There is a time limit of 20 minutes per spokesperson, with no other Members to contribute, as agreed under Motion No. 2 on the Order Paper.
I welcome the new Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, to the House.
Appropriation Bill, 1994 [ Certified Money Bill ]: Second and Subsequent Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
If I may intrude on the festive season I, too, would like to be associated with the welcoming remarks to the two new Senators. I should like to pay a personal tribute to the unique contribution of Senator Haughey to the peace process at a very delicate stage, for which I am personally indebted to him, as he knows. History will record his contribution but, as of now, confidentiality requires that we remain discreet at present.
Senator Mulcahy and I shared a constituency for a certain period. I should like to assure Senator Norris that not every Senator who is elected to this House wishes to make a career of his or her membership. Nonetheless, everybody who moves on from the Seanad is improved immeasurably by the high standards of parliamentary procedure and intellectual debate they learn as an apprentice in this Chamber; I include myself in that school. No doubt Senator Mulcahy will follow his desired objectives but I have no doubt that the quality of his contributions in this House will leave an indelible mark on the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I acknowledge also that the Seanad has handled the transition from one Administration to another with considerable diplomacy and skill, as evidenced by the contributions here this afternoon. I want to give an assurance to every Member of the Seanad, irrespective of their party allegiance, that I will continue to respect Senators and the Seanad as a body, in the manner in which I believe I have always done. This House provides a unique contribution to the development of ideas and the improvement of legislation. I heard what Senator Dardis said about working to improve legislation rather than opposition for opposition's sake or obstructionism. It is my intention, in consultation with those to whom responsibility has been given, to consult the Seanad in a manner that will ensure that whatever legislation comes into this House will leave it in an improved form. I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to wander from the Bill before the House.
The Appropriation Bill provides a good opportunity to review economic and budgetary policy in the light of the new Programme for Government. With your permission, Sir, I would like at the outset to focus on the main elements of budgetary policy which this Government intends to adopt over the next few years. There has been much speculation in the media in recent days about the budgetary implications of the Government's policies and I think it would be useful to clarify matters.
The Government's programme makes very clear our commitment to firm management of the public finances. It is no accident that, in the programme, fiscal policy stands alongside our other main priorities in areas such as tax, employment and administrative reform. As Minister for Finance I am determined that our commitments on budgetary policy will be met. This is essential if the Government is to succeed in promoting an innovative and enterprising economy which will produce the resources needed to secure the social developments to which we are committed in the programme.
The programme is quite definite about the targets that will be followed in settling the budget arithmetic. The Exchequer borrowing requirement will be kept prudently below 3 per cent of GNP and steady progress will continue to be made in reducing the debt-GDP ratio towards 60 per cent. The Government's determination that this will be its approach to budget policy is underlined in two ways. First, there is a specific target in the programme for the evolution of spending over the next three years. The growth of current spending will be kept to a maximum of 6 per cent in nominal terms in 1995 and to an average annual rate of 2 per cent in real terms over the following two years. Second, the implementation and phasing of all the measures to which the Government has committed itself depends on achievement of the budget targets.
It is important to spell out why the Government has set itself these targets. Control of the public finances is vital to Ireland's full participation in the movement towards greater European integration. This is an issue which is coming to the fore again and on which the debate is likely to intensify in the runup to the 1996 intrgovernmental conference. If Ireland is to play its full part in the future development of an integrated Europe and qualify for entry to monetary union, we must adhere to the fiscal policy targets set out in the Maastricht Treaty, which is why they have been endorsed by the Government in its programme.
Even if the Maastricht fiscal criteria did not exist, our economic and budget policies would have to follow broadly the same approach. Ireland's national debt is still relatively high. As a result, debt service costs pre-empt too high a proportion of our scarce national resources which could otherwise be used to support social progress, reduce the tax burden and establish the right environment for job creation. The only way to free up some of these resources is to reduce the debt ratio by maintaining low annual deficits. If we fail to take advantage of the present favourable economic climate to make significant progress in reducing the national debt, we run the risk of finding ourselves in a difficult position if the economic cycle should turn downward. A relatively high level of debt also leaves us exposed to rises in international interest rates and other external shocks over which we would have no control. The increases in UK interest rates are but one indication that the period of falling interest rates which we have recently enjoyed may indeed be over.
