Derek McDowell (Labour)

I believe that Senator Mansergh mentioned in his contribution the renewed debate of recent weeks about the ideological colouring of the Government or, more specifically, the Taoiseach. He is right, since there is no doubt that there has been something of a change in the mood music surrounding the Government in the past three or four weeks. The Taoiseach has rediscovered his socialist roots, something he does periodically. Of course, we must look a little more carefully at the numbers before us today and what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, has been saying, to see whether there is any reality in it. The truth is that there is not.

These Estimates are particularly conservative. Senator Mansergh is right in his assessment of what we have to spend, which is roughly growth plus inflation, bringing us to about 7.5% or 8%. The Estimates, which are not the final numbers, provide for increases of 6% in spending, a fairly conservative figure by any standards. The Minister's contribution today has been reflected in everything that he said, including, I gather, in the course of his press conference where he introduced the Estimates. It has all been standard departmental fare and is fairly conservative, being all about prudent fiscal policy and the usual matters of which we hear from the Department. I do not blame the staff, since I would probably write the same thing if I worked there. My point is that there is no suggestion of a departure, a change, increased spending or changed priorities. It is a case of "Steady as you go, lads", with no significant change in policy, good bad or indifferent, since the days of the Minister's predecessor, Deputy McCreevy.

One of the real problems has been that the Department always writes the same script. It talks about prudent fiscal management regardless of whether it is spending 20% or 3% more. One has to examine the numbers to divine what the reality underpinning them is. I will cut to the bottom line. Senator Minihan rightly said that those of us in the Opposition must say what the alternative is: I believe that we can spend more this year. I will put that into some sort of historical context. In the few years after the last general election we went on an extraordinary splurge that we should never repeat. The Government has probably cut back a little more than necessary in the past two years, though in broad outline I would not disagree too much with what has been done since the general election, notwithstanding the fact that it completely contradicted what the Government said it would do. I accept that it has done a reasonable job of managing our way out of the downturn.

We must now examine the present position and what fiscal policy should be for the next two or three years. The bottom line is that these numbers are quite good. We are currently in a fairly healthy state. Growth of 5% at this point in the economic cycle is very good and affords opportunities. It is appropriate for those in the Opposition to say that we should consider spending a little more. It would be reasonable for us to aim for an 8%, 9% or perhaps even 10% increase in spending this year. That would increase the overall GNP share of spending by 1% or 2% — perhaps slightly less. It is not too ambitious, and I do not advocate the 20% splurges of 2001. It is a minor but nonetheless significant increase above that suggested by the current Government.

The numbers are very difficult for anyone to comprehend; one looks at them and wonders what on earth they mean. The first recourse for someone such as me is to look at the departmental statements, which at least give one some sort of notion as to exactly what lies behind them. I spent this morning examining the websites of various Departments to see what they say we will get as a result of the spending increases in the Book of Estimates. The Department of Finance was a particularly interesting case. I was half hoping that the Leader would be here, since I have got a few nice quotes from her a few years ago. I examined the statement of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, last week, when he detailed how the increase would be spent in his Department. The first detailed matter that he mentions is €9 million in 2005 to deliver integrated ticketing, an issue to which I will return presently. He goes on to talk about new roads, more rail carriages, increased capacity on the DART, park and ride, five new QBCs for Dublin, and a few other matters.

I mention that in detail because anyone who has been reading such statements, whether for three years or nine, will think that it sounds fairly familiar — and it is. Virtually all those matters have been announced before, some several times before. Some that sounded fairly simple have been flogged to death in an almost embarrassing fashion. I researched integrated ticketing, the first matter of expenditure appearing on the list of things to do issued by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. I found on the Department's website a statement made by the former Minister responsible for transport, Senator O'Rourke, on 29 September 1998, when she announced the accelerated implementation of integrated ticketing in Dublin. A few months later she announced that she had detailed plans to do it using smart cards and expected to have it in place in 2001. Thereafter it seems that the Government set up a committee to examine in detail how it should be done and decided that it should happen in 2002. When that year came, it announced that it would probably be done by the end of 2004. The important point here is that some of the announcements were matched with money or announcements of money that would be set aside.

