to initiate proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights.

The Government will make their decision on the basis of their consideration of the request and of ongoing developments.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will give assistance to the Committee for the Tricentenary of the Battle of the Boyne in commemorating this major historical event in a fitting manner.

No approach has been made to the Government for financial assistance towards commemorating the Battle of the Boyne. If any such approach is received it will be given full consideration.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of undocumented Irish citizens who have been deported from the United States in the years (a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) up to 30 June 1989.

United States statistics do not make a distinction between undocumented and in-status Irish deportees.

The majority of out-of-status Irish citizens who come to the notice of the authorities accept the option of voluntary departure from the US and are not the subject of deportation orders.

According to official United States statistical sources the numbers of Irish citizens deported from the US in the years in question are as follows, (fiscal year 1 October-30 September) 1986, 12; 1987, 15; 1988, 12; 1989 (up to 31 March), 7.

The voluntary departure figures for the same years are as follows: 1986, 45; 1987, 25; 1988, 39; 1989 (up to 31 March), 21.

asked the Minister for Finance if he is revising his Exchequer borrowing targets for 1992 and 1993 in light of the forecasts in the recent ESRI report.

The Programme for Government 1989-1993 in the National Interest has confirmed the national development plan's objective of reducing the Exchequer borrowing requirement to at most 3 per cent of GNP by 1993. It also made it clear that the level of borrowing would be reduced even further if economic and budgetary circumstances permit.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will conduct a survey of extant eighteenth and early nineteenth century vernacular architecture in rural Ireland to assist in its preservation.

The Commissioners of Public Works accept that there is a need for a survey of extant vernacular architecture to be carried out with a view to devising a preservation policy. They arranged for a survey of thatched houses in Counties Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare and in part of County Wexford to be conducted in 1987 and 1988 as a pilot project. Following this they commissioned a report by a folklife expert. The report was received recently and is at present being considered.

asked the Minister for Finance the measures which are being taken to instal a proper air-conditioning system in Leinster House.

There are no plans at present to extend the air conditioning in the Leinster House complex. In view of the need to minimise the disruption that such work would undoubtedly cause to the business of this House, and also the need to consider other factors such as cost, I would suggest that should the Deputy wish to press the matter further, the best course might be to take up the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for their consideration.

asked the Minister for the Marine if he will change present regulations to allow the use of a limited amount of monofilament net for salmon fishing by licensed drift-net fishermen.

This is a very complex issue which requires careful consideration. I will be examining the matter with a view to ensuring the best possible balance between the needs of conservation, efficiency, economy and the resources necessary to discharge our national and international obligations in regard to salmon fishery.

asked the Minister for the Marine if a decision has been taken to establish in interim harbour authority for Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin; if so, when this decision was made; when it will come into effect; and the members of the interim harbour authority.

A decision as taken in May to establish a Dún Laoghaire advisory group to support the Minister for the Marine on the operation and development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will ensure that the Teagasc office, Cork Road, Waterford is retained for educational purposes relating to agriculture and that it is not sold on the basis of commercial considerations.

As the Deputy is aware from a comprehensive statement I made to the Dáil on 25 January last the programme submitted to me by Teagasc in December last, and the broad thrust of which I accepted, included various proposals for rationalisation of its activities arising from the amalgamation of the research and advisory services. It is a matter for Teagasc to consider how any surplus assets arising from rationalisation should be disposed of.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give details of salaries, subsistence allowances and expenses paid to the chairman and board members of Teagasc.

The salary payable to the chairman is still under consideration. There are no fees payable to board members. The level of subsistence allowances and expenses paid to the chairman and board members is the rate payable to the highest grades of civil servants.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the new legislation on competition, promised in the recent Coalition programme, will be introduced.

New legislation on competition will be introduced following the receipt of the report of the Fair Trade Commission of its study on incorporation of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome into domestic Irish legislation. Due to the workload of the commission it is not possible to state when the study is likely to be completed. In the meantime, however, preparatory work in connection with the proposal is proceeding.

asked the Minister for Labour if he intends to take any fresh initiative to ensure that the industrial relations problem at Waterford Port is resolved.

I understand that the problems involved are the subject of union discussions which I am hopeful will resolve the matter.

asked the Minister for Energy if he will introduce a moratorium on all mining activities in the Delphi/Doolough/Croagh Patrick areas of County Mayo pending a Government assessment of the position and in view of the controversy and anxiety in the areas at present; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In future no mining licence will be granted by me unless a full and detailed environmental impact assessment has been carried out by an independent expert acceptable to my Department. This new departure is in line with the clear policy statement set out in the Programme for Government.

