Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I join Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny in describing this process as hopelessly inadequate as a means to scrutinise value for money in public spending. This must change and although the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, promised change, along with Deputy Cowen and the Taoiseach, we find ourselves in the same rut, examining meaningless Estimates. It is similar to asking a consumer to buy from a mail order catalogue and removing product specification, prices and the manufacturer's guarantee. No consumer would purchase on that basis but we are asked to sign up to €50 billion on behalf of taxpayers. It is ridiculous, unacceptable and must change.

The Minister is asking for an act of faith that he and his colleagues will deliver value for money. With the greatest of respect to him, there is evidence that he is not delivering value for money that people have a right to expect. To come into the House with Estimates that do not give us any foundation for making proper decisions about the allocation of moneys is unacceptable. For example, there is not a single mention of the level of performance last year. Is that not the first thing for which the Minister should ask? If we are being asked to sign up to a figure of €50 billion in spending, we must ask how we got on last year with the €46 billion that we spent. All the catalogue the Minister has produced tells us is the size of the bill that had to be funded last year. He cannot even reconcile the size of the bill to which we had to sign up with the individual items. He is still quoting estimates. There is no reconciliation. However, that is only a minor issue. The truth is that not even a two-bit company would sign up to and accept from an accountant the figures we are expected to accept and we represent 2 million taxpayers. That is the reality.

It is worth examining what happened last year when we went through the very same charade and Ministers went out with their glossy brochures announcing all of the wonderful things that would happen in 2005. I have chosen ten porkies delivered by the Minister's colleagues this time last year in the Estimates process. We were told that an extra 230,000 would have a medical card or a doctor only card. The reality is that at most there will be an extra 3,000 or 4,000 with cards. It was due to happen last April but there will only be 3,000 or 4,000, not 230,000.

We were told there would be a major initiative in accident and emergency departments that would reduce waiting times. One year on there are 85 more patients on trolleys on a regular basis.

We were to have three new acute medical units, one of which was to be located in Beaumont Hospital in my constituency. That acute medical unit did not materialise, even though the money was voted for its development.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced that we would have an extra 1,100 gardaí. The truth, as revealed by the Minister's own Estimates, is that less than half that number has been delivered. The Minister also promised to implement the Children Act through new allocations to the probation and welfare service. That has not happened.

We were to have an integrated ticketing system in Dublin as announced by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. That has not happened. We were also to have a central railway station in Dublin, which certainly has not happened. We were to have an extra 367 km of new roads, for which €245 million would be provided by way of PPPs. There is no evidence that this has happened. As far as I can see, the PPPs have not materialised, although it is almost impossible to find out what is happening in that regard.

The Minister for Finance said this time last year that the Government was still committed to reducing public service numbers by 5,000. The truth, as evidenced by his own figures, is that he has increased public service numbers by 15,000. His target was to reduce the number by 5,000. He has not met his own target.

Last year we were to have an extra 13,000 social and affordable homes. The mid-year figures which are all the Minister can come up with indicate that 3,300 such homes had been built by that stage. This means that we are not even one quarter of the way towards reaching the target. It is not acceptable that the Minister has come back to the House this year, having delivered that number of commitments which have not materialised, and expects us to again accept, on faith, the announcements Ministers are making left, right and centre.

What the Minister needs is a real process of scrutiny. I have examined the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with this in mind. In the past four years the total spend in that Department is up 43%. Against this, let us look at what is happening on the ground. As we know, crime levels were almost static over those four years. However, what has deteriorated rapidly is the number of detections. The detection rate is down dramatically with regard to serious crime, serious assaults, non-headline crimes and so on. It is down on every front. The risk of suffering an assault on the streets is rising. We have also seen problems with regard to the seizure of illicit drugs. The amount being discovered is falling, even though there is clear evidence on the streets that the drug abuse epidemic is more severe than ever and the trade more violent and threatening to communities. Is it not reasonable to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who wants us to vote through an extra €184 million for his Department why he has not delivered to date? Why are there no performance indicators attached to his Estimates to indicate we are getting something worthwhile for the money spent?

We could conduct the same scrutiny process in the Department of Health and Children. The Minister for Health and Children has received a 54% increase in her budget since the last general election. The number of in-patient admissions is only up by 0.8%, a tiny increase. There has been a dramatic reduction in the proportion with medical cards. We are told the Minister's key health strategy is to improve access to primary care and keep people out of hospital. That is not happening. Primary care centres have not been delivered. Basic eligibility has not been improved.

Where has the Department's money gone? We have seen the medication bill go through the roof. It has gone up by 50% in just three years. Why should we accept, on faith, that it should rise so rapidly at a time when we are giving fewer people access to primary care? There is something seriously wrong with the contracts designed for delivering medication to the health system. The dogs on the streets know this but nothing is being done because we vote through money, year after year, without serious scrutiny. There is no opportunity for proper scrutiny before decisions are made. That is not acceptable.