Budgetary policy is not just a question of getting the numbers right. The aim is to establish the low inflation, low interest rate environment necessary for investment and sustained growth. Soundly based economic growth is the only way to provide on a lasting basis the resources to support the developments in areas such as social welfare, health, education and employment spelled out in the Programme for Government.
Adherence to the Maastricht guidelines undoubtedly played a major part in securing the high level of economic growth here in recent years which, in turn, has made it possible for us to improve the public finances.
The Government's programme gives priority to tax and spending measures which will encourage job creation and promote social progress and equity, but if these aims are to be achieved and the budget deficit is to remain within the Maastricht guidelines, resources must be reallocated. I recognise that, on spending, the Government has deliberately set itself a demanding task. Growth in public spending will have to be less than that since 1990. Our programme targets are designed to ensure this. I can understand the concerns that many economic commentators have on the rate of public spending growth in recent years. They should be reassured by our programme.
We should, of course, keep the spending figures in perspective. Public expenditure is there to deliver services to the community, on which many people depend for survival. There are many people who call for reductions in spending but, of course, very few go on to spell out which area of service they would like to see reduced or eliminated.
Public spending is not out of control here, and I wish Members of the House, including Senator Ross, would take note of that. The spending increase seen in Ireland has parallels in other European countries. The increase here has been less than that in the rest of Europe. Irish public spending grew from 40.2 per cent of GDP in 1990 to 42.9 per cent in 1993: in the European Union as a whole it grew on average from 47.9 per cent to 51.7 per cent over the same period. These figures also show that Government spending in Ireland is still well below the European average.
While I do not under-estimate the challenge involved in meeting the fiscal targets and providing resources for programme commitments, there are many factors which will assist the Government. The international recession is now over and the numbers on the live register are falling. With more buoyant economic growth in Ireland and internationally the pressures on spending and on the budget as a whole may be easing.
Public sector pay, which accounts for just over half of all Government net current spending, has been a major burden on the Exchequer in the past, but public sector pay is now set on a moderate course. The pay agreement reached under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work has cost parameters which will ensure moderate developments in pay rates during the life of the agreement. This, coupled with the fact that all outstanding pay arrears have been cleared, means that we can look forward to seeing smaller increases in Exchequer pay costs in future.
More than anything else, the strong growth experienced in the economy over the last few years will help the new Government in framing its budgets within the fiscal targets. The economy has performed very well, despite an unfavourable international environment until relatively recently. In contrast to some of our partners, Ireland has seen continued annual growth since 1987. Our gross national produce grew on average by more than 4 per cent per annum in real terms in the years 1987-93.
In 1993, the rate of GNP growth amounted to 3.7 per cent — significantly better than either EU or OECD averages. Last year's growth stemmed mainly from increased exports of goods while domestic growth was slower. It seems that 1994 was even better with both exports and significantly, domestic demand making strong contributions to GNP growth. Improved confidence is contributing to an increase in consumer demand, especially for cars, and an increase in investment, particularly in the construction sector. Unlike previous years, domestic demand is strong this year, contributing to GNP growth and, consequently, employment. As a result, GNP is likely to expand by about 5.5 per cent in the coming year.
Our improved economic performance has been commended by a number of international bodies. I cite these to indicate we are not clapping ourselves on the back from a narrow domestic perspective. Recently, the Japanese Bond Research Institute, JBRI, upgraded Ireland's rating for outstanding Japanese bond issues and gave a positive assessment of the economy. They noted that our debt-GNP ratio has fallen, while most of the other EU countries have seen a conspicuous deterioration in their comparable ratios, reflecting the increase in public spending I mentioned earlier. Another agency — Moody's — has also upgraded the rating of the economy from Aa3 to Aa2 on the basis of our improved performance.
The economic outlook for 1995 is good. Assuming that international interest and inflation rates remain broadly in line with present levels, next year looks like being another year of strong economic growth. There is likely to be an acceleration in growth in the European Union and in the wider OECD area as the international economic recovery gets into full swing and becomes more broadly based. In Ireland, GDP growth could be of the order of 5 per cent — with most of this growth coming from domestic demand. This should enable a further significant rise in employment and a continuing decline in the numbers out of work.