These studies will ensure that the most rigorous environmental standards will be met by any proposed new mining activities. These arrangements will be complementary to the normal existing procedures and requirements of the local planning authorities.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in paying disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who was deemed unfit for work by her doctor on 26 June, 1989 and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 26 June 1989. As she was found capable of work on her most recent previous claim, which was disallowed from 8 March 1989 and which was based on a related incapacity, payment was suspended pending an examination by a medical referee of the Department.

Arrangements have been made to have her examined by a different medical referee as soon as possible. Her entitlement to benefit will then be decided in the light of the medical referee's report.

58.

(Wexford) asked the Minister for Social Welfare when an old age non-contributory pension will be paid to persons (details supplied) in County Wexford; and the reason for the delay in reaching a decision.

The person concerned applied for an old age non-contributory pension on 30 January 1989. Her husband has not, as yet, reached the qualifying age for pension.

Inquiries have proved to be protracted in this case as the local social welfare officer has been seeking to establish the exact means of the person concerned. These details have only recently been provided by her and confirmation is awaited from her bank. On receipt of this, her claim will be referred to a deciding officer for decision and she will be notified of the outcome as soon as possible.

59.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the present position regarding a disability benefit claim in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Waterford.

The person concerned was paid disability benefit to 15 June 1989 after which date payment was disallowed following an examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.

He appealed against the disallowance and arrangements have been made to have him examined by a different medical referee as soon as possible. His entitlement to benefit will then be reviewed in the light of the medical referee's report.

asked the Minister for Justice when a new Garda station at Shankill, County Dublin will be completed and ready for use; the facilities which are being provided there; the police services which will be provided from the station; the geographical area it will cover; and if the station's responsibilities will be widened at some stage in the future.

The construction work on the new Garda station in Dorneycourt, Shankill, is due to be completed in late September/early October 1989 and, following the fitting out of the premises, the new station is expected to be operational by the end of the year. It will be a fine example of the standard of accommodation now being provided for the gardaí and has been purpose-built to meet their requirements. It will contain all the facilities necessary in a modern Garda station. In addition to the public office and general office accommodation, the new station will have modern communications facilities, dining and recreational areas, showers, a locker room, briefing and conference facilities and a modern cell block.

As my predecessor indicated in reply to Question No.8 on 24 May 1989, the provision of the new Garda station in Shankill will not affect any other station in the vicinity and will not involve any change in Garda deployment in the South County Dublin area. The same range of police services that is provided at present from the station located in Shankill village will continue to be provided from the new station and no change is proposed in the existing subdistrict boundaries or in the Shankill station's responsibilities.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will issue a licence to Radio Tara (Atlantic 252) prior to its commencement of broadcasting; and, if so, the likely terms of any such licence.

The Radio Tara (Atlantic 252) service is covered by the licence issued to RTE on 31 March 1989 pursuant to section 16 (3) of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960 — Part 5 of the Schedule thereto refers. A copy of the said licence, which sets out the conditions under which RTE services must operate, was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on 5 April 1989.

asked the Minister for the Environment if an application for funding from the national lottery under the amenity grants scheme will be approved in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford; and, if so, when a decision will be made.

This grants scheme has applied only to projects of a community recreation or environmental improvement nature such as the provision or improvement of community halls, recreational premises and outdoor amenities. Accordingly, the project sponsors are being informed that it would not appear to be eligible for assistance even if further funds were made available for the scheme.

asked the Minister for the Environment when it is intended to authorise Dún laoghaire Corporation, County Dublin, to proceed with the construction of houses at the L3 and L4 schemes, Loughlinstown, County Dublin.

Having regard to the capital available under the public capital programme this year for local authority housing construction it is not possible, at this stage, to approve this scheme.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will ensure payment of a house improvement grant of £6,000 for a person (details supplied) in County Waterford in view of the fact that this person is a registered builder and carried out all the works with his son.

A grant cannot be paid because the applicant has informed the Department that he carried out the works himself.

65.

asked the Minister for the Environment the present position regarding an application by Waterford Harbour Sub-Aqua Club for an amenity grant.

If further national lottery funds become available for the amenity grants scheme I will consider the project for funding in conjunction with the many other applications which have been made.

asked the Minister for Health if he will outline his attitude to proposals for a national health insurance shceme recently put forward by the Progressive Democrats.

The Deputy will be aware that the Commission on Health Funding is examining the question of funding sources for the health services. In our Programme for Government we have undertaken that, following receipt and consideration of the commission's recommendations, we will decide upon and put into place any revised arrangements for financing the health services.

asked the Minister for Health if he will provide for the appointment of a health ombudsman.

I do not consider the appointment of a health ombudsman, per se, to be necessary. The Deputy will be aware that the ombudsman exercises significant functions already in the health area.