Accident and emergency departments are another source of concern. Some will swear there has been an enormous increase in the number going to accident and emergency departments, which is exerting major pressure on hospital services, but that is not the case. The number attending accident and emergency departments in the past four years has risen by 2.8%, only a few thousand per year. However, the people concerned are facing ever-worsening conditions.

Let us look at what is happening in the hospital system. The Minister for Finance has said he is releasing money to frontline services. The truth, as the Minister's figures show, is that in the past four years the number of nurses in voluntary hospitals has declined. We now have fewer nurses in our voluntary hospitals today. Despite the fact that the Minister for Health and Children has recruited an extra 5,500 into the health service, we have fewer nurses working in acute hospitals than four years ago. What is the logic of this? Why should we vote for this again? Why should we vote for more people in back office activity in the health service than in front office activity? That is what has happened in the past four years; frontline services have reduced, proportionately, although not by much, admittedly. The whole thrust of what we were told was happening was that resources were being released to frontline services, but when we look at the numbers, we see the opposite is happening.

There is something wrong and it is in this House that the process of reform must be generated. If we just let the whole process roll on, year in, year out, as we have been doing, we will not see change in the way decisions are made. It is crucial that we start to make those necessary changes. Why has the Minister for Health and Children been entitled to say to every taxpayer that she wants €2,500 more from every family in the country to run the health service when families cannot see extra value to the tune of even €2, not to mention €2,500? There must be criteria against which we make these decisions. There must be performance tests. Ministers and their agencies must come up to the line, announce their targets for the year and be judged at the end of it on them. Instead of this, we have phoney targets being announced by Ministers every year that have no credibility with the public or this House, but we have not reformed the system in order that we can bring serious pressure to bear and actually effect change.

With regard to overall macro-management, the Minister has had extraordinary good fortune to be in government at a time when there has been enormously increased revenue. He has set out certain broad criteria and I presume he still subscribes to the principles that inspired his Government. He said he would keep growth in current spending in line with growth in GNP. This was the golden rule that his predecessor, former Deputy McCreevy, advocated and was supposed to characterise public spending and policy. The rule makes sense because it means the Government does not have to increase the tax take as a proportion of GNP. However, that is not what has happened. Since 2001 the proportion of current spending as a proportion of GNP has gone up from 25% to 30% and it is up again this year. There is something seriously wrong when the Minister is looking for that extra proportion, a bigger slice of the cake, while not delivering on the ground. There is something seriously wrong with the way we are allocating our money.

The Minister set himself the target of investing 5% of GNP in public investment programmes. That is not being delivered. It has not been delivered for any year since 2002 and the cumulative shortfall from the Government's target by the end of 2006 will be €2.5 billion of investment. I do not believe the Minister is unwilling to spend the money. The problem is we have not geared up the public service to create the capacity to bring bankable projects to the starting line. We do not have a strong pipeline of good projects other than in roads and education, which for all its weaknesses has a pipeline of sorts.

The objectionable feature of Transport 21 is the projects were announced in 2000. I do not mind the Minister seeking plaudits in Dublin Castle for relaunching them but the fact that in the five years since then not a single foot of progress has been made on any of them is offensive. The pre-planning process has not even started, which is unacceptable. We cannot get value from our infrastructure because we have not made the effort to bring ideas and projects through. Maybe there are not sufficient members of staff in the public service or maybe the Minister did not bother to motivate them. Maybe in the hiatus created by three or four different Ministers they lost sight of the ball.

People expect the Minister for Finance to deliver projects for their money and can see the yawning gap in our infrastructures but something is wrong when ideas are not advanced for five years. He boasts that roads programme projects due to be completed by 2006 will now be completed in 2010, without a blush from the Minister for Transport, who does not see how the public might be dissatisfied. He thinks he deserves plaudits for being four years late. Who was the Minister trying to fool this time last year when he said he was still committed to a 5,000 reduction in public service numbers? It did not happen in year one, year two or year three so we are 15,000 up rather than 5,000 down. Why persist in telling us things which are plainly not Government policy? They are designed to go down well with some commentators but are not Government policy and, in that regard, we are being sold a pup.

This is a constrained and effectively meaningless debate. The Minister plans to announce in the budget a new approach in this House. We have received input from the Committee of Public Accounts and Deputy Rabbitte's work and I have carried out my own research. It is not adequate to say there will be better evaluation. That is an in-house process, not an exercise in public scrutiny. If the Government wants better evaluation I suggest the plans be published. A manager of a project should demonstrate progress before receiving another tranche of money. If the Minister for Health and Children says in this House there will be three medical units she should come back shamefaced to explain why they have not been put in place, or why medical cards are not in place, even though the money was voted. The money is spent but there are no results. We need that sort of debate in this House. It might be embarrassing for Ministers but it would filter down and give rise to a different dynamic.

See this speech in context