Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Devins. I question some of the propositions of my good friend Senator Hanafin on the use of the benefits of the boom years. We doubled public expenditure without necessarily achieving good results. We were selling houses to one another, while our real exports were not faring very well. There was waste — we did not run a lean economy and tight ship. Since the aim of this debate is to allow the making of pre-budget submissions, I will not elaborate on this and Senator Hanafin and I will debate the matter on a future occasion. He has a particular interest and competence in this area and I will be happy to debate it with him.

The philosophy that should guide the entire budgetary process has two essential tenets: it should be fair and it should look after the weak. It is not necessary to abandon these principles. I fully agree with Senator Hanafin that we must maintain our standing in the euro zone, maintain correct borrowing limits and keep our budgetary position in tandem with European norms, but within these parameters it is still possible to be just and equitable. The anger of the public which is palpable, as all of us who canvas with local election candidates know, is not predicated on a belief that there should be no budgetary adjustments but on the fact that the people are disturbed by the lack of equity. We do not want to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

There is no logic to abandoning our special classes. My local school has two special classes for children whose learning disabilities are worse than the norm but which do not warrant their going to a special school for handicapped children. They are doing a great job but one of them is to be cut due to budgetary constraints. This is a shame and wrong. My colleague Senator Healy Eames carried out a very good analysis and established that the cost of dismantling a special education class would be much greater than anticipated in that extra special needs assessments and supports would have to be paid for. It is much more efficacious and sound economically and educationally to retain seven or eight children in a special class. I refer to pupils who do not succeed with the resources provided in terms of hours and learning supports which are very generous.

There is no logic to taking money allocated for book grants and the transition year, as is the case with the applied leaving certificate. I refute the suggestion that money should be taken from carers who comprise our greatest resource, both in terms of saving money for the Exchequer through keeping people out of institutional care settings and in terms of their good work. They comprise a great national resource that we should laud on every occasion. They do so much good, bring so much happiness and alleviate so much pain and suffering. In addition, they save the economy millions of euro. Therefore, any suggestion their money should be reduced would verge on economic madness. We need fairness and, in talking about it, to bear in mind that there are tax shelters worth €2.3 billion. It would be worthwhile to focus on these rather than on the allocations for special education and carers.

We need to eliminate waste. It is bizarre that we are not using our excellent Civil Service and have created a set of quangos and other bodies to replace it. We need an economic stimulus which could be achieved through having a much more comprehensive schools building programme. I had three meetings recently with representatives of schools not included in the programme but at which projects are badly in need. When one considers the cost of prefabs and the lowering of contract costs, we realise we should enhance the building programme.

We should do a lot more to create green jobs. While there is a vague commitment in this regard, we should be doing a lot more. We should be seeking tax harmonisation, of which I am completely in favour, and working through the intergovernmental bodies to achieve it. We scored an own goal in providing for increases in VAT. We will have to be much more circumspect about tax increases. They are effective only if they increase revenue for the State. If a loss of revenue is the consequence, they are madness on every level. We must combine prudence, stimulus and fairness.