I am also, I might say, considering specifically the manner in which complaints generally in relation to the delivery of health services are dealt with.

asked the Minister for Education if she will intervene in the sale of Carysfort College, County Dublin, to ensure that this important facility is retained in educational use; and the response she will give to the request from Dún Laoghaire Vocational Education Committee that Carysfort becomes a new Dún Laoghaire Regional Technical College.

I have been making efforts to try to ensure that Carysfort College would continue to be used for educational purposes. In the light of the recent decision by the Mercy Order to offer the entire property for sale on the open market I will have to consider what options are now open to me in relation to the continued use of the premises for educational purposes.

69.

asked the Minister for Education the total current value of all buildings, facilities and equipment at Carysfort College; County Dublin which were provided from State funds.

While the State capital investment in the college was £2,428,360.20 and while ongoing grants to the college towards running costs would have included an element for books and equipment, etc., it would not be appropriate for my Department, at this stage, to set a current value on its investment. However, the position is being examined in the light of the recent decision by the sisters to sell the premises.

70.

asked the Minister for Education the efforts made by her Department, since the decision to close Carysfort College, County Dublin, as a college of education, to identify alternative educational uses for the college; and the proposals which were discussed between her Department and the college authorities.

In April 1986, a working group was established with terms of reference which included making firm proposals to the Government regarding the future role of Carysfort College as a third level institution. This group had discussions with the authorities of the Mercy Order and reported in February 1987. The principal thrust of the proposals in the report was that the partnership between the Minister for Education and the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy for the use of the college premises should continue and that the facilities should be used for the operation of appropriate courses under the aegis of University College, Dublin, with the secondment of Carysfort staff to serve in UCD, in other colleges of education, in other third level colleges, in schools and educational agaencies. These proposals were discussed with the authorities of the Mercy Order in March 1987.

At that time the Mercy Order presented its own proposals for the future use of the college, which included initial and in-service training of primary and post-primary teachers, degree-diploma courses in various areas in the humanities as well as adult and continuing education. Discussions were held with the order on these proposals. Discussions also took place on proposals by the Department of a number of options for the future use of the premises with varying degrees of involvement of the Mercy Order.

In March 1988 a working group was established to consider the possibility of establishing a national college of music and dramatic arts on the Carysfort campus. The then President of the College, Sr. Regina, together with a representative of the Mercy Order, served on the working group.

Discussions have also been held with the authorities of the Mercy Order on the possible use of the premises for third-level educational purposes approved by the State. These discussions were ongoing when the property was offered for sale on the open market.

71.

asked the Minister for Education if the Sisters of Mercy informed her Department of their intention to sell off Carysfort College, County Dublin; and, if so, when this information was conveyed.

The authorities of the Mercy Order did not specifically inform my Department of their intention to advertise the Carysfort property for sale.

asked the Minister for Education if she will ensure the provision of four additional terrapin classrooms at a minimum for St. Ronan's primary school, Deansrath, Clondalkin, Dublin 22, having regard to the urgent need for these facilities, as highlighted by parents' protests over recent months; and if her attention has been drawn to the fact that failure to provide these additional classrooms will have the effect of dividing school-going families between two parishes.

As it is understood that there is sufficient national school accommodation available within a reasonable distance of Deansrath national school, there would not appear to be a need for additional permanent classrooms at Deansrath. However, in the light of some enrolment difficulties, my Department recently sanctioned two prefab classrooms for next September and this will give the school authorities adequate scope to adopt an enrolment policy in order to satisfy the demand for school places from prospective pupils who have older brothers and sisters in Deansrath national school.

asked the Minister for Education if she will confirm the time-scale for the construction of Jobstown Community College, Dublin 24, including acquisition of site, date of commencement and date of opening.

The project is proceeding on the basis that construction work will commence as soon as the site has been acquired and tenders accepted. My Department is, however, not yet in a position to determine precise dates. It is expected that it will take about 18 months to two years to complete the construction work.

asked the Minister for Education the present position regarding the erection of a community school at Lismore, County Waterford.

It has been necessary to obtain certain information from the school authorities concerned before the planning process of the project can commence. My Department is at present awaiting a reply to its inquiries.

asked the Minister for Education if her attention has been drawn to the proposal by Kildare Vocational Education Committee to appoint teachers to the Confey Community College in a way which is not in accordance with the so-called model system for the appointment of teachers to such colleges; to the anxiety expressed by the parents in this matter; if she will ensure that in the filling of teaching posts in Confey College in the future such posts will be filled by way of public advertisement and that the relevant interviews will be undertaken as is normal in such cases by the interview board of Confey College; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

The appointment of teaching staff to a vocational education committee is a matter in the first instance for the chief executive officer and the VEC concerned. The procedures to which the Deputy refers are generally followed by the VEC in cases where a teaching appointment is being made with a view initially to assigning the new appointee to a community college. Existing permanent wholetime teachers are assigned and redeployed, as circumstances require, among the various schools under a committee's jurisdiction.

asked the Minister for Education the present position regarding the proposed national school at Ballinamella, Whitechurch, Cappagh, County Waterford.

