I propose to share my time with Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Financial Resolution No. 5: General (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
THAT it is expedient to amend the law relating to inland revenue (including value-added tax and excise) and to make further provisions in connection with finance.
–(Minister for the Environment and
Local Government.)
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
(Mr. Walsh): I commend the Minister for Finance on the radical and innovative budget he introduced yesterday. Managing a successful economy is in many ways as challenging as managing economic difficulties. However, this budget strikes the right balance between sustaining economic growth, lessening the tax burden and promoting social inclusion.
The extent of our success is striking by any standards in the management of the general economy. For example, during the 1990s the economy has grown by over 7% per annum and by over 9% per annum since 1993. Ireland is set to top the OECD league in 1999 for the fifth year in a row, with growth almost three times the OECD average. The economy's performance has seen huge increases in employment, and unemployment has fallen from 15% in 1993 to about 5% in 1999. Ireland has managed to combine strong growth with low inflation. Falling interest rates have also helped to support competitiveness.
At the same time, Government debt has been reduced dramatically. Debt as a percentage of GDP is forecast to drop to about 47% by the end of 1999, an almost unimaginable figure when one recalls that it stood at 120% of GNP in 1988. Therefore, this budget has to be seen in the context whereby people have better living standards, better job opportunities and a better economic environment than at any time in our history. The budgets introduced by this Government, together with the National Development Plan, will lay the foundation for sustainable economic prosperity over the next decade and further into the future.
I will now turn to agricultural incomes. The general economic situation has also benefited farm families. In particular, lower interest rates directly benefit farmers. Interest payments now account for around 11% of farm income compared to almost 30% in the early 1980s. It is easy to forget that some of the most serious difficulties which confronted farm families were due to high interest rates. Over the 1990s, average farm incomes in real terms have out-performed most other EU members states. There has been a real increase of 21% in Ireland compared with 12% in the EU as a whole in the period 1990 to 1998. There have been acute farm income difficulties in the last three years. Last year was an extremely difficult year because we also had fodder problems. This year the sheep and pig industries in particular are going through a difficult time. I am making every effort to alleviate the difficulties faced by these farmers.
When talking about farm incomes, we must remember that only half of farm household income now derives from farming activities. There has been a huge increase in the number of farm holders and their spouses availing of the increased off-farm employment opportunities now thankfully available in many rural areas. On 44% of farms, either the holder or spouse has an off-farm job. I welcome the development of part-time farming as a means of maintaining farm household viability. This area requires more research and I would like Teagasc surveys to provide me with more detailed information as we need to know about our clients when making policy. There are about 150,000 farm families and we need to know about them. While we have very valuable information on farm incomes from the CSO and Teagasc, information on total household income is scarce.
I would like to place the specific measures provided for the agri-food sector in this budget in the wider policy context. EU and international developments probably have a greater influence on this sector than on any other. At a national level there has been a recognition of the importance of wider rural development issues. There can be no doubting the significance of agriculture to the Irish economy and of the importance of the favourable outcome achieved in the Agenda 2000 negotiations. We also had the White Paper on Rural Development and the National Development Plan which put substance and finance to the aspirations in those plans. In keeping with the Government's commitment in the White Paper on Rural Development, £6.7 billion has been earmarked for agriculture and rural development, including infrastructural expenditure which includes £3.7 billion for measures specific to my Department. The latter amount represents a 50% increase on the previous period and I would now like to briefly outline the main areas of expenditure involved.
We are at present preparing a CAP rural development plan which covers four major measures: the continuation of the REPS agri-environment measure, early retirement, headage and forestry planting. The latter is the responsibility of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. This plan involves overall public expenditure of £3.4 billion, of which £1.7 billion will be provided by the EU from the guarantee fund.
As regards Structural Funds, I am also happy to announce substantial funding for on-farm capital investment schemes, such as the control of farmyard pollution, installation aid and the dairy hygiene schemes, and necessary funding for the Teagasc advisory, research and training facilities. These measures will be implemented through the new productive investment and employment inter-regional programmes and funding allocated amounts to £389 million. In line with the emphasis on achieving balanced regional development in the coming period, the remaining funding of £172 million will be allocated to new rural development type measures as well as farm diversification measures. An additional £35 million will be provided by the EU for a new specialised Leader programme.
