Maria Corrigan (Fianna Fail)

I am glad of the chance to contribute to this debate. I welcome the Minister of State. I am delighted we have this opportunity in advance of the supplementary budget on 7 April to put forward our views. It is clear that this Chamber's membership is drawn from a wide range of areas and represents various aspects of society. Based on their own experience and expertise, Members of this House have a particular role to play in contributing to these pre-budget statements. I appreciate that the Minister for Finance has a difficult job ahead of him. We are in challenging times which call for drastic action. The measures the Government has had to take over the past 12 months demonstrate the extent of the challenge we face. Our priority must be to stabilise the situation and bring about economic recovery. In so doing, we must remain focused on trying to support people to get through the current situation as best we can.

I hope the Minister of State can take on board a number of specific matters I wish to raise. I appreciate the importance of examining ways to increase tax revenues, as well as generating savings in State expenditure. The moneys involved in departmental and other State services are enormous. It is imperative that we ensure they are spent in the best possible way by identifying accurately the priority areas.

This budget should not be seen as being just about increasing taxes or saving money. While both those issues are important, we must also see it as an opportunity to maintain and grow the economy. We need to identify new sources of income and employment, which are imperative for the medium to long term. As a small country with an open economy, putting together a stimulus package such as that in the United States, for example, is not an option for us. We do not have the population for such a package to be viable. Because we are a small country, however, there is a limit to how much we can raise through taxation. We will only ever have a certain number of people in the workforce who can contribute taxes. We must also examine methods of generating additional income, whether through investment in infrastructure, research or education. A central step in this regard concerns the conditions attached to the bank recapitalisation scheme, which included making capital and credit available to small and medium-sized businesses. That is an important way of supporting those parts of the economy that must survive and those in a position to develop.

It is imperative to view the budget not just as an accounting exercise, balancing figures and so forth, but as an opportunity to develop the economy. One advantage of these economic times is they offer an opportunity to secure better value for money. I heard anecdotally from various local authorities that estimates on projects put out for tender are now much lower than they would have been two years ago. That demonstrates the availability of people for work and the degree of competitiveness that has crept into the construction sector. We should take advantage of this and use it to promote economic growth.

If we do go ahead with capital expenditure projects, we must get maximum value for money. These projects will create employment while they are being completed and provide much-needed infrastructure. Certain industries in the economy are doing well but need to be supported through banking initiatives and limiting bureaucracy that may affect them.

There are several areas I would like the Minister to examine in advance of the budget. I have heard of some instances of unemployed people being offered new employment away from home. However, with families and mortgage repayments, taking up employment away from home involves extra costs such as travel and renting accommodation. As there is no tax relief for accommodation for employment, many people in such circumstances feel it is not worth their while to take up the employment offer. While this is anecdotal, will the Minister establish if this is a factor in people taking up employment? If it is, then it is creating a false economy from the State's point and is not good for society.

I accept funding for home adaptation grants will be limited. Is it possible, however, to examine a separate scheme for patients occupying hospital beds who could be discharged if their homes were properly adapted for their needs? The cost of keeping someone in a hospital bed is far more than the cost of a one-off adaptation grant. Again, keeping someone unnecessarily in hospital creates a false economy. It does not provide best value for money and is not in the patient's interest.