The manufacturing sector sustained production at very creditable levels during a difficult year in 1993 — because of currency fluctuations — and is enjoying considerable growth in 1994. Figures for the first eight months of the year show that the volume of output in manufacturing grew by over 10.5 per cent over the same period in 1993.
While the strongest growth was recorded by some of the high technology sectors, the general performance of indigenous industry so far in 1994 has also been very encouraging. Given the international recovery now emerging. I am confident that manufacturing in Ireland will record another impressive performance in 1995.
Ireland's inflation rate over recent years has been among the lowest in the EU, with the rise of just 1.5 per cent in the consumer price index in 1993 being the lowest for many years. The latest inflation figures published last week show that, despite stronger growth this year, inflation continues to be very subdued. Our current inflation rate of 2.4 per cent is comfortably below the EU average. The latest manufacturing output prices for October show a zero increase on October 1993, and output prices were actually lower in October than earlier in the year.
At long last, economic growth is being translated into additional jobs and, more than any other single factor, the increase in employment will reduce pressures on the Exchequer and provide the resources the Government needs to implement its programme.
The latest employment data show that employment is growing strongly. The 1994 Labour Force Survey, which was published in October, indicates that to April 1994 employment expanded by 30,000. This compares with an increase of 7,000 to April 1993. Before the better than expected Labour Force Survey results, employment was estimated to increase by about 25,000 for 1994 as a whole. These forecasts are now being revised upwards to well over 30,000 — it could be as high as 33,000. It is expected that our employment performance will continue to outpace that of our European partners over the medium term.
This rapid expansion in employment which is welcome has led to a fall in unemployment. The live register at end-November stood at 271,700 compared with 297,100 at end-December last, a reduction of 25,400. This year, the live register is expected to fall by some 12,000 on average. I am confident that the strong downward trend in unemployment will continue in 1995 as the expansion in employment is maintained.
I pay tribute to Kieran McGowan and his team in the IDA for their extraordinary efforts. IDA Ireland, which I established as a separate agency in the implementation of the Culliton-Moriarty proposals, had its best year since its foundation; it exceeded its job creation targets by almost 50 per cent. We are now the single biggest location for US investment in Europe. This did not happen by accident. At this festive time I welcome the many IDA overseas personnel who are home for their annual conference. I hope the Seanad will join with me in extending our congratulations to them and to the management in Dublin for the extraordinarily good job they have done with great commitment and expertise.
Although job creation is greater now than at any time in our recent history, the drop in unemployment does not fully reflect the extent of this achievement. Senators will be aware that demographic factors have blunted the impact of the growth in jobs on the live register. In the year to April 1994, employment expanded by 30,000 but unemployment fell by just 9,000 as the labour force grew by 21,000 because of natural increases and the welcome increase in participation in the labour market by women. These figures illustrate the challenge we face. We have to ensure that the recent strong economic growth increases the economy's job creation potential. This is why the Programme for Government has continued to give priority to jobs — creating additional employment is central to our strategy.
People in our society will find it hard to get work even if additional growth delivers substantially more jobs. I am thinking particularly of areas where deprivation and long term unemployment are in danger of becoming endemic. Without assistance from outside agencies, many of the disadvantaged have little prospect of ever finding a place in the labour market. We have to avoid the creation of cycles of deprivation, where unemployment in one generation leads to unemployment in the next.
The programme contains a wide range of measures designed to bring about a significant improvement in opportunities for those without work. The Government will promote both public and private enterprise, especially small and medium-sized businesses in the early and most vulnerable stages of their development.
For people who, as a result of disadvantage, are unable to benefit from these additional opportunities, the Government will ensure that training and placement programmes are directed to those most in need. The success of the new initiatives we have planned will require the greatest possible co-operation between agencies such as FÁS, the partnership companies and local authorities.
The new Government's task is made easier because the previous Government has left the budget arithmetic in good condition. I pay tribute to my former colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party and to the then Minister for Finance, now the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party on his very successful track record as Minister for Finance. That Government was, of course, very ably assisted by his then partners in Government.
