Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I had edited it down to seven minutes. If the Government were a constituent coming to us with its current financial predicament, we would probably send it to something like the MABS. The first question it would be asked would be what it could do to cut down its daily expense. What can it do without and still continue to do its job? One thing we could do is run the country with eight fewer Ministers of State. It might only save €6 million, which is one thousandth of what we think we might need to find in the next budget — budget 2009, part 3 or is it part 4? The advice to a citizen would be to identify what he or she must spend money on and what he or she must have to survive. It is no different for the arms of the State, the political system, the Government.

Over the weekend I listened to "Spin FF" ask us to get involved in putting forward a national government to save itself rather than save the country. What happens when we try to put forward some sensible logical and significant saving proposals? We get the pathetic Government amendment, which finishes by urging "the expenditure review group to expedite its review of where reductions can be achieved within the Oireachtas". I wrote a note beside that stating, "Who is in charge?" My God, the Government is urging the expediting of the expenditure review group in the face of having stated last September that it was in charge and would have an early budget. It did not know the figures at the time, but it was happy to hazard a guess. The upcoming budget will probably look to save three times what that "assertive" initiative was meant to do.

The Government amendment also states it "acknowledges that the business of Government has grown in terms of volume and complexity". So has the running of any school, primary or post-primary with a multitude of languages and cultures, and a multitude of different challenges to teachers, staff and pupils. Yet we have reduced the number of special needs teachers and classes. There is a school in Bray with 18 children with special needs even though the maximum should be 11 and the minimum is nine. I have not received an answer to this question yet. Will they all be assimilated into the one class which would breach the maximum or will seven of those children with the lowest level of disability need to go into mainstream classes and be picked up as best they can? The Government claims that because it has grown in complexity, it cannot trim its complement of Ministers of State by eight and merge responsibilities. When we were really flying we were able to manage with 17 and before that with 15. However, all of a sudden now that things have got more complex we have needed another three.

People can make up their own minds as to why those extra three posts were created. I had only been in this House for a week as a new Deputy when that happened. At the time I suggested that the purpose behind those posts and the hullabaloo regarding new committees was to keep everybody happy and quiet. It is significant that when partnership was initiated it was to map the road to recovery back in the early 1990s. In 1997 it was taken and used as a vehicle for survival and political success for the incumbent main Government party. Everything was solved by spending more, creating more committees and subgroups, and putting people on boards here and there. The very same thing is happening with these Minister of State posts.

We tabled a short and succinct Private Members' motion that would effectively save €6 million from the Government's cost base. It has been rejected with a pathetic amendment. Next week the Government will claim the Opposition is not bothered in engaging with it or in doing anything in the national interest. We are seeing the shields going up. While I welcome that the olive branch for the unions and employers to go back into partnership talks has been accepted, it may be that next week those on the Government side will suggest they do not need national government and will do it themselves. Everything that is done is calculated on the basis of what they need to do to survive. It is not about the best interests of the country.

See this speech in context