Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputies McManus and Bruton.

I will relate the case of a constituent, whom I do not wish to identify. He is a man in his mid-60s who has been battling cancer for the past year. He has worked all his life in paid employment, as an employee, and running his own business for the past two decades in a self-employed capacity. He has always paid his way and never claimed anything from the State.

Arising from his illness, this man applied some time ago for a disability allowance and eventually got a letter from the Department of Social and Family Affairs awarding him a weekly disability allowance of €1.30. As it happened, this communication arrived on the same day of the "Prime Time" programme about overspending in the various public programmes. When the man's wife contacted me the following morning, she wanted to know why our State, with all the wealth available to it, can be so penny-pinching when it comes to someone with a real need, and who has worked all his life, and yet at the same time be so profligate when it comes to spending on major infrastructural projects. Why is it that everything this man got by way of a private pension, and every little bit of savings the couple had, is trawled over in assessing eligibility for a disability allowance, whereas billions can be overspent on everything from roads to electronic voting?

I listened to Deputy McGuinness, who made a very significant contribution to the public debate on overspending. I admire the work he has done in his capacity as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. He would probably tell the family of the man in question that this situation arises because — I hope I am quoting him accurately — our public service is better at saving pence than at spending millions.

I listened to Deputy McGuinness on radio recently making a somewhat similar comment, on which he elaborated this evening. He said the answer to the overspending on public projects is to change the Civil Service. I do not doubt that changes and reforms need to be made in the Civil Service, or that there may be some square pegs in round holes. However, it is not acceptable that a Deputy on the Government side, in a party which has been in office for almost 20 years, and continuously in office over the past eight years, can come in and dump on the public service for what at the end of the day are the failures of Government.

What do people on the Government side of the House think Ministers are for? Do they think a Minister's role in regard to a public project is confined to announcing it — sometimes several times — to turning the sod, to topping it out, to being photographed when the cord is being pulled and the plaque being unveiled? Do they think Ministers have no role at all regarding the management and control of public expenditure as it progresses? If there is no accountant in the National Roads Authority, as Deputy McGuinness said, does that authority now report to the Minister for Transport and did it report before that to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Are these the requirements that a Minister who is actually doing his or her job should be addressing?

The bottom line is that money is overspent in this country primarily because the Ministers are not doing their jobs. One can have some sympathy with the position of the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, but if he can say that for €1 million overspent in the Abbey Theatre, there ought to be changes in the board, what kind of changes do we need in Government to supply answerability for the kind of overspending for which this Government has been responsible?

See this speech in context