I would like to return to the main points of the budget. There are significant improvements for farmers and rural areas. This year I sought measures that would aid land mobility, improve the competitiveness of the agri-food industry and enhance our environmental policy. This budget has come through in each of those areas. Young farmers are the key to the future of the agriculture industry. They are likely to be better motivated, more energetic and more willing to innovate. For this reason Government policy favours the early transfer of farms to the next generation. The raising of the thresholds for capital acquisitions tax, in particular the Class 1 threshold applying to parents, will have a major impact on the transfer of agricultural assets to young farmers. When taken in combination with the 90% agricultural relief, this means that virtually all family farm transfers will be exempt from capital acquisitions tax. For example, a qualifying farmer may inherit a farm worth up to £3 million from a parent without the transferee becoming liable for CAT.
The two-thirds stamp duty relief for young trained farmers was to expire on 31 December 1999 but will now be continued for three years to 31 December 2002. In addition, there are a range of incentives aimed at encouraging the early transfer of farms, the continuation of installation aid, the early retirement scheme and the 100% stock relief. Farmers over 55 years who lease out their land on a long-term basis are exempt from income tax on the rental income arising, up to a limit of £4,000.
The 1994 Finance Act provided for a 30% reduction in the market value of agricultural property when computing probate tax and this budget increased the exemption threshold for estates from £11,250 to £40,000. The budget also sees an increase in the threshold for retirement relief on capital gains tax. This is a relief allowed to individuals aged 55 years or more on the disposal of business assets owned for ten or more years and has been increased from £250,000 to £375,000, an increase of 50%. A 20% rate of capital gains tax will apply to the disposal of assets which were still liable to the 40% rate – a 50% reduction – that is, the disposal of non-residential development land and the disposal of residential development land to connect persons. This is one of the measures that farming organisations requested be included in the budget.
Farmers will particularly benefit from the increase in the flat rate VAT addition. The rate has been increased from 4% to 4.2% with effect from 1 March 2000. This will be worth £3.6 million in 2000 and £5.3 million in a full year. Agri-business will benefit from the general reduction in corporation tax. As regards environmental matters, it will benefit from the increase from £30,000 to £40,000 for pollution control measures. On longer term taxation issues, I recently introduced significant changes in the milk quota regime and experts from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Department of Finance will examine the tax implications. I intend to ensure the measures are helpful to farming families.
Some concern has been expressed about the impact of the new tax rules on farming couples where both partners work on the farm. This concern is misplaced and I hope that will be clarified by farming organisations and others in the next few days. The position is that only those farmers with a family farm income of over £28,000, where the spouse does not work off the farm, will be affected. There is a relatively small number of farms in this position and where the spouse genuinely works on the farm, they will be entitled to the wider £34,000 standard rate band, the same as private businesses, publicans, etc. Spokespersons for the farming industry are raising concerns unnecessarily.
Social welfare increases of almost £400 million will be helpful to farmers, especially the schemes helping rural areas, including the farm assist. Other rural groups at risk of poverty include the elderly and those with young children. The elderly will benefit from increases in the old age pension, improvements in the carer's allowance and increased medical card eligibility. Parents will benefit from increases in child benefit and a significant child care package.
In conclusion, the range of policies which I outlined, including the very positive result of Agenda 2000, the strategies set out in the White Paper on Rural Development, the significant funding for agriculture, food and rural development in the National Development Plan together with the expenditure and tax concessions in yesterday's budget will provide a sound foundation for the development of the agri-food sector into the future.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this budget. I was interested in the Minister's remarks on farm families. I presumed the socially discriminatory changes as regards housewives would impact on spouses of farmers who work on the farm. However, the Minister said the farm will be regarded as a business and those measures will not affect them. I will wait and see what happens. Like many of my colleagues, I participated in radio programmes on the budget today. They focused on the social discrimination against housewives in the budget. I received an e-mail this morning which encapsulates the response to the budget:
I am appalled that the Government has initiated a three year programme which discriminates against women working in the home. I am the earner of a one-earner family and my family have grown up. I have no problem with increasing the children's allowance or any assistance the Government wants to give to families where the mother is forced or wishes to work. I have no problem with capital assistance towards crèches to provide extra child care facilities. I would gladly forsake any improvement in my tax situation if improvements in those areas needed to be addressed. I am amazed that Charlie McCreevy has gone down this path and even more amazed that Bertie Ahern has sanctioned it.