Others announcements made on publication of the Book of Estimates are not matched by funding — integrated ticketing, for example, has not been introduced. While this is a minor issue, there are many others. The Minister announced accelerated development of QBCs to complete all 12 promised in the Dublin Transportation Office study in 1998. There are nine currently and another five are promised. There was supposed to have been 12 by the end of 1998 but it was announced last week that five more will be added to the nine in operation.

One wonders what is happening. A total of 3,000 park and ride spaces were promised in 1998. I would be surprised if a tenth of that number has been provided but funding is still being announced for additional spaces, notwithstanding that the tax break provided in this regard has generated no additional spaces. The Government made a definitive announcement in 2000 that a metro would be built and this was followed by a procurement process that went nowhere. The former Minister for Transport, Senator O'Rourke, even announced four or five years ago that Aer Lingus would be floated but we know what happened to that decision.

Are we being taken for a ride? Wonderful statements are made every year on the publication of the Book of Estimates, which contains grand plans, for example, in this case to improve public transport but if one reviews them shortly afterwards, most of the plans are not implemented. A few buses and DART carriages have been provided. I live on the DART line and use it occasionally. Platform extensions and resignalling projects for the DART have been announced annually since 1997 but trains are not running at weekends currently and the projects have not been completed, yet more money will be provided next year. People are entitled to be a little sceptical when they read departmental statements at this time of year announcing grand old plans.

While the announcements indicate a lack of competence in delivery, they also reflect a failure in the political system in that we do not pick up on this. Ministers should be required when they seek money for a project in a given year to come to the House and outline what they did with the funding approved in the current year. Our system does not allow us to do so. Former Ministers, would-be Ministers, all Senators and most civil servants agree the system should be changed but that will never happen because it suits the incumbent. However, the system of planning and overseeing expenditure is rendered a complete nonsense as a result.

I am interested in the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children's proposal regarding general practitioner cards. It represents progress but I am not sure where it is going and it depends on whether one is looking at half full bottles or half empty bottles. It is progress in so far as 200,000 people will have free access to primary care but they will not have access to the free drugs to which they are entitled under the medical card scheme. The Government is resiling from its commitment but this represents progress in some direction.

However, the proposal creates a problem in that it will lead to a four-tier health system. Absurdly, it is easy to say that in the House because every Member has private health insurance but the 50% of the population that does not will be split into three distinct categories — those who have medical cards, those who have GP cards and those who have no cover. One will pay for GP services, drugs, overnight stays in hospitals or consultants' services depending on the category into which one falls. The system has become incoherent, largely because the Government does not know what system it wants.

The Tánaiste, on her first outing in the House, stated the State should have a welfare role, picking up the tab for those who cannot afford to pay. That is a distinct ideological view, which I respect but with which I disagree. The State's role in the provision of health services, for example, primary care, should be to provide a good quality universal service, perhaps not entirely free, at the point of delivery.

However, the health system is an extraordinary hybrid under which certain sections of the population have different entitlements. This causes problems at the margins in terms of entitlement with potential employment effects and it creates inequities. In addition, institutional pressures are being created between different people which is evidenced by the competition for public beds between private and public patients. The Government has provided in the Book of Estimates for an increase in the charge for the use of public beds by private patients.

It is interesting to examine the philosophy underpinning that proposal. On the one hand, officials from the Department of Health and Children inform us, usually in private, that the introduction of a charge is intended to reclaim public beds from private patients but, on the other, they do not want to do so because what is referred to as a "health crisis" is not a crisis for people with insurance. The last thing they want to do is introduce a waiting list for those who are insured because there would be genuine problems within the service in the form of political pressure on the Government.

A statement of where the Government wants to be is needed. Is it intended to extend the proposed GP card scheme to others? Is this a step towards awarding the 200,000 medical cards, as promised two years ago, or will it result in the permanent institutionalisation of a four-tier system?

