Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I wonder if this debate will go down in the annals of the Seanad as the "six fish debate". This is a technical Bill which we passed before Christmas. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials, and I welcome his contribution which gives an illustration of some of the worthwhile achievements that have been attained with the increases in public expenditure over the past few years.

A remark was made earlier about efficiency. Ireland is regarded internationally as running an exceptionally successful economy and having exceptionally successful public finances. I welcome the fact that both the public finances and the economy remain exceptionally healthy. If I were a Department of Finance official over the past 20 years, one would feel very proud of what has been achieved over that period, which is nothing our history had led us to expect. There was a history of the Department of Finance written some 30 years ago, which was a very mixed review over the early decades of independence but the past 20 years has been an exceptional period.

One of the illustrations of that is the way the general Government debt to GDP ratio has been reduced to around 30% and is still falling. It is the second lowest in the euro zone bar Luxembourg. It is no accident that Luxembourg, which has the lowest such ratio, is also easily the wealthiest country in the European Union. Tax revenue buoyancy is continuing, and this includes both the direct and indirect effects of special investigations. I note that apart from the good outturn last year the Exchequer returns show a 9.5% increase in tax revenue in the first month of the year as against an anticipated projection of about 5%. The budgetary stance is expansionary but not imprudently so. The ESRI, in its latest quarterly, commented that the volume of Government consumption increased in 2004 by 2.7% in real terms and that that was less than the rise in output. In addition, inflation is back in line.

I read the Commission working paper on the second implementation report on the 2003-05 broad economic policy guidelines and what it had to say about Ireland. The report states:

After one and a half years of implementation, Ireland has in general made good progress in addressing the policy challenge that was identified in the country-specific part of the BEPGs, regarding the achievement of a smooth transition to lower, sustainable growth levels in the years ahead. In particular, further efforts have been made to improve control and efficiency of public expenditure, especially by extending multi-annual budgeting and by reforms in the health sector. As regards wage developments, relatively moderate provisions were agreed by the social partners in June 2004 in the new 18-month national wage agreement.

It is correct that the Minister of State and other speakers should stress the importance of value for money. The Minister of State made a particular point about the contribution that will be made by the carryover facility for capital expenditure and stated that money will neither be lost to the programme nor spent on something of secondary importance.

I wish to comment on the recommendation issued in the past 24 hours that the Dunboyne rail link should be reopened. Most of the cost of this project — over €100 million — will come about as a result of land acquisition. In contrast, the Midleton line, which is approximately the same length as the Dunboyne line, will cost only €45 million. I presume that virtually the entire difference in these figures comprises land acquisition costs. This highlights the importance of not urging or requiring State companies such as CIE to sell off land or State assets which might be needed in the future and which then have to be bought back at some vast cost. There should be a general rule that old rail lines should, at worst, be leased and should not be sold off.

The Quigley report, which was published last week, raised certain general issues on which I wish to comment. Many responsible Ministers and the Taoiseach face a battle to keep down the size of delegations that travel abroad. The difficulty is that in the case, for example, of technical conferences or matters involving various committees and working groups, experts with experience in many different areas are needed. While Ministers can give general directions and on occasion engage in a hands-on approach, Secretaries General of Departments — who are, after all, Accounting Officers — and senior civil servants have a responsibility to see that the numbers making up delegations are kept within reasonable limits.

It is clear that tighter controls are needed in respect of consultancy arrangements of all types and that, in all probability, fewer consultancies should be awarded. There is a sneaking feeling — I refer here to what has happened with successive Governments during the past 25 years — that while it is necessary to employ consultants to provide expert advice in certain circumstances, there is sometimes an element of patronage involved. The latter must also be seen in the context that there is quite an amount of expertise available in the public service. I am not convinced that it is necessary to spend as much on consultancies as is currently the case.

The money spent on consultancy contracts is a source of ammunition for Opposition parties. When I first worked in Opposition with Charlie Haughey and the Book of Estimates was published, he directed me to look at the figure for consultancies. The latter is always good for scoring points. Leaving the politics aside, however, there is a serious point to be made, namely, if we are concerned with value for money, is it being obtained by employing so many consultants? I should be the last person to denigrate the advisory system which, within limits, is good but on which a tight rein must be kept. Under the current Government and its predecessor, many of the programme managers have been permanent civil servants. Working as programme managers has been good experience for these individuals.

The main economic concerns at present revolve around matters such as the easing of the housing market. If that market is easing, it is doing so only very gently. I am not certain, therefore, that there is an immediate cause for concern. However, the issue of indebtedness does arise. People probably feel that low interest rates will be here forever but more prudence is perhaps required. The Central Bank places considerable stress on that point.

There is then the issue of competitiveness. In a report in early January, Deloitte stated that Ireland remains one of the least expensive EU countries for employers. There are huge add-on costs — involving forms of social contributions — in countries such as France and Germany. At the same time, there is a significant gap between Ireland and the Mediterranean countries and the new accession states, the costs in which are lower again.

Fine Gael has made much of the so-called rip-off culture. However, one can have varied experiences. I visited Senator Coghlan's home town of Killarney——