It continues in stronger terms. The budget was heralded as the biggest giveaway in years. We heard it would give away £6 billion, that it would be a tax bonanza and a dream budget for the Minister for Finance. However, it was unsatisfactory. The Minister's first budget discriminated against the lower paid, which he tried to redress in his second budget. This third budget will impact more on middle income earners – although there is nothing wrong with that – and the well off.
All today's newspapers have highlighted the tax brackets of £30,000 or £35,000 for single earners and double income couples. The figures speak for themselves. There is a difference between those and the discriminatory measures implemented in order to introduce what was described by the Minister as individualised tax assessment. The Minister is taking a dangerous route in the next three years. Many Fianna Fáil backbenchers last night told me of their concerns about the Government's approach. One of the founding tenets of Fianna Fáil was its pro-family stance. It did not demonstrate that in this budget but instead has shown it is anti-family. This theme will be returned to. The Minister and the Taoiseach are probably already hearing backbenchers' concerns about the approach they are taking. I would not be surprised if the situation is redressed in the next budget and the Minister decides not to pursue this course in the next three years.
I welcome the provisions made for intellectual disability, although they did not go far enough. About 3,300 mentally handicapped people are seeking respite or residential places. It would have resolved many of these difficulties if the Minister had earmarked £78 million to £80 million in the budget. I wonder about the social conscience of the Government. Given the amount of money the Minister had, this was an excellent chance to address the problem. Admittedly, the extra £28 million will help create extra residential places and respite care next year. The Minister has projected expenditure of another £40 million in 2001 and £10 million in 2002. Over three years, he hopes to address the provision of residential places and respite care.
I welcome the provision of £28 million although I would have liked the Minister to have gone further. However, we must be thankful for small mercies. The budget also caters for people with physical and sensory difficulties but the Minister had an excellent opportunity to send a positive signal to the mentally handicapped. We all hear heart rending stories from parents who are trying to look after their children and cannot get residential places or respite care. Often a much older person is looking after an elderly per son who should be in full-time residential care. This issue should have been addressed.
It is unfortunate that the fuel allowance remains at £5, yet the £5 travel tax has been abolished. Many of those who receive the fuel allowance do not get a chance to travel. The airline companies may have put pressure on the Minister to remove this tax. He said an increase in travel tax would probably have been objected to in the European Court. However, it is regrettable the fuel allowance was not increased given that it has remained the same for the past ten years.
Under the budget proposals, the allowance for a widow under the age of 65 with four children will increase from £145 to £149, an increase of £4. This works out at approximately 26p per day. Given the increase in the cost of a packet of cigarettes, if she buys ten cigarettes her allowance will diminish in one week. An increase of £4 is derisory. Recently, people received a reduced widow's pension as a result of receiving a UK pension and the difference between the IR£1 and the £1 sterling. Social welfare officers assessed 850 people and reduced their allowance by £24 or £25. This was mean minded of the Department. Some widows were extremely distressed by this. I know the Department will say that the allowance is means tested but many of these widows said that no one assessed them when the IR£1 was stronger than the £1 sterling and the differential was in the other direction. It is not the fault of these people if there is such a difference between the currencies. Reducing these payments was a punitive measure.
In relation to the 50p increase in the price of a packet of cigarettes, we are all aware of the health risks associated with cigarette smoking. We all welcome the fact that the revenue of £132 million a year collected as a result of this measure will be directed to cardiovascular and cancer treatments. I am pleased the money has been ringfenced for use in this direction. We must not forget that cigarette sales raise in the region of £800 million for the State. Approximately three-quarters of the price of a packet of cigarettes is taken by the State in taxation. It is important to ringfence the extra money collected as a result of the 50p increase because our cancer treatment policy is lagging behind and needs a large injection of cash.
