Derek McDowell (Labour)

During the almost five years in which I had the pleasure of shadowing the former Minister for Finance, Charles McCreevy, I developed a real hatred of the word "prudence", which is most beloved of our friends in Merrion Street. Rarely did Mr. McCreevy make a speech that was not littered with references to "prudence" and "prudent". One develops an understanding fairly quickly as to what "prudence" means in finance-speak. It essentially means one does as little as possible with the taxation and welfare systems. One provides enough money for increasing public sector pay and, if one has a few euro left over, one provides for some capital infrastructure improvements. Ideally, one does nothing else. "Prudence" is basically a code for saying one will not spend the few bob one can afford to spend to improve public services, and for congratulating oneself on not doing so.

When Mr. McCreevy made his speeches, littered as they were with the word "prudent", he never took them to heart. He had no intention of being prudent because he had notions and schemes concerning what he wanted to do within the Department of Finance. In fairness to him, he succeeded in implementing many of them. Many of them were bitterly opposed by my party.

I suspect the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, may actually intend to do as little as possible. He may now be giving us a steady-as-you-go message. The Estimates we are discussing support that notion. The overall spending increase is predicted to be 7%. Given that growth for this year is likely to be in the order of 4.5% and inflation in the order of 2.5% or 3%, the spending increase seems to be part of a steady-as-you-go system under which no more will be spent next year than this year. This is also revealed in the detail of the individual Estimates, some of which my colleagues have mentioned.

The Estimates reveal that the Minister has no notion or vision as to what he wants to do with public services. It is true that the public finances are quite healthy, perhaps healthier than most of us imagined they would be two years ago, yet there is no vision regarding what should be done with them. We knew what Mr. McCreevy wanted to do when he had extra money — he wanted to give it away in tax breaks. He did so all the time. Given that Mr. McCreevy is safely over in Brussels, the Government in its current manifestation says it does not want to go down this road but wants to improve public services. However, there is no alternative vision and we get no sense from the Government of what exactly it wants to do with public services, including the health service. In so far as we do have grand plans, they have no credibility.

This is a problem not only for the Government but for all who want to see serious and sustained improvements in public services. I have said this many times in the House. It becomes more difficult for those of us who want to see sustained improvements to argue for them if the general impression of the public is that spending thereon is a waste of money and that it has been misled or lied to consistently over the years. The examples are many and I will not elaborate on them because I and other Senators have done so on previous occasions.

It is now clear that the 2001 health strategy was entirely bogus and that there was never any serious intent or commitment to delivering it. Senator Mansergh mentioned the comments of the vice president of the Irish Medical Organisation some days ago. He did not mention that she also stated the commitment made in 2001 to bring 3,000 extra beds into the health system within ten years has so far resulted in no extra beds at all. The net number of inpatient beds in our hospitals is now lower than it was in 2001. Given that such an important linchpin of the 2001 strategy has clearly proven to be bogus, it is very difficult to invest any credibility in the plan at all.

The same is true of the national spatial strategy. When it was put under any measure of pressure, especially on foot of the decentralisation plans some months after it was published, it was proven not to be worth the paper it was written on. We can hardly be surprised that people have invested no credibility in the Transport 21 plan recently announced by the Government given that virtually all its individual elements had been announced more than once over the past ten years or so. We have a problem in that the Government has no vision for the public services. It will take any alternative Government some time to deal with this.

Let me consider some of the individual Estimates. I was struck by the headline increase of 10% in health spending, which on the face of it appears to be quite generous. However, the health Estimate is symptomatic of the underlying problems associated with so many of the other Estimates. In the first instance, at least half of the increase will go towards increases in pay or personnel. Only €250 million to €400 million, depending on how one counts it, will actually be spent on improving services.

I give due credit to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, as much as to the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, for following through on the commitment made in last year's budget to increase the number of residential places for disability and mental health. It is clear that when the Minister for Finance has an interest in and commitment to an area, as he clearly developed during his time as Minister for Health and Children if he did not have it beforehand, there is follow through. That is clear in the health Estimates.

However, nowhere else is there follow through. On many occasions we have examined the 2002 commitments of this Government with regard to ending waiting lists, providing medical cards and so forth. It has broken those promises. We do not need to go back to 2002. Consider what happened last year when the current Minister, Deputy Harney, took office. The central feature of her health budget last year was the €70 million additional allocation to accident and emergency services. We were told that the problem with accident and emergency services would be solved before the end of March, if memory serves. We were then told it would be solved before Easter and then that it would be early summer. It has not yet been solved.

