Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

It is clear that this year's budget is being prepared in quite different circumstances from preceding budgets. The pattern follows that of the general election of 2002, when a Government was elected on the basis of a raft of promises that very rapidly morphed into a plethora of cutbacks. Again we see the same pattern emerge, of an economic downturn and a health service — notwithstanding Deputy Ardagh's rosy view — in crisis. That is obvious to most people. A staff freeze has led to longer waiting lists and essential services being put under severe strain. The Minister of Health and Children declared a staff freeze would not impact on patient care. She was wrong. We can see the statistical, factual and anecdotal evidence for ourselves. More importantly, even if there were no staff freeze, the unreformed health service denies many the fair and speedy access to care they need. One person spoke out about this — Susie Long. Her name will be on her headstone now but it will also be embedded in many people's minds when they listen to Ministers congratulate themselves on budget day.

A report published today, compiled by the University of Leeds and University of York, highlights the central challenge facing us in the increase in global warming. It shows that rising temperatures could trigger a massive extinction of plants and animals. It is further information adding to our store of understanding about climate change and its lethal effects worldwide. I am glad Deputy Ardagh raised the issue of peak oil which needs to be taken on. The Government keeps saying it wants a debate on nuclear energy but I see no evidence of such a debate taking place. I say bring it on. The pre-budget document does not refer to peak oil or climate change. It is silent on these central issues.

The programme for Government contains the commitment of a reduction of 3% per year in our greenhouse gas emissions. It is also committed to ensuring one third of electricity consumed in Ireland comes from renewable sources by 2020. It requires the public sector to produce 33% energy savings by 2020. It states:

We will...require the public sector to lead the way on energy efficiency with a mandatory programme of efficiency measures including the sole use of energy-efficient lighting and heating in offices, schools and hospitals and other public buildings to produce 33% energy savings by 2020.

This commitment is made when some of our schools and hospitals, apart from local authority offices, are in substandard, inefficient and inappropriate accommodation. Yet a new requirement is being placed on them which, in such circumstances, is off the wall.

These commitments were agreed by politicians of both Fianna Fáil and the Green Party. They form part of a solemn undertaking to the people. It has been salutary to discover the reality as compared to the aspiration behind this programme.

The pre-budget outlook does not refer to climate change or of introducing measures to meet the ambitious targets set in the programme for Government. I note the British Government is already pulling back on its commitment to source 20% of energy supply from renewable sources by 2020.

It is important we have a clear statement from the Taoiseach, if such a statement is possible, that he will not be ducking out of the commitment to renewables in the programme for Government. To meet this commitment requires enormous effort from the highest level of the Government. Yet there is no evidence in the pre-budget Estimates of such a shift.

What we have seen already does not inspire any confidence. A relatively modest scheme managed by Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, to grant-aid householders in transferring to renewable sources was collapsed by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan. He then announced a new emasculated grant scheme and a Supplementary Estimate to pay for it.

This turns out to be a complete sham. First, the Supplementary Estimate was only a token one. Presumably the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, sent the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources scampering away from his door when he came looking for money. The Minister was reduced to raiding his broadband and energy research fund to allocate moneys to the renewable grant scheme. On the day of the debate on the Supplementary Estimate, it became clear the moneys were not being transferred to the new grant scheme so blithely announced by the Minister on 4 September. Instead the moneys were being used to stuff the hole left by SEI when it ran up bills across a range of existing schemes, including the defunct greener homes scheme. In reality, there are no moneys for the new scheme announced by the Minister. It is a sham.

Today, I was startled to find in reply to a parliamentary question on ministerial cars that the two Green Party Ministers each have clocked up more mileage per month than the Taoiseach. There have been many photo opportunities of Green Ministers on their bikes. While I accept a Minister's job requires car travel, it again raises the difference between the reality and rhetoric of the Government. Of the 18 ministerial cars detailed in the reply to my parliamentary question, only five cars are hybrid petrol-electronic and none is bio-fuel. Again, this questions the Government's commitment to dealing with its carbon footprint and the wider issue of reducing energy consumption by example. A government with a green tinge should set a good example. Instead, there is a feeling of being let down with no reassurance in the pre-budget outlook report.

The Estimates for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have glaring anomalies by which I am perplexed. How can the Minister explain, for example, that in 2007 approximately €87 million was allocated for non-national roads and that only €53 million will be required in 2008? The same question applies to the 64% reduction in funding for the Irish Heritage Trust. This trend goes though many other Estimates. The Minister can reply that these are simple projections and there will be news in the budget.

However, niggling questions arise. Is it the case that in certain areas moneys were allocated for, say, non-national roads and were simply not spent? Local authorities receive a fund for these roads and it tends to climb in line with inflation. Is this simply a softening-up of public perception, a vehicle to introduce more cutbacks for next year?

The new budgetary process is impenetrable and it is difficult to find answers. I hope the Minister in his conclusion will explain how these anomalies have occurred.

See this speech in context