I now turn to the marine industry which is my brief. There was so little in the budget for this industry that I backed away from commenting to the newspapers. If one looks at the marine sector, the national development plan and the regions which received Objective One status, it is obvious that young people are leaving peripheral rural communities along our coastline. Young people are drifting to better paid jobs in urban areas. There is now a problem finding people to work on fishing vessels. The Minister recently set up a task force to deal with seafarer training. There will be a decline in the numbers of young people working in the fishing industry unless they are given some incentives. Consideration should have been given in the budget to proposals the Minister received from one of the fishermen's organisations, which has a great deal of merit. At present someone working on a seagoing ship and at sea for at least 169 days receives £5,000 seafarers allowance. There would be some merit in extending this to the trawlers and fishing communities. The Department could accumulate sufficient evidence to make their calculations because these men would have to reveal log books and quantify the number of days spent at sea. Another option would be to credit people for the number of days spent at sea. I will seek concessions in this regard during the debate on the Finance Bill. If there are no concessions in this area the decline in the fishing industry will be accelerated.
I welcome the change in the area of apprenticeship training and other training skills. I believe the Minister referred to an employers' levy of 0.7% generating approximately £120 million per year. This could be directed into retraining and the skills programme. The FÁS-type levy scheme is due to cease next year. This was a carrot and stick type of approach whereby one paid the levy and received grants for various forms of training, including apprenticeship training. I worked with AnCO in the past and I am aware the levy grant scheme has been in existence for a long time. The mechanism being introduced by the Minister will probably be a similar to what operated in the past.
In relation to the domiciliary care allowance, I welcome the fact that the anomaly in relation to children under two years of age is being removed. This was an anomaly whereby one had to prove eligibility for domiciliary care on the basis of defined medical criteria and one had to be more than two years of age before this could be clarified. Often the medical condition of a young child was known before the age of two. I ask the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs to consider the anomaly in this area. People who were recently eligible for domiciliary care allowance are now eligible for carer's allowance. A carer of a child eligible for the domiciliary care allowance is entitled to free travel. However, as a result of the child's medical condition, he or she is not entitled to free travel with the carer or parent. This is a silly anomaly in the system which was recently brought to my attention by a woman who finds herself in this situation.
There is very little in the budget for farmers. It is disappointing that only £3.8 million has been earmarked for the farming community. However, I welcome the continuation of incentives for the control of farmyard pollution over the next three years. It is important to continue this scheme because the quality of our water is of great importance.
For the third time in the life of this Government the Minister for Finance has failed to use the unprecedented resources at his disposal to fight inequality and poverty in society. Instead this budget deepens the divisions between rich and poor at a time when, with the peace process having made such progress, we should be moving towards the creation of real equality and social justice. This has been the most divisive budget in years. The wealthy have been rewarded once more. The higher paid have benefited disproportionately from the tax changes. The lower paid and those dependent on social welfare have been left with the crumbs from the table. They may well be bigger crumbs but they are still crumbs. The disadvantaged are not welcome at Deputy McCreevy's millennium banquet for the better off. To use a term close to the Minister's heart, they are not at the races.
The Minister for Finance informed us that he was setting a new vision and a new strategy for the future. The measures he announced yesterday certainly belie that claim. Given the size of the massive budget surplus in his coffers, there was a distinct lack of vision and a lack of strategy to use that wealth to build a more equitable society. The budget is undoubtedly a bitter disappointment to those who believed the Government would use the opportunity it presented to create fundamental and lasting change and move from inequality to equality in society.
This was the call Sinn Féin made in its pre-budget submission. We pointed out that we have an economy which is warped by structural inequalities. The improved conditions for many sections of our society and the conspicuous luxury enjoyed by a minority contrasts sharply with the plight of those who have not been allowed to benefit. The Minister for Finance has created more space for luxury and left the disadvantaged with an insulting pittance. We urged the Government to shift its policy from merely modifying the excesses of the market to becoming the main driving force leading to a new society on our island. This budget moves in the opposite direction.
The centrepiece of the Minister's budget is his claim to be the most radical tax reformer of all time. I acknowledge that there are some welcome moves to reform the system, but the thrust of the tax changes are to give the bulk of the benefits to the better off. As stated in its pre-budget submission, Sinn Féin believes that the vast majority of citizens are glad to see their taxes used for progressive public spending, improving services for all and assisting the least well off. We refused to join the simplistic chorus which calls for giveaway tax cuts and which thereby spurns the opportunity offered by the current economic climate to make real social progress. What we need is taxation justice, not simple taxation reduction.