Not only has it not been solved, it appears to have been forgotten. There is no specific commitment of money in this year's Estimates for accident and emergency services. We are told that the improvements undertaken last year are continuing. That is another way of saying that most of them have not been delivered, which will not be a surprise to anybody since the problem is as bad now as it was then.

Last year, the Minister also gave a commitment to provide 30,000 additional normal medical cards and up to 200,000 doctor-only cards. We are aware of the problems that have bedevilled the doctor-only cards. As a result, virtually none has been issued. One would not have thought that the same problems should apply to the 30,000 additional medical cards which were promised last year. However, the additional figure is closer to 2,000 since last year. What has gone wrong? Where is the planning?

It is no surprise that when people look at the detail of commitments made, even as recently as in last year's budget, they no longer take them seriously. What people get is the Estimates, a fine document that nobody can understand. That is hardly a surprise given that it contains large figures which do not mean anything to anybody. They also get detailed press releases from Departments. They cannot understand the Book of Estimates and they know from experience that the press releases do not have substance within a short time. This is leading to cynicism, which is becoming a problem.

There is a difficulty with capital funding. Senator Mansergh mentioned the article in the Belfast Telegraph last week. We are spending far less than we can reasonably afford to spend on infrastructure. It is true that in the late 1990s there was a capacity problem in the construction industry. It was difficult to get motorways built at reasonable cost because, frankly, Irish contractors were not up to the job. There were also a limited number of competitors in the market and it was difficult to get tenders at reasonable prices. That is no longer the case. The construction industry has changed dramatically in the past three or four years. There is significant additional capacity in the system and we have more experience. There is no reason not to spend a great deal more money more quickly and still expect to complete the project reasonably, within budget and to get good value for money.

In that context, the fact that we did not spend €285 million of the capital expenditure provision for this year is remarkable and requires a reasonable explanation. Neither did we spend €236 million of the 2004 allocation for which there was no explanation. It appears that the carryover facility which Departments now enjoy is leading to a system where they carryover their maximum allocation every year. It is becoming institutionalised within the system. It was never intended to be that way or to allow for such significant underspend. One could say that otherwise the Departments would just spend the money on things that had not been worked out properly and the money would be wasted. It has to be welcomed that they are not wasting the funding. Nonetheless, it is remarkable.

Even in Departments that are regularly crying out for money, such as the Department of Transport and the Department of Health and Children, there is a significant capital underspend. It is approximately €56 million in the Department of Health and Children this year and approximately €100 million in the Department of Transport. We are entitled to a decent explanation for this. For years we were told that things could not be done because we could not afford it. Now, the money has been allocated to the Departments which claim to need it but they cannot spend it. That requires an explanation from the Government and from the Departments concerned but that explanation has not been forthcoming.

The policy on the Garda is remarkable. This is an extraordinary situation where there is a significant increase in the funding provided by the Department of Finance for the Garda Síochána yet there is no agreement between the two Departments and Ministers as to what it will achieve and how quickly it will achieve it. The Minister is well aware that there is great public sensitivity about the issue of crime. Virtually everybody who examines this issue agrees there is a need for additional gardaí on the streets. The Government has been aware of this for some time and promised to provide 2,000 extra gardaí. We do not yet have them and it is clear they will not be provided by the time of the next election. If Senator Mansergh believes that does not matter, he is in for a rude awakening in a couple of years.

The least we deserve is clarity on this matter. We need to know that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. If it is the case, as is suggested, that he had not factored in the number of gardaí who are retiring, it is difficult to believe that could have been done accidentally. It is clear the Minister is playing games.

There is also a clear commitment with regard to education. There were few enough commitments in 2002 but one was that most, if not all, children under nine years of age would be in classes of under 20 pupils by the next election. At present, there are 100,000 children in classes of over 30 pupils. Notwithstanding the employment of 200 extra teachers this year and 300 next year, the Government will not come close to meeting its stated target on the pupil-teacher ratio. We must confront the fact that while the overall averages might look good, there are serious blackspots, particularly in Kildare, Meath and parts of west Dublin where a large number of classes have more than 30 children, and in some cases more than 33 or 34. In many cases that is the norm. That is unacceptable.

I heard Deputy Andrews from Dún Laoghaire speaking in the Dáil debate last evening. He said it must be terrible for Opposition spokespersons at this time of the year when the Government announces all its grand plans. I have news for the Deputy. It is not terrible because we just do not believe the Government, nor does the public.