Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

One of the difficulties of modern government is its constant battle with the public relations machine to win hearts and minds. The spring economic statement reflects this battle in many respects. It is a case of "much ado about nothing" in that, following a big build-up and some leaking before the statement was made, we found, when we stripped away the various layers of propaganda, that it contains little of substance.

Having said that, it is important to acknowledge that the underlying figures show a dramatic improvement in the economy. Ireland is clearly in a much better position than it was six or seven years ago. Equally, one must also acknowledge that the Government and its predecessor implemented a programme that was laid down by the troika. It did not simply take driving instructions from the troika, so to speak, but took on the difficult task of implementing the programme. While the vision was framed by outside agencies, it had to be implemented by the previous and current Governments. According to some reports, the previous Government did 70% of the heavy lifting with the current Government responsible for the remainder. I do not know if that figure is accurate and in any case it is irrelevant because the important issue is that both Governments adhered to the troika programme. While it caused great difficulty, the programme was drawn up with a view to obtaining the maximum results with the minimum amount of pain.

Many people have responded to the spring economic statement by accusing the Government of seeking to buy the electorate and sell the country. I am not an apologist for the Government and I will not echo the line taken by my good colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, who asked if this is not what Governments do. However, buying the electorate is a trend that has characterised politics as far back as we can remember. The 1977 election, for example, was bought. I can still hear the words of Colm T. Wilkinson echoing from a loudspeaker at a polling booth in Kilkee as I hitched back home to do my leaving certificate. He was singing a famous song about Fianna Fáil selling the country down the Swanee with a giveaway budget. The impact of Fianna Fáil's approach to the 1977 election is still felt today, especially in local government. Subsequent spending spikes in 2001 and 2006 were decried on several occasions in this House, notably by members of the current Government.

The Government should not go down the road of previous Governments, tempting though that may be, by producing goodies for the electorate. It must do the right thing. While this presents a challenge to the political system in general, it also presents a challenge to the electorate. The Government has promised to split an additional €1.8 billion in revenue - I believe that estimate to be somewhat low - equally between tax reductions and increased expenditure on services. It should be noted, however, that the commitment given by some Opposition parties to abolish water charges amounts to an attempt to buy the electorate by another means. Everything must be paid for and only a fool believes that things can be obtained for free. Human nature being what it is, however, people like to hear good news and do not like pain. If a message can be dressed up and camouflaged with a nice sugar coating, we cannot resist it. This presents a challenge to all of us, including me. For this reason, I ask members of the public to view with scepticism any commitment to increase expenditure on public services, reduce taxation, increase public sector pay or abolish water charges or property tax and to assess whether the implementation of any such promise would benefit the common good.

I understand it would cost approximately €2.2 billion to restore public sector pay and pensions to the levels that obtained prior to the introduction of emergency legislation. While many people were hurt by cuts, many also understand there was very little choice in the matter. Their pain could have been greatly eased if the cost of services had reduced by a corresponding amount. If, for instance, energy costs, the cost of visiting a general practitioner or obtaining legal advice had declined, people would be slightly more willing to accept decreases in their pay. Such reductions have not been forthcoming, however. We must reform all the sectors that impose charges, many of which can be attributed to increased bureaucracy. I read a book by a Peruvian economist on this issue.

From his studies, he noted a strong correlation between the numbers in the legal profession and additional costs to administration.

I am a member of a new party, Renua, which is examining the water charges issue. In December 2013, I outlined the difficulties that would arise if we were to go down the road we did with water charges. I equated it to falling into a burning furnace out of which it is impossible to get. If one stays, then one gets burned, meaning there is no solution.

The natural inclination is to deconstruct the whole set-up for water charges. I do not know if that can happen. I do agree, however, that we must have a system in place that makes people respect and realise the fact we pay for water anyway. In doing that, those who conserve water and act responsibly have to be rewarded. Where there is abuse and waste, measures have to be in place to ensure that does not happen.

The issue of Siteserv has taken up much media space in recent times. I do not know what the report will throw up. However, a point I articulated in a debate here in 2011 is that IBRC and to a lesser extent Anglo Irish Bank sold off loan books at a price that may have not got the full value for the State. Whenever the formal review is carried out, I hope this will be examined extensively. It is particularly disheartening that having gone through all the difficulties with the banks over the past several years, we may have added to our woes by underselling ourselves in some cases.

Very little visionary policy was laid out in the spring statement. The usual statistics were rolled out but nothing concrete. People who access the health service have varying and conflicting reports of how it is. My understanding is the HSE is in a shambles but there is no major strategic plan as to how this will be turned around. The hospital groupings were launched several years ago to great fanfare but there has been no great movement in this.

If Ministers spent more time doing their job rather than trying to sell themselves, we would be far better off. I exclude the Minister opposite, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, from that. Too much time is spent by Ministers pushing out their own image. The most important job a Minister has is to manage his or her Department. Several Ministers have fallen down and a few have been moved on as a result of not doing this.

The term league tables for schools caused much difficulty a few years ago. We need a system of measurement of schools’ performance. If one is going to book a hotel, go on a foreign holiday or go to a restaurant for a meal, one is going to check out if one will get value for money. However, we are expected to send children to schools for which we have no idea as to how they are performing. There has to be a mechanism to measure their performance.

Our party, Renua, has several other worthwhile proposals. We propose a credit network system with peer-to-peer lending through an invoice system. We want to see tax changes for the self-employed, equitable USC rates and an opt-in to PRSI to enable access to support for businesses which run into difficulty. We also want to see automatic enrolment in pension schemes for all employees.

We want to see e-citizenship developed for all documents, forms and payments processes, as well as a credit system for the unbanked. Many people complain about the banks and the difficulties they got us into but some 20% of the population cannot even access a bank. Will the Minister for Finance put in place a system with the banks whereby people can access small loans of between €500 to €1,000? This would consign moneylenders to history.

See this speech in context