What has the Minister for Finance given us? Instead of the scales of justice, we have the scales on the eyes of a Minister and a Government who wilfully ignore low pay poverty and unashamedly reward the wealthy who least need relief in the tax system. The simple statistic tells the tale. A single PAYE worker on £14,000 per annum will be better off by £5 a week, while a single worker on £50,000 will be better off by £32 per week. That is a stark and clear indication of the nature of this budget.
There is outrage throughout this country today at the blatant discrimination in the budget against parents, primarily women but increasingly men, who choose to care for their children in the home. Like other Deputies, I have received representations this morning from outraged citizens from different parts of this State. A couple in Dublin sent me a copy – I presume it was received by other Deputies – of their open letter to the Minister in which they state "You are now telling me that my wife is a non-productive person in our society until she goes out to work and that you intend to penalise us for minding our children at home." Those sentiments are being echoed throughout the length and breadth of this land.
These disastrous measures will undoubtedly deepen the child care crisis. In its budget submission, Sinn Féin stated that we need to put children back at the centre of the child care debate. The priority of all must be the provision of the best care at all times for all children. That includes care by parents in the home, care by other family members, paid care by child care workers in the home, early childhood education, cre±ches and other facilities provided by the community or voluntary sector or by private concerns.
The first choice of most couples remains to give their children the best care possible and that is full-time care by a parent or parents in the home. The budget is an insult to them and, on this issue alone, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will pay a heavy political price and rightly so. Perhaps they should pay that price now.
While the funds to increase child care places are welcome, a key measure needed – a really substantial increase in child benefit – has not happened. An increase of at least £20 per child per month, as sought by Sinn Féin in its pre-budget submission, would have provided a worthwhile level of assistance to parents struggling to meet their child care needs. Having made much of bringing social welfare increases forward to May 2000, it is disgraceful that child benefit increases will not come into effect until September 2000. The increase is less than 26p per day per child and people must wait until just before the next budget to see it.
The Minister cited the national anti-poverty strategy in relation to his social welfare increases. The NAPS says that welfare "must provide sufficient income for all those concerned to move out of poverty and to live in a manner compatible with human dignity". The budget once again fails to meet this criterion. A budget of vision would have linked welfare payments to average incomes. Sinn Féin was among those who argued that social welfare payments should be set at 50% of average incomes. The £4 per week increases are, therefore, totally inadequate and insulting, given the massive resources available. The allo cation of £4 per week for welfare recipients and £5 per week for low paid workers, while capital gains tax and corporation tax are slashed to benefit the most prosperous in this society, is a travesty of justice.
One of the most glaring omissions in this budget is its failure to address the housing crisis. There are not any imaginative tax measures to free up housing, such as the capital gains tax increases proposed by Sinn Féin to curb property speculation. Instead we have the continuation of piecemeal measures with local authorities starved of the funding to accommodate people on our massive waiting lists.
The budget is very disappointing for people with disabilities. A paltry £5.35 million is included under the heading of social inclusion. The welcome funding of the Vantastic service in Dublin underlines the lack of such provision elsewhere. There is nothing whatever towards the provision of personal assistants for people with disabilities. A budget of vision would have established an independent living fund. I have, with colleagues, contacted Deputies Healy-Rae, Fox, Gildea and Blaney on this issue and I will watch with interest their reaction to the absence of this and many other necessary measures from the budget.
The Minister has failed to provide the necessary substantial increase in the carer's allowance and the new measures announced offer meagre redress. Those who provide full-time care have not been shown the real appreciation that is their due. Once again, and at a time when no excuses can be made, a Minister for Finance has failed to take any appreciable step towards balancing the books between carer and State. The State is heavily in the debt of carers who daily relieve this exchequer of much of its responsibilities towards our aged and infirm citizens. The Minister's thanks are not enough. Carers deserve and must expect proper recognition for the not just important but essential role they play.
