Sean Barrett (Independent)

I echo what other Senators have been saying, namely, this is a difficult time. The table on page D.18 of the documentation attached to the Minister for Finance's presentation in the Dáil this afternoon shows that tax revenue will rise from €34 billion in 2011 to €43 billion in 2015. This amounts to €9 billion over the five-year period. As Senator Gilroy said, these burdens will come year after year.

I echo the tributes paid yesterday by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and today by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, to the late Brian Lenihan, who had to cope in tragic circumstances with the problem we are facing.

There is an immense burden. My estimate, based on the Minister for Finance's figures, is that the adjustment on current expenditure will be about one fifth of the increase associated with taxation. Current expenditure is due to decrease by €1.7 billion from approximately €48 billion to approximately €46 billion but the tax increases are to yield €9 billion over the same five-year period, or approximately five times as much. This is important to note because, in Ireland, every area of public expenditure seems to attract a lobbyist, and taxpayers are bearing five times the adjustment based on the figures in page D.18, as presented by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, this afternoon.

On the capital side, I was disappointed to hear the Taoiseach say on television that the metro represented a very good project and that he regretted not going ahead with it. There was never any public analysis and there are many Ministers who feel the project would lose money every year. We are now beginning to have capital expenditure analysed properly. It is a matter of having independent published analysis carried out in advance to determine the benefits and how they compare with the costs. It is a matter of determining the discount rate. Let us have this information discussed as a prospectus before rushing into projects. The metro project was rushed into and we spent a lot of money before it was to be sanctioned by the last Cabinet. I do not believe it has ever been sanctioned. Money was spent in advance.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, noted some days ago that Irish engineers much prefer to design new dams than to fix leaks. We may have to become less grandiose in our capital projects. We had a capital programme whose GDP share was approximately twice that of any other country. It has now been adjusted to a much more normal figure.

The same applies to current expenditure. I look forward to reading the detailed document we got on the comprehensive public expenditure review. Programmes that are too costly, involve too much bureaucracy and do not satisfy targets must be kept under pressure. I welcome the statement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform that he hopes that the Parliament will be involved in this. Discretion in respect of such programmes seems to be in the hands of lobby groups. I welcome the registration of those under promised legislation. I refer to lobby groups determining policy. There was an insider-outsider model of determining policy and the Seanad was definitely on the outside. We want to be on the inside and hope we are not subject to public expenditure cuts next year.

Agencies spend considerable sums on their own marketing and PR. This is counterproductive. In the past week, Ministers have been seeking extra money for projects. When we pointed out that they really must justify them, they agreed in principle. However, legislation should be coming to the House with a statement as to what one gets for the money. It should not be said that the benefits are obvious. In the case of tourism, the benefit was not obvious. As I pointed out, our tourism receipts were down by 31% and the number of tourists had decreased by 24%. Some 40,000 jobs were lost.

The Science Foundation Ireland lobby is equally reticent in producing evidence of its results. We are spending approximately €250 million per year. As the innovation report and an bord snip showed, it is time for these people to produce results. We need results and are trying to deal with unemployment. Of course, the beneficiaries of the scheme will always say it is a good idea. However, they are not showing us that they are useful and turning the inputs into outputs. When Ministers come before us seeking to spend money, they must refer to what the Comptroller and Auditor General, an bord snip and the comprehensive expenditure review have said about the proposals. They cannot just pretend it is obvious that proposed expenditure is worthwhile. When one proceeds on this basis, one ends up with the kind of debt mountain that we have.

The tax expenditure of €12 billion has not been addressed, which is a pity. I hope it will be addressed in the next budget. This sneaks into the system and is not published on budget day. However, it does cost the Exchequer quite an amount of money. There is a need to increase the economic expertise in the public sector. As we prepare for the Brussels summit, we have to point out it was not entirely our fault. As Mr. Delors has noted, the euro was defective. It did not have an exit mechanism, there was a one size fits all interest rate and there was no protection for countries like Ireland when huge capital flows from Germany and other large countries wrecked the property market. I hope the Government will do some burden sharing with people in mainland Europe when we redesign the euro, as well as take on board the criticisms about the way it was designed and implemented expressed by no less a personage than Mr. Delors.

We know that heavy borrowing produces debts for future generations. It is a King Herod type of economic policy. I do not know why that is sometimes described as being socially progressive. I am glad that the Government plans to reduce the powerful bureaucracy by 37,000. It had grown too big.

However, the banking system, which does nothing except lend money for governments and mortgages, has not yet been reformed. The accountancy profession has not reported to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on how it could be that accounts were prepared for banks in a way that made them appear solvent. We cannot impose the burdens of adjustment on ordinary people while allowing accountants and bankers to escape the consequences of their mistakes.

I like the new atmosphere I experienced in the Dáil yesterday and in this Chamber today because we have to work together to tackle our incredible borrowing mountain, as the debt to GDP ratio climbs above 120%, so that we do not pass that burden to the next generation. We must also address the problem of unemployment and involve the Parliament in the work of replacing institutions that have failed in the bureaucracy, the lobbies and the expenditures that were never properly assessed. This is an important day in Ireland's efforts to get to grips with the problems that arose over the last decade.