The budget indicators are comfortably below the targets in the Maastricht Treaty. Ireland has seen annual Exchequer Borrowing Requirements of well under 3 per cent of GNP in every year since 1988. A similar trend is evident in the general Government deficit which the Treaty gives as a primary measure of budgetary convergence. Since 1988, this deficit has not exceeded 2.3 per cent of GDP — comfortably below the 3 per cent guideline level. It is a sign of the underlying strength of the economy that this budget performance was maintained even during a period of low growth in the international economy which saw the emergence of significant pressures in other EU member states.
The general Government debt-GDP ratio has been placed on a firm downward path, falling from 116 per cent in 1987 to 96 per cent last year. Ireland's performance has been strong enough to secure the recognition of our fellow EU member states. Senators will be aware that only ourselves and Luxembourg currently meet the criteria for participation in the final stage of economic and monetary union. I expect the Exchequer outturn to be below the budget target again this year.
The Government will start work immediately on the 1995 Estimates and the budget. I have outlined the emerging budget position to my colleagues and they have endorsed the general policy considerations I have outlined to you to-day. I am determined that the 1995 Estimates will show that the Government is beginning the important work of implementing its programme and is keeping the budget firmly within the Maastricht criteria.
The Seanad will be aware that the annual Appropriation Bill gives statutory effect to the departmental Estimates for the supply services, both non-capital and capital, including all the Supplementary Estimates which were approved since the last Appropriation Act. The 1994 Bill appropriates to the various services listed in the Schedule the sum of £9,623,592,000 and it approves the use of certain departmental receipts as appropriations-in-aid.
Apart from authorising the Estimates and any Excess Votes, the Appropriation Bill has another purpose. It provides a statutory basis for the calculation of the issues which the Minister for Finance is authorised, under the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965, to make from the Exchequer towards meeting the cost of the following year's services before the Dáil has an opportunity to approve the Estimates for that year. Accordingly, the Appropriation Bill must be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before the end of the year to allow the provisions of the 1965 Act to come into effect.
I commend the Bill to the House. I wish you, a Chathaoirligh, and all your colleagues, a happy Christmas.
I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him every success in his role in Government over the next two years. The continuing economic prosperity and wellbeing of the people will depend on the discipline to which he will adhere and persuade his Government colleagues to adhere.
I welcome also the Minister's fair and objective statement on the state of the economy. Scarcely ever in my 29 years' experience in the Oireachtas have I heard a Minister of an incoming administration pay such tribute to the outgoing administration, albeit one in which he participated for two years. What I welcome is that the Minister quite rightly goes back to where it started in 1987 when the growth of public expenditure was tackled. The growth pattern of our economy at 4 per cent per annum in real terms is in sharp contrast with the experience of most of our partners in Europe. That is the firm foundation on which Government policy can be constructed.
As the Minister acknowledged, this incoming Coalition Government has inherited the public finances in their healthiest state for 27 years. The Minister has given examples which makes my job easier. The economic forecasts for 1994-95 indicate that at the end of that period the Government's current budget should be in surplus, assuming one adheres to the discipline applied since 1987. The ESRI forecast that as a consequence of this effective control of public expenditure since 1987, economic growth should give rise to 37,000 jobs this year and GNP will increase by 5.5 per cent. It is expected that the GNP growth will be followed next year by a rate of growth of 6 per cent. One can confidently forecast, therefore, as the ESRI has done, that because of shrewd, effective and disciplined policies since 1987, we now have a situation where sustainable employment is being created as a consequence of the momentum in the economy itself.
The business of Government, in any generation, is not to spend for the purpose of spending. The business of really effective Government is to create the climate in which the entrepreneurs, the workers, the doers and goers will achieve, advance and grow to the benefit of all of the people. I am glad to say that is what we have witnessed here consistently since 1987 from the Fianna Fáil Government of which I was very privileged to be a member. We tackled in a vigorous, disciplined way, albeit belatedly, the difficult problems that had to be faced. We are happy to see the benefits of the difficult decisions of those disciplined programmes benefiting the people. All objective commentators, including the Minister, acknowledge the healthy state in which we now find ourselves.
As a consequence of this effective and stringent control on Government expenditure we now have a solid foundation for further development which is characterised by improved consumer confidence, low interest rates and steady growth in real personal incomes which will obviously boost consumer spending and, in turn, stimulate employment intensive growth.