There is a consensus in both Houses on the overseas development aid commitment, which was not a normal commitment. The Taoiseach made a solemn commitment to the international community at an international forum four years ago, not only on behalf of the Government but also the people. The former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, is correct that the ODA commitment is our foreign policy and represents our intervention in Africa. Ireland cannot do anything by force or through political pressure because it does not have the clout. Our statement of what we believe and how we want to operate our foreign policy is the ODA commitment. It is a disgrace that the Government has rowed back on it, not least because the extra mile involved would not have cost a significant amount. It is a great pity that, for the sake of an extra €150 million over three years, Ireland is resiling from an international commitment, of which most Members are proud. It is regrettable that we find ourselves in this position.

We have choices to make and the social insurance fund must be examined in this context. The fund was in serious deficit for many decades but it has been in surplus for the past three or four years and it currently has a surplus of almost €2 billion. Given that approximately 1.8 million people are in employment, we have an opportunity to re-examine the operation of the fund. We should move to the notion of statutory entitlements and a more transparent system to operate the fund should be put in place. Trustees, drawn from the social partners, should be appointed to advise, though not control, the fund.

Work also needs to be done on how pay-related social insurance is charged because the current system is an unmitigated mess involving exemptions, thresholds and ceilings with the result that few people know the rate. In addition, a health levy is also collected, which is totally inequitable because it is not related to income and is levied at a flat rate on all income above a certain threshold. There is a need and an opportunity to re-examine the fund in terms of how it is levied and managed and I hope the Minister will do so over the next while.

I refer to capital spending. Senator Minihan stated the Progressive Democrats have never objected to the notion of borrowing for productive investment but the former Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made it clear that he thought any such reference would mean a return to the bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s when, typically, the Labour Party and Fine Gael could be blamed for borrowing money and getting the State into major debt. I thought the Progressive Democrats agreed with that but we must consider whether money is being spent well and there is evidence to the contrary. It is surprising that we were not able to spend the full allocation this year and that there is a €250 million run-on to next year, notwithstanding the fact that some projects finished early. I am not sure how it balances out. I assume the moneys for Monasterevin, for example, would have been budgeted for next year rather than this year. Therefore, they have been paid out of the allocation early. This clear failure to spend money is a bit worrying notwithstanding that we have improved delivery of roads projects on five years ago.

We must also consider whether the 5% allocation is sufficient. We are not making progress quickly enough on many capital projects, whether roads, broadband or the capital project needed to invest in the health service. We need to spend more if we can afford it. The 5% is a reasonable benchmark if we do not have more but we have more and should spend it. However, we should not spend it if we do not have the mechanisms and ways to spend it and cannot ensure we get what Senator Quinn referred to as value for money.

I have not done enough study on PPPs to be sure and confident of the reality of the story. However, the failure to attract private money into large infrastructural projects is worrying. I know there are pressures and that it is easy for financial institutions buying through private investors to stand back and put pressure on Government by not coming across with funds. There is evidence they have been able to put pressure on Government by saying they are not getting a sufficient cut of the action. I do not suggest the Department or Government should rush to meet all the demands of financial institutions because their only interest is the profit they make in the long or short term. It is nonetheless worrying that we have not managed to come remotely close to meeting the targets.

PPPs are not appropriate for everything. I have always had doubts that they are appropriate for educational projects and certainly doubt they are appropriate for health projects. However, I have no problems with them in terms of major infrastructural projects, in particular those where user charges can reasonably be imposed, for example, roads and public transport. The issue is worthy of debate. It is worrying that we have not succeeded in doing better in terms of attracting private money into the many decent projects around.

There has been little enough economic opportunity since the last general election, but we are coming once again to a time of opportunity. It is appropriate that we use this opportunity in a managed and reasonable way. We do not need a splurge or a spree. However, we need a managed increase and improvement in the amount of money we spend on public services. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to do that. Frankly, I see little evidence from the Estimates he has introduced that he wants to do it.