Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the difficult task the Government faces and the significant strides which have been made. While I am deeply concerned about certain aspects and individual elements of the budget - I will work to change some of them - I will not vote against any of the measures contained in the budget. I strongly support the overall objective of getting Ireland back on a sound fiscal footing. However, I worry a great deal when I hear Ministers such as the Tánaiste this morning on RTE radio pretending that this is the end of the difficult budgetary choices we face as a nation. That is simply not the case and it is irresponsible of senior Ministers to make such misleading statements. Irish citizens have been disappointed by political leaders often enough. It is time there was much greater truth and honesty on the part of the Government and Ministers with the people. The reality is that we still have a long way to go to get the public finances on a sound and sustainable footing. That is the mandate the Government has and it cannot afford to drop the ball midway. It is worth remembering that Ireland is not projected to exit the European Union's excessive deficit procedure until 2016, for example; therefore, a great deal more work has yet to be done.

This budget was introduced on 15 October because of the new EU budgetary procedures which were agreed in the past two years or so. It is right that we share information with other EU member states and that the European Commission has a much more interventionist approach in vetting budgetary measures in all member states. It is not right, however, that our draft budget figures are shared with the European Union, the IMF, the ECB and, on occasion, other EU member states before there is any substantive discussion in this Parliament. Prior to 2011, it was a frequent demand of the then Opposition of Fine Gael and the Labour Party that the budgetary process begin in the Dáil and Oireachtas committees long before budget day. This would be the mature, transparent and democratic way of approaching our budgetary planning.

In 2009 Deputy Richard Bruton said in Business & Finance magazine that a Fine Gael Government "will make the budgeting process much more transparent and give the Dáil a clear and meaningful role. The current budget set-piece debate is little more than political theatre. The budget is presented to the Dáil in December as a fait accompli to be rubber-stamped by the Oireachtas. It commits taxpayers to huge spending programmes without any information as to what this spending will achieve and no targets as to how the spending will be judged." I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Minister, but, unfortunately, nothing has been delivered to honour this commitment. Instead, once again, elected parliamentarians must hear of budget measures via the Irish Independent. We are forced to race into the Dáil Chamber to participate in limited debates, with little or no information, and then vote on measures that are to become law at midnight. We have no opportunity to offer constructive alternatives or suggestions. Is this a reasonable, rational and responsible way to plan how best to spend taxpayers' money or to hit vulnerable taxpayers at a time of great stress?

I believe this is not the way to do it. The worst example in yesterday's budget was the reduction in tax relief for medical insurance premiums. We were told in the Dáil by the Minister for Finance that this would only hit wealthy people with gold-plated insurance schemes. Virtually no reliable information was made available to the House but we have since learned that the measure will lead to a net increase in insurance premiums for up to 90% of policy holders, affecting up to 1.8 million people. The claim that only gold-plated policies are affected is nonsense and misleading. What are we to do? The measure entered into force at midnight after a mere 55 minutes of debate in the House. It is far from a transparent and open process and our citizens deserve better.

See this speech in context