Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. Tá sé deacair, ar bhealach, labhairt faoin cáinfhaisnéis seo. Bhí am ann nuair a bhféadadh daoine breathnú ar cibé rudaí a bhí sa cháinfhaisnéis agus iad a mholadh nó a cháineadh de réir mar a d'fheileadh. Ar an ócáid áirithe seo áfach, glacann muid uilig go raibh cinntí deacra le déanamh ag an Rialtas. Cé go bhfuil cuid againn an-buartha faoi gnéithe den cháinfhaisnéis seo, caithfimid a admháil — tá seo á rá agam le fada sa Seanad — go bhfuil gá le glacadh le rudaí, fiú rudaí ina bhfuil éagóir ag baint leo i dtaobh pointe áirithe agus go mbeidh gá le cúiteamh amach anseo, mar shampla, an pension levy. Tá gnéithe de sin nach bhfuil sásúil, ach táim sásta go bhfuil an tAire chun breathnú air athuair chun athruithe áirithe a dhéanamh.

Cé go mbeidh cásanna ina mbeidh daoine thíos leis an pension levy, ní am é seo chun dul amach ar stailc. Tá sé an-tábhachtach ar fad go mbeidh aontacht sa tír, fiú muna bhfuil muid sásta le gnéithe áirithe den cháinfhaisnéis. Nílim sásta le gnéithe áirithe de, ach glacaim leis go mbeidh cáinfhaisnéis eile ann agus go mbeidh sé níos measa fós. Sa cháinfhaisnéis sin beidh cánacha nua á ghearradh. Tá, ar ndóigh, cáin an carbóin le teacht agus beidh cánacha nua á ghearradh maidir le tithíocht.

Táim buartha freisin faoi céard atá i gceist ag an Rialtas a dhéanamh i dtaobh an liúntas leanaí, sé sin, go mbeidh scrúdú amach anseo a bheidh bunaithe ar ioncam na ndaoine. Ghlac mise leis i gcónaí gur prionsabal maith a bhí ann, go mbeadh an liúntas leanaí ar fáil do ghach duine. Bíodh an ráta cánach ard, más gá, i gcás daoine áirithe, ach ba chóir don Rialtas maoinú a thabhairt, fiú do scoileanna príobháideacha, mar is buncheart é go mbeadh oideachas ar fáil agus go n-íocfadh an Rialtas as muinteoirí na tíre. Tá an rud céanna fíor i gcás an liúntas leanaí. Táimse buartha go bhfuil sé i gceist ag an Rialtas, an chéad uair eile athrú a dhéanamh sa chóras sin. Glacaim leis, áfach, go bhfuil cinntí deacra le déanamh agus sin an comhthéacs ina bhfuil an méid atá le rá agam, á rá agam.

Like many others, I am extremely concerned with regard to certain aspects of this budget. As stated on a number of previous occasions, however, Members on all sides are in the special and unusual situation whereby they must grit their teeth. There are aspects of the pension levy which I find troubling and I am glad the Minister proposes to make certain changes to it. Those changes will ameliorate some of the difficulties it has caused. However, there will be a need for a reckoning in the future and some of the injustices to which these emergency measures give rise will be properly addressed.

The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, once famously stated that one's worst day in government is better than one's best day in opposition. When I see the stressed look on certain Members' faces as they walk through the corridors of the Houses, I wonder whether that principle still holds. I sympathise with the Government with regard to the fact that it must make unpopular choices. I accept that dealing with the issues that have arisen is not simple. Nonetheless it is the job of every Member of the Oireachtas to try to take an honest look at what is proposed in the budget and to comment thereon. As already stated, there are aspects of this budget which I find troubling.

I wish to begin by making a point that may seem slightly extraneous. I hope to vote "Yes" in the next referendum on the Lisbon treaty provided that there is real substance to the guarantees that will be on offer, particularly those relating to social and ethical issues. However, I took exception to the incorporation by the Minister for Finance of a reference to the Lisbon treaty in his budget speech when he said that Ireland had been damaged by its rejection of that treaty. The decision to include this reference was unwise. What the Minister said does not make sense from an economic point of view. The current financial crisis began in 2006, came to light in 2007 and only began to affect Ireland in 2008. We have all been informed as to the impact of the international dimension — the crisis with sub-prime lending, etc. — on events in this country. It is obvious, therefore, that there is no causal link between the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty and the recession.

