Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I congratulate Deputy Coveney on introducing this timely motion. The economy is facing some tough challenges and we need to box clever as a result. What is proposed in the motion would present us with an opportunity to box clever and to reduce costs across the board, for families and businesses and in labour-intensive areas. We must put out a signal to the effect that even though times are difficult, there is scope to introduce reforms that deliver effective responses to some of the challenges we face.

The Government's amendment to the motion refers to continuing "to implement the stability oriented fiscal policies that have underpinned the success of their Irish economy over the last decade". That is enough to make a cat laugh. The figures released by the Exchequer earlier today indicate how lacking a stability-oriented fiscal policy has been in the past seven years. The harsh truth, as shown by the figures to which I refer, is that we have seen a surplus of €2 billion that was built up in 2006 being turned into a deficit of €8 billion to date this year. Why do we have a deficit? It is largely because the Government insisted on spending current, day-to-day money that the economy was simply not generating.

The Government increased its spending in the past two years at a rate 65% faster than the rate of growth in the economy and it paid no heed to the need for value for money. In addition, inefficiencies did not come under scrutiny. It was simply a case of spending the money because there was an election on the way. We are now paying the price for this behaviour. Effectively, the Government sabotaged the capacity of the economy to deal with tougher times. Earlier today, the Minister for Finance could not commit to upholding the envelope relating to investment in capital projects — €9.1 billion for this year and the same amount for next year — set out in the national development plan, NDP. This is happening because of the failure to control public spending.

What is happening is not news to the Government. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, will be aware of that from his time in opposition. The precondition relating to the delivery of the NDP is that current day-to-day spending will remain within the capacity for growth of the economy. This precondition was ignored and in the past two years alone, an additional €4 billion has been spent. That would go a long way towards guaranteeing that we could invest in our national development plan projects for next year. That sort of thinking did not commend itself to the Government, which had so embraced the property boom that it felt it could ramp up public spending programmes without regard to the fact that the basis was unsustainable. Revenue from the property boom was plainly unsustainable but the Government ramped up its public spending programme and we are now paying the consequences, which is the tragedy.

We must now consider how we can box clever, finding the capacity even in tougher times to release resources and protect frontline services so we do not have what we have always had in this country, the vulnerable and weak making room when money is short. The way to do this is consideration of issues that can make a difference.

Deputy Varadkar published, on behalf of our party, a way of looking at quangos, for example. The Government created 250 extra quangos in the past decade, which are not working. Even today we debated the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority, another quango, which I do not believe will deliver the reform expected. If the reform was not evident when power resided with the Department of Transport, I do not believe the Dublin Transport Authority will deliver it. It will not deliver the reforms as the very same mistake is being made as happened with the HSE. It is being written into the legislation that the existing players, such as Dublin Bus and CIE, are guaranteed to go on as always. We cannot reform and produce agencies that will be results-delivered when those guarantees are given out. It is a contradiction. This agency will have no accountability.

That is the trouble with the Government's approach. It outsources government and does not focus on its own needs, which are to squeeze inefficiencies out so it can protect vital matters like frontline services and the national development plan.

This motion addresses a specific problem, which is that while the property boom went on, the Government lost sight of the key element of the economy, the survival of the trading sector. We have slumped in competitiveness rankings under this Government in the past six years by 17 places. We have had five consecutive years during which we have lost export market share. Productivity growth has halved in this economy in the past six years.

During this time the Government increased its prices by 45% and manufacturers had to take a 23% cut in their prices. The Government is living in a different world from that of people out there trying to compete, export, build a future and create sound jobs in the export market economy. This motion tries to bring a little reality into that, indicating that the ESB and other generators are not entitled to rip off the consumers and pocket money due to them. This money must be put back in to allow those competing at the coalface, families trying to pay their weekly bills in the face of rising food prices and mortgage payments, some relief and a chance to survive this really tough period.

This is the type of thinking we need to see from Government, which considers how to reform the large public service we have created and release the talent therein. The trouble is we have constrained talented people in our public service in a system that is failing both them and the people they attempt to serve.

I heard the Taoiseach today stating the ESB must have this money so it can have an investment programme. Why should it have consumers' money so it can have an investment programme? It is expected to compete in the open market as an efficient utility. Data from the National Competitiveness Council indicates productivity in our utilities is less than half that of the EU as a whole and only a third that of the USA. We should not turn to a utility that is not delivering productivity and say it can rifle the consumers' pocket so it can invest. We should indicate it is obliged to perform to international benchmarks. It is not a highly geared company and it can look to its internal resources to find investment. If it had been doing so, we would not find ourselves with the most expensive electricity company in Europe. Our electricity prices are the most expensive and in the past six years, they have been rising at the second most rapid rate in the EU.

Companies producing in the public sector which have monopolies must wake up to the fact that they cannot lean on the consumer for money to prop them up, be it through a carbon levy or another method. They must compete and show they can perform to the standards of international benchmarks. That must be the message to come out in policy if we are to get through this difficult time without hurting those who are vulnerable and depend on public services. That is the thinking we are trying to drive.

I do not intend to unduly delay the House but I will reiterate what Deputy Coveney stated. Since January 2008, the electricity consumer has been paying a carbon tax on electricity and the ESB and other electricity generators are pocketing it. That is not in the interests of householders or the long-term competitiveness of our economy.

The proposal we are making retains the incentive for consumers and producers to switch from high carbon-using activities, a crucial element. At the same time, it prevents the householder and the ordinary family from being ripped off. This is a timely motion which I hope is accepted by the Government.

See this speech in context