Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Minister's summer economic statement, which sets in train the process of delivering a budget later this year. It is the third budget of this Government's tenure. Many people had said that it would hardly deliver one. There is, however, a value associated with economic and social stability. This can only be guided by stable governance. We value this stability dearly but it may not be suitable for some political parties. It certainly did not meet with universal support among our own supporters, and nor does it still. We do, however, place great value in stable governance.

We have had two budgets and while not spectacular, they have been progressive. There have been increases in pensions, working age payments and the National Treatment Purchase Fund. There has been a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio and additional funding for higher education and apprenticeships, and increases in personal assistants, home help and home care packages. It has not been as extensive as one would have wished, but it is progress nonetheless. The economy has the ability to grow and to be an obvious facet for the advancement of business and day-to-day living.

The Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath and others referred to the advices of IFAC. We may not be bound by history, but we must learn from it. We have to place great store in the advice that emanates from the council when it comments on the general Government deficit and the structural deficit. Those advices must be acknowledged, appraised and adjudicated on. We accept them and we note, for example, that the medium-term objective for this year is not as envisaged. That curtails the Government's ability to spend the additional €900 million that is available. This spend, in addition to the provision of the rainy day fund puts the general deficit at 0.6% and a structural deficit at 0.9%. These are the facts and the realities. Deputy Pearse Doherty failed to take into account the additional €500 million on top of the €900 million, which would bring it to 0.6%. These are the fiscal rules and these are what the people voted for. The people asked that we be bound by these rules and, therefore, we must be responsible in adhering to them.

The economy is perceived to be doing reasonably well with 4% or 5% growth, but we still have a deficit. If this is the case, then one must be cognisant of the concentration of our receipts, the impacts of a hard or cruel Brexit, Trump's policies and their effect on Ireland's economy and the pressures being placed on corporate taxation. We must analyse and note what the Minister said in the context of the 2019 budget and not necessarily in the context of the next five or ten years. It is a transparent process, which provides for pre-budget submissions by various interested parties, either to the Government or to the all-party committees. The submissions bring focus and attention to the reality of what is and is not available for the budget, rather than interested parties and others playing to their own audiences.

Let us consider the €3.4 billion package put before the House by the Minister, notwithstanding the €500 million rainy day fund. A sum of €1.5 billion is committed to the national development plan, €400 million to national demographics, primarily associated with health and education, €400 million to public pay, with a €300 million carry-over from year to year, which amounts to €2.6 billion.

It is not fair, right or appropriate that we brush over this by saying that the commitments in the national development plan account for €1.5 billion without quantifying how that will affect the economy in the forthcoming year. When it was launched, there was considerable fanfare for and advertisement of the plan, Project Ireland 2040 or whatever it is called. That fanfare is ongoing in respect of, for example, a couple of hospitals in Cork, the Luas, the underground and other transport infrastructural gains that will accrue in Dublin and other parts of the country but it is incumbent on the Government to lay out in great detail where the €1.5 billion will be spent in the forthcoming year. As we are debating a budget package, we cannot brush this question aside. The people - those whom we represent among the general public, those in business and so on - need to know exactly how much is being spent, where it is being spent and what impact it will have, not only on the economy but also on the regions where infrastructural gains will accrue.

That leaves €800 million. I assume that the pension anomaly identified last year is accounted for in current expenditure and will not impinge upon the €800 million. The €200 million that was committed to consultants recently was the result of the High Court's adjudication on a contractual obligation on the State that was signed prior to the FEMPI legislation. As an historical obligation, it should not impinge on the €800 million.

Leaving those matters aside, we believe the next call on this funding should be pay equality for new entrants to the public service. We are glad to see the Government and unions have finally sat down together to conclude a deal on this issue. Whether that will be over one, two or three years remains to be seen but we support the process and encourage agreement between the parties and accommodation for it in this budget package. This is apart from the Public Service Pay Commission, to whose recommendations on resolving recruitment and retention difficulties in the Air Corps, healthcare - nurses, consultants, GPs throughout the regions etc. - and many other areas the Government is obliged to respond.

Thereafter lies the potential for this budget to focus on addressing the areas in which there has been little or no success under the two progressive budgets, specifically the issues of housing and health. There was much talk about what would be achieved by Sinn Féin tabling a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government. Motions do not build houses, but a housing-centric budget might just do it. State funding for the provision of social and affordable housing has increased but has failed to deliver. It is more about how the funding is spent and the methods used to achieve the rewards being sought.

See this speech in context