I make this point out of a genuine desire to be fair-minded with regard to this matter. It was wrong of the Minister to target the 53% of the electorate that rejected the treaty. His point had no intellectual credibility. If he was sincere in incorporating the Lisbon treaty as part of the current crisis, then I do not believe he has a proper intellectual grasp of what has been happening on the economic front. The point he made would have been better left unsaid. The causes of the current crisis should not be communicated to the people in that way. A budget speech is extremely important and should not be used for other political purposes.

Professor Ray Kinsella of UCD recently wrote in The Irish Times that Ireland needed a budget written not in the Department of Finance but rather in factories and on farms, in small businesses clinging to viability and in family homes and hospitals. I wonder how well the budget meets the challenge set down by Professor Kinsella. Ought we be concerned that the budget's focus is dominated by a preference to raise taxes rather than cut expenditure? I accept that the Government has a great deal of expertise at its disposal. However, I also accept that people have the right to harbour legitimate concerns and to ask difficult questions with regard to what has been decided. I wonder whether we will look back on the budget and take the view that we took the difficult choices that were necessary or will we see ourselves as having "bottled it" in respect of those choices.

There are some who believe that the necessary adjustments should have been made on the spending side rather than on the tax side. It is still the case that public sector spending, while important, is too high when compared with the European average, particularly when one considers wages. If the salaries paid to hospital consultants, HSE officials, university or third level lecturers — of which I am one — etc., had been reduced, €100 million could have been raised. I wonder whether people had the courage to tackle vested interests in the public sector in this regard.

The budget should have focused on reducing the cost of living. It is for this reason that I wonder whether this tax hike runs contrary to good economic policy. The abolition of the Christmas bonus seems particularly tough. The only thing that can be said in its favour is that people have been given plenty of notice of its disappearance. However, that is a small consolation. The abolition of the bonus will give rise to a saving of €156 million. In addition, there will be another appalling cut of €100 million in the amount allocated to overseas aid. The savings made in these two areas amount to €256 million. If salary increments in the public sector had been frozen, some €300 million could have been saved. In such circumstances, did people display the necessary courage? We must all have courage when we discuss making cuts because such cuts affect people's interests, which is not something that we desire to do. Was the necessary courage absent when a decision had to be made as to what would have been most in the interests of the country?

I raised the matter of our expenditure on overseas development aid with the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs some time ago. I pointed out that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, had given a commitment that his country would meet the target of allocating 0.7% of GDP to overseas development aid by 2013. The Minister's attitude was that Ireland is much better than Britain and that, per capita, it is the sixth most generous donor in the world. When I asked him whether he would commit to ensuring that Ireland would meet the target of allocating 0.7% of GDP to overseas development aid, he was not able to do so.

The tax take is shrinking and the figures in this regard are extremely stark. Tax revenues have decreased from €47.25 billion in 2007 to €40.75 billion in 2008 to an envisaged €34.5 billion this year. That is a massive decrease of €13 billion. In the context of such a decrease, we all accept that spending on everything, including overseas development aid, would have to fall. Why could overseas development aid not be reduced on the same pro rata basis as everything else? Why is it that additional money was taken from the overseas development aid budget? The easy target was identified and, yet again, a swingeing cut was made such that instead of standing at 0.58% of GDP, the figure for overseas development aid now stands at 0.48%. We are, therefore, moving away from the 2013 target. On what basis was the Minister for Foreign Affairs seeking to portray Ireland as being better than Britain? At least the British have stated that they will meet the target by 2013. We must ask whether people will die as a result of our decision to reduce overseas development aid yet further.

I am not stating that the money allocated in respect of overseas development aid might not be better spent. On previous occasions I expressed my concerns regarding our spend in respect of the UN fund for population activities. I worry about a number of these international quangos and what they do with the money we allocate to them. However, the fact that we might wish to consider how we spend our money is a separate issue from that relating to the need for Ireland to continue to be generous. One is only generous when one continues to contribute through the bad times. When one only gives money during the good times, one is merely posturing and being patronising. We have missed an opportunity to send out an important message that in the leaner times we will not forget concepts such as solidarity and that we will not fail to honour the great Irish tradition of looking outwards as well as inwards. Our overseas development activities are a matter of pride for us on the international stage but we are abandoning our position in this regard.

When we consider that the global downturn is going to have a greater effect on the developing world, we must ask whether we echoed the Pharisees' response in the context of overseas development aid by stating we are still going to allocate a large amount of money but that cutbacks must be made. We obeyed the letter of the law and not the spirit in the choices we made in this budget.