There is little in the budget to benefit the most hard pressed in the farming sector. I point in particular to the failure to provide any special measure to assist pig producers in the Border region. Unless immediate action is taken, many more of them will be driven from the industry altogether. In his 11 page address to the House this afternoon, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development failed to mention the plight of the Border pig farmers.
His colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in response to questions from me and other Members would not indicate how much membership of NATO's Partnership for Peace will cost the taxpayer. We got the first taste of this in the budget with £1.5 million in PfP entry costs, a sum that could and should be spent on any number of necessary measures. We await with interest the magnification of this sum in coming budgets, a burden imposed on taxpayers who were denied by the Government their right to decide on membership of PfP.
In conclusion, I approached the budget, as I indicated to the Minister in my covering text to our pre-budget submission, with an open mind and a real expectation that the deep deficiencies in the last two budgets – certainly very much in evidence in the first presentation – would be rectified on this occasion. I was deeply disappointed and, therefore, regrettably I must record my opposition to what I can only describe as a "budget for inequality".
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
"Work" is the word which expresses the theme and character of the budget. Yesterday afternoon the Minister for Finance announced a working budget for an economy that works. Furthermore, this year's budget and the Minister's two previous ones have dealt decisively and effectively with one of the most frustrating problems that has dogged the economy for many years – the unsustainable burden of taxation through which the Exchequer carried out as a matter of course each week a smash and grab raid on every worker's pay packet.
The single greatest anomaly of our taxation system over the years has been that our average industrial wage is subject to the top rate of taxation. For years workers have endured a situation in which they moved on to the higher rate of tax at an absurdly low threshold. On paper an individual might appear to have a reasonably decent wage but in reality his or her take home pay was an emaciated skeleton of the perceived wage. By widening the band for a single person to £17,000 per annum this year the Minister is moving towards a position where only 17% of taxpayers will be subject to the top rate of tax. This has a vital bearing on the whole concept of national wage negotiations.
The Minister for Finance is creating an environment in which these negotiations will be about real money and unions will know that the result of their bargaining will make a real difference to their members' pay packets. The social partnership model, in conjunction with a succession of national agreements, has been the cornerstone of the prosperity Ireland enjoys today. That system is envied even among many of our fellow members of the European Union. It has proved to be an essential recipe for economic progress. The budget ensures that we can continue on that path.
In our adversarial parliamentary system it is, unfortunately, inevitable that the budget will be criticised – that is the nature of the game. However, the Opposition critics are well aware that it is impossible to solve all economic and social problems in one budget. The most pressing and outstanding difficulties must be identified and then one adopts the "bulls eye" principle and targets them, choosing a particular problem and making that the immediate priority. That has been done in the budget and that is why the Minister for Finance is focusing so much effort on such a determined and radical overhaul of the tax system.
Listening to the theatrical posturing and faked indignation from the other side of the House—
Much of it is constructive. The Minister is generalising.
—I cannot help recalling the state of the economy when those parties were in control.
The Minister should recall the difficulties, former Minister for Finance, Ray McSharry had.
I admire their nerve. It takes a hard neck for people who almost marched the country over the precipice of bankruptcy in the mid 1980s to lecture us about good Government. Much of the histrionics and strident criticism we have had to listen to from across the floor can be taken with a grain of salt.
The Minister should wait until he returns to Donegal.
It is amusing to listen to lectures from proven non-achievers. However, while choosing tax reform as his prime target the Minister has, in line with Fianna Fáil tradition, given old age pensioners a substantial rise of £7 a week. Indeed, the budget asserts the Government's continuing commitment to social inclusion with the biggest social welfare package in history.
Before turning to my own immediate concerns regarding tourism and sport, I applaud one highly significant development which was signalled in the budget – decentralisation. The principle of decentralisation was an enlightened initiative introduced by Fianna Fáil in the 1980s, which was put on the back burner by our opponents when they came into office. Yet, the arrival of sections of Government Departments into numerous urban centres brought new life into those communities. I am glad that this concept is to be revived. It will take some of the pressure off our congested capital city and bring a new vitality to other towns along with the opportunity of a better lifestyle for the personnel involved. In my native county, Donegal, one can enjoy a higher standard of living and an improved quality of life, even more so following the historic events of this week. One could buy a mansion in Donegal for what one would pay for a matchbox in Dublin.
