Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 May 2005

 

Public Expenditure: Motion (Resumed).

7:00 pm

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

The difficulty in keeping account of the Government's squandermania is that as soon as a figure is put on paper, it is immediately out of date. The motion refers to the €7 billion figure for the roads programme in the national development plan. The original cost was placed at €5.8 billion. The figure of €16 billion, referred to in the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, has since been updated by a report released last week by the Committee of Public Accounts, outlining the figure at €18 billion. Even that figure does not take into account projects under construction, with cost overruns, and projects yet to begin with their costs adjusted.

Deputy Finian McGrath referred to the cost overrun on the Dublin Port tunnel project. However, even before an inch of tarmac has been laid on the M50 upgrade, its cost has been readjusted from €300 million to €800 million. The likelihood is that the €16 billion, adjusted to €18 billion, will end up at €20 billion and rising. The clock in Times Square that shows the world's population increasing by three every second should be placed outside Leinster House to show the amount in overspending the Government is clocking up every minute. It is not an exaggeration to say that all the overruns put together by the Government would probably amount to a whole year's expenditure by any other government — one year in eight wasted by poor management.

Most overruns have occurred in the roads programme leading to serious questions not only of the State agencies involved but also of political control. The NRA should be renamed the no refunds allowed. Is the Government taking this debate seriously? One of the first Ministers to speak on the motion yesterday evening, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, is responsible for the most inflated aspects of the Government's capital programme. When Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, he had personal responsibility for overseeing the electronic voting fiasco at a cost of €50 million, rising at €1 million every year. He was the Minister who could not fight his way out of a paper bag to ensure the Government fulfilled its commitments under the Kyoto Agreement and avoided future costs. He is the last person who should be in the Cabinet, let alone the one to be making an argument on the proper control of public expenditure.

There is considerable merit in the Labour Party's motion. Several states have an office of budget control in their governmental systems. There is a logic to Ireland pursuing such a system. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I would argue that its terms of reference must be examined. Given these ongoing overspends, it is time it became more proactive. Its terms of reference, by their very nature, make the committee reactive rather than proactive. The committee must be given the power to examine projects under construction to see where overruns occur and to make suggestions as to how they can be stopped. The committee should also decide who takes political responsibility.

Where is the political accountability for Punchestown, the residential redress board deal and the overcharging of residents in nursing homes? There is none because our system of government lacks the mechanism in which people can be put on trial for decisions taken on public expenditure. Due to the governmental culture we have, everyone else, not the politicians, is to blame. The Government has practised this mantra more than others. There will be similar debates to this one until there is a culture of culpability and willingness to accept that public money is not there to be used as a tap to be turned on and off for the political manoeuvrings of the Government parties.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.