I have approved a permanent extension to Ballinameela national school, Whitechurch, County Waterford. The preparation of tender documents for the project is in hands and these will be completed at the earliest possible date.

asked the Minister for Education the number of male teachers at primary and post-primary level; the number of male principals at primary and post-primary level; the number of female teachers at primary and post-primary level; and the number of female principals at primary and post-primary level.

The information sought by the Deputy is not readily available in respect of vocational teachers. The information in respect of the other sectors is as follows:

asked the Minister for Education the number of remedial students in primary schools; and the number of trained remedial teachers in primary schools.

The concept of primary school pupils as remedial or slow learners is a broad one which does not readily lend itself to assessment in terms of numbers.

There are at present 844 trained teachers serving in remedial posts in national schools.

asked the Minister for Education the work done in stage 3 of preparation of the Ashbourne Second-level School, County Meath; and if all the work appropriate to this stage is complete.

The work to be performed in stage 3 (developed sketch scheme) of a building project is as follows: 3.1—Site Plan to 1:500 scale extended to show building, boiler-house and sub-station, full site development, including contours, finished levels, boundaries, entrances, roads, paths, parking, play areas, external yard and drains. North point and direction of prevailing wind must be indicated; 3.2—Floor Plans to 1:100 scale indicating the layout of furniture and equipment; 3.3—Sections and elevations to 1:100 scale; 3.4—Roof Plan to 1:100 scale; 3.5—Sections to 1:50 scale through selected portions of the building illustrating the proposed method of construction, natural lighting and ventilation, integration of services, finishes etc.; 3.6—A three dimensional drawing to illustrate the internal spatial concept; 3.7—Detailed layouts of special subject rooms to at least 1:50 scale, showing layout of furniture, fittings and fixtures, accompanied by room data sheets; 3.8—Outline specification of materials and methods of construction proposed, accompanied by a schedule of finishes; 3.9—Preliminary report and drawings to a suitable scale indicating civil-structural engineer's proposals; 3.10—Preliminary report and drawings to 1:100 scale indicating services engineer's proposals for heating and lighting systems, and a completed energy information form (available from the building unit); 3.11—Cost plan and quantity surveyor's report. (The building unit's cost plan form must be used.)

In the case of Ashbourne community school the design team commissioned for this project is actively engaged in the preparation of the developed sketch scheme.

In view of the intertwining and evolving nature of the work in that stage it is not feasible to indicate the precise state of the process until it has been fully completed. I have already stated that the project will advance to the next stage of planning.

asked the Minister for Education the present position in regard to the provision of a new building at Mulhussey national school, County Meath.

A major extension to Mulhussey national school, County Meath, had been proposed but it was not possible for it to proceed because of a decline in enrolments and the general financial situation. It is necessary to carry out a review of projected enrolments to establish the size of the extension which would now be warranted for the school. This review will be completed as early as possible and a decision will be conveyed to the school authorities.

The chairman of the board of management of the school recently submitted proposals for the provision of a teachers' room, toilets and general improvements. This is being considered by my Department's architect and when his report is available the question of the sanction of a grant will be considered and a decision conveyed promptly to the school authorities.

asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport the amount of money lost in tourism revenue in 1988 due to the rod licence dispute.

The precise information requested is not readily available in my Department.

asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he will give details of the charges being made for the over-flights of foreign civilian and military aircraft.

There are two forms of route charges levied on aviation availing of the facilities provided by the Air Navigation Services Office in my Department. These are:—

(1) En-Route Charges: these charges are levied on civil aircraft flying through Irish airspace and thus using Irish facilities. The charges are designed to recoup in full the cost of providing those services in the enroute phase of operations, i.e. not in the approach or takeoff phases of flight.

The charges are collected on this State's behalf by Eurocontrol, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. Under the Eurocontrol system certain categories of flights are exempt from these charges. These include military aircraft, training and search and rescue flights. Receipts in respect of en-route charges in 1988 amounted to £19 million.

(2) The Shanwick Communications Charge: this charge is designed to recoup the cost of the telecommunications service provided to aircraft crossing the North Atlantic by Shanwick Aer Radio, Ballygirreen, County Clare. The current charge to aircraft, both civil and military, for services provided by Shanwick Aer Radio is IR£36 per contact.