Over the past ten years, Ireland has climbed to the top of the international tourism performance league with the number of visitors and, more importantly, foreign revenue earnings from tour ism increasing annually. In 1999, this trend continued and tourism is poised to become Ireland's largest industry. All the indications are that our 1999 growth targets of 7% in visitor numbers and 9% in total foreign revenue will be achieved. A significant feature of our tourism marketing and promotion efforts in recent years has been our success in attracting a number of major international sporting events to Ireland. Events such as the Cutty Sark Tall Ships Race, the Tour de France and numerous golfing tournaments have successfully attracted enormous international publicity, while enhancing our status and reputation as a world class destination. Similarly, future events already secured, such as the Special Olympics World Summer Games in 2003 and the Ryder Cup in 2005, will ensure that invaluable media attention will remain firmly focused on Ireland.
Some weeks ago I asked Bord Fáilte to consider the establishment of a dedicated unit with the specific task of exploring opportunities to promote Ireland as a venue for international sporting events and to develop strategies for attracting them here. The budget provided for £2.5 million to be allocated annually over the next three years to support efforts to attract major sporting events with tourism potential to Ireland and will allow such strategies to be put in place. I intend that my Department and Bord Fáilte will work out the final details over the coming weeks with a view to putting in action this exciting new area as early as possible in the New Year. It offers exciting opportunities for the future and will allow us to exploit a great new potential for increasing tourism earnings.
Since I became Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, one of the Government's top priorities has been to ensure that a significant fund would be put in place for marketing Ireland overseas as a top tourist destination in the new millennium. This objective has now been achieved with the provision made in the national development plan for Ireland's first ever multi-annual tourism marketing fund. The main purpose of the fund, which has been allocated £150 million over the period 2000 to 2006, or £20 million per year, is to finance the promotion and marketing internationally of Ireland as a world class tourist location and the specific marketing of activity based holidays with a view to regional development.
One of the major and immediate outcomes of the legislation passed this year was the establishment of the Sports Council. Ireland now has, again for the first time, a national programme to combat doping in sport. The first test was carried out on 21 November 1999. Only 15% or 30 of the 200 countries who compete in international sports have their own national anti-doping programme and Ireland is now in that group.
Allocations of more than £18 million have been made in 1999 to some 400 local community based projects and to a number of national and regional projects throughout the country. Fingal County Council recently completed a feasibility study on the provision of an indoor athletics training facility adjacent to the existing athletics facility at Morton Stadium, which is prioritised in the recently published review of the Government's An Action Programme for the Millennium.
Under the national development plan, financial assistance amounting to £85 million will be available over the seven years of the plan to support the development of sport and recreational facilities by local authorities, particularly in areas which lack them. Under schemes now operating under the Sports Council, the national governing bodies of the Olympic sports were allocated £2.5 million towards their activities this year. A further £1 million has been allocated to their elite athletes and players under the international carding scheme which comprises individual grants as well as access to medical support, sports science services and career counselling.
I was delighted yesterday with the announcement by the Minister for Finance that an additional £1 million has been made available in this year's budget to the Sports Council towards the costs associated with the preparation and participation of the Irish Olympic and Paralympic teams in the 2000 Sydney games. In view of this substantial investment by the Government in Olympic sports and across the whole spectrum of sport and the special place of sport in Irish life, I am grievously disappointed once again to hear of another unseemly public disagreement involving the Olympic Council of Ireland and Irish athletics. The Sports Council is endeavouring to assist in reaching a solution to this problem.
Is it not time these difficulties were sorted out in a reasonable and constructive way? All concerned should face up to their responsibilities in the interest of sport. The energies of sports administrators would be better utilised in attempting to ensure Ireland's success at the Olympic Games, which is what every Irish person longs for. On the issue which is the cause of the current dispute, it was at my instigation and following many years of consultations between the athletics bodies that the new Athletics Association of Ireland was formed. We brought the two athletics bodies together, although some commentators said it would be impossible. BLE and NACA have come together and athletics and athletes can only benefit as a result. In this context, it is a source of surprise to me that what is a major step forward for Irish athletics would appear to create difficulties for the Olympic Council if allowed. Let commonsense prevail so that this dispute can be settled now.
Debate adjourned.