Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

I welcome this new approach to the budgetary process and I hope it will increase the transparency of what happens on budget day.

Balancing the public finances is always a difficult task, and the Tánaiste has had particular difficulties in this regard. In the past three budgets tax revenues have been grossly underestimated. In his first year in the Finance portfolio his tax revenue forecast was out by €1 billion, in the second it was €2 billion and in the third it was €3 billion. For 2008, we have gone from a pre-election forecast of a surplus of €1.8 billion to a €770 million deficit, a dramatic change. Economic growth for this year is only down marginally, with the Tánaiste claiming it will be at 4.7% when he estimated it at 5% before the general election. Projected economic growth for next year is down from 4.5%, as estimated in January, to 3.25%.

The Tánaiste is providing figures which seem to be setting us up for a negative outlook for the economy in the next several years. Is this for the benefit of the media so that on budget day the Tánaiste can announce a better budget? Some media commentators claim this is part of his grand plan to win the next election in five years. The brakes will be put on for the next two years and then, for the following three years, the Government will loosen the purse strings to repeat what happened between 2002 and 2007.

Some of the Tánaiste's statements were contradicted by what the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, informed the House yesterday on the housing market. He sounded far more upbeat than the Tánaiste, claiming manufacturing and services are growing well and the housing market's fundamentals are sound because of expected economic growth. The influx of people into the country, especially those aged between 25 and 35 years, and a baby boom will keep pushing the housing market for the future. He also cited rents, planning applications and the national development plan as further proof there is little to be concerned about for the housing sector.

There will be always, however, dark clouds in such a rosy picture. For instance, the Minister of State blamed the banks for overheating the housing market between 2005 and 2006, with 100% mortgages and 35-year terms fuelling a buying frenzy and being the cause of accelerated house price growth in 2005 and 2006. He may not be necessarily correct on this point. I found it surprising that the Minister of State did not have a problem with negative equity. It may not be serious when one considers that Ministers of State are paid more than hospital consultants but it is a serious problem in the housing market.

Surprisingly, the Minister of State had no problem with falling house prices, calling it "moderation". There is no such thing as moderation when house prices are falling between 3% and 5%.

Even if we accept the argument that there is no problem in the housing market, the economy is sound and the decreases expected in housing output can be offset by other parts of the construction industry, there are other parts of yesterday's statements that cause concern. The Minister of State claimed the Government was aware the housing market was beginning to slow down as far back as June 2006 because of the number of planning applications coming into the Department. The Tánaiste took this into account when drawing up the growth figures for last year's Budget Statement. If he was aware of this slowdown, I am surprised he is so negative about the economy. There is no need to paint a negative picture of the economy. By doing so, we run the risk of talking ourselves into a recession. If consumer confidence, a large factor in the economy for the past three years, is in any way affected, problems will arise.

The Tánaiste did not refer to Government policy and how it affects the economy. Benchmarking was a significant factor in increasing the Government's spending over recent years, adding hugely to the budget of every Department. Do we know if benchmarking was a success in changing public service productivity? While public service productivity compares favourably with that in other countries, I am not sure if it has improved dramatically because of benchmarking. Productivity in the economy has disimproved over recent years which directly affects our competitiveness, a significant problem for the future. There is a need for the Tánaiste to outline how we can come to terms with this.

One area where inflation is rampant is in the cost of services provided by the State. For example, levies for developments and other governmental charges are high. The Tánaiste must outline how he intends to tackle these. I recently received the budget for the Houses of the Oireachtas. Three headings in it came to my attention: incidental expenses, office supplies and pensions. These three matters alone have increased the running of the Houses of the Oireachtas by €12 million. The overall budget for running the Houses of the Oireachtas has increased from €113 million to €136 million. There is a loss of control in how we run our own house, so to speak.

The Tánaiste argues we need to start containing costs if we want to maintain economic competitiveness. When Ministers of State pay themselves the same as hospital consultants, senior Ministers pay themselves the same as private hospital consultants and the Taoiseach becomes the highest paid premier in the world, we must ask if we should start at home in containing costs and improving competitiveness.

The decentralisation programme has not worked. Pension provision will be a large issue in the future. Members are well looked after with their pensions, as are those civil servants who work with us. This may lead us to forget about the people who have a serious issue regarding their pensions. The Government's Green Paper on pensions which was published with much fanfare recently is a rehash of several proposals that have been around for years. On behalf of the population with no pension provisions, the Tánaiste must put forward some serious and concrete proposals to defuse this timebomb.

With regard to some of the comments the Minister made on the health service, I realise that this will be a difficult area next year because matters are just not working out as they were supposed to. It is sometimes said that if one says something often enough, people will start to believe it. The Minister said something today that I have heard numerous Ministers assert, namely, that patients are waiting for major procedures for only two to five months, and that they had to wait two to five years in 2002. That is not right.

I shall explain what used to happen. In 2002, when waiting lists were a major problem, a patient could get to see a consultant relatively quickly. However, once the consultant was seen a patient could wait years for an operation and this, obviously, was politically very embarrassing. The Government changed things around somewhat. A patient now has to wait years to see the consultant but afterwards will have his or her procedure carried out relatively quickly. It is not two to five months. Even the figures from the National Treatment Purchase Fund show that. When the number of times procedures and operations are cancelled is taken into account, the waiting period is far more than two to five months. The reality is that matters have not changed so dramatically since 2002. If one considers the waiting period to be from the time a patient attends a GP to the time a procedure is carried out, it is still a matter of months to years. It is not two to five months and I ask Ministers to stop repeating that because it is not true.

As regards information technology, there was a clear figure of €80 million to be spent on IT projects in the Department of Health and Children last year. The Minister set it out clearly in his Budget Statement but it has not happened. Only €49 million has been spent. I am not referring to the PPARS debacle, where €240 million was blown and conveniently reported on after the election. A specific €80 million was earmarked for other projects which were to have a direct impact on patient care and they were not delivered.

On the question of mental health, television advertisements are no substitute for implementing the Vision of Change programme. In my constituency, County Wexford, patients are still being treated in an institution that was built when Queen Victoria was the technical head of this country. Mental health patients in County Wexford are still being seen in the most out-of-date dilapidated building, and again the Minister has done nothing about it. That is the type of initiative on which he will be measured and he should do something about it.

Turning to education, we want to see what will be done about class sizes. The pre-budget figures indicate the same level of service is anticipated next year, yet it is clear there is a problem with class sizes. It was part of the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the election that something would be done about this. We need to see precisely what the Minister will do in the budget to improve that situation.

On the overall issue of the economy, I should like to see precisely what the Minister is talking about. The outlook does not appear to be as negative as he makes it out to be in some of his public announcements. Some of his Ministers of State, especially Deputy Batt O'Keeffe when he addressed the Seanad yesterday, appear to indicate that matters are not so bad. There are some clouds on the horizon, but these have always been there. Global issues can crop up at any time, but they do not appear to be as threatening as the Minister maintains. There is a need for him to be honest here and to point out to the Seanad not just the degree of transparency he espouses in delivering the budget, but rather what has improved as regards how the money is spent.

The Minister has pointed out clearly that €58 billion is a massive amount of money, but is it being spent wisely or foolishly? It is not hard to spend money. Spending it appropriately is a much more difficult question. Those are the matters the Minister should talk about in the Seanad, perhaps pointing out how he arrived at his figures and indicating how seriously he regards his concerns for the future.