All of that said, it is now absolutely essential that we do not put at risk the healthy development in our economy since 1987 by any change of Government economic policy. I am very concerned at the first indication from the Government. I am talking about an increase of Government expenditure, which was by no means a feature of Government policies since 1987 where we were reducing it in real terms. The very most one should contemplate in Government expenditure for 1995 would be an increase of 4 per cent to maintain the discipline at home and, even more important, to maintain confidence abroad. The policies pursued by Fianna Fáil Governments since 1987 have laid a very firm foundation for this unprecedented growth that the Minister has now acknowledged and welcomed. They have generated external confidence in the econmy to the extent that the investment climate is healthier now than it has been for many years.
It is also exemplified by the fact that external investment in Ireland — I always acknowledge the primary role of the indigenous entrepreneur, and we are privileged to have many of them in this House — is now at an all time high with overseas companies employing 82,600 people at the last count, which represents a net increase of 5,300 in the past year alone.
It has to be noted that when the Fianna Fáil Government came into office in 1987 external confidence in the economy was in a very deep trough. Each year from 1988 there has been a pattern of dramatic growth from total employment of 65,000 in IDA-assisted companies to almost 85,000 at the end of this year.
I join with the Minister in expressing our appreciation of the IDA. I acknowledge the role it has played, but I want to assert that all of its efforts, policy, imgination and commitment would be of no consequence unless the investing public abroad was attracted to this economy because of its direction and control of policy.
I do not want to hark back too much to history but if one looks back on the coalition years, from 1973-77 and from 1983-87, the level of investment and financial provision for the IDA was at a significantly high level. Despite the commitment of public expenditure to the IDA in those years, the return was of a very low order by comparison to what we have seen recently. A good Government is not one that intervenes where it is not needed or that puts its toe into every boot. A good Government is a Government that withdraws itself from the areas in which it is not needed but creates a climate in which the entrepreneurs will flourish. We do not need to teach businessmen how to achieve profitability, any more than the Japanese or the Taiwanese need to tell their businessmen. What they want is a healthy climate and that is why we can report the success that the Minister has referred to today.
Foreign manufacturing companies currently spend £10 million per day in the Irish economy and their spending on Irish raw materials and services has grown by 16.6 per cent and 14.8 per cent respectively. In addition, because of the attraction of Ireland as an investment base, the average cost of each job created with IDA backing has fallen — which is very welcome — to £12,780, a decline of almost 20 per cent in real terms. That is significant proof of the attraction of Ireland for these external investments. They want less to create more jobs where previously they wanted more to create fewer jobs.
The growth in external investment is also reflected in a major growth in domestic investment and for this reason I wish to make two points. I find it quite extraordinary that the new Government in its very first act, or even before it convened as a Government, has drawn up a Government expenditure programme which will increase by 6 per cent in 1995 with further real increases in 1996 and 1997. That is giving the wrong signals to the external market about our direction. I cannot imagine any more negative signal than for the Government, to say, at a time when we have all the proofs of discipline and control, that it intends to increase expenditure by 6 per cent.
If I could extend the confidence I have in the Minister, in terms of his overall control and imaginative economic policy approach, to his Government colleagues in general, I would be a happier man this evening. Because of what the record shows and the demands made — and I hope his Fine Gael colleagues will not be the ones to cause the pressure here, I do not believe they will — I cannot have that confidence in the Government unless and until its members prove themselves worthy of it. From what they have said beforehand and from what they are doing now, I believe that a 6 per cent projection is little short of irresponsible at this stage. This irresponsibility is inexplicable and, having regard to the composition of the Government, the Rainbow Coalition, it can only serve to erode external confidence in the economy which has been such a magnificent feature of our development and growth since 1987-88. In addition, tax refrom will be severely limited by the commitment on expenditure and the many proposals for the generation of further employment will be frustrated by the short term, irresponsible approach of a 6 per cent increase in public expenditure. Any Government can spend money. Children can spend money. Give them goodies and they will throw them around. It takes a really good, disciplined Government to regulate and control public expenditure which, in terms of economic policy, is the first priority.
Even allowing for the achievement of the control of fiscal aggregates since 1987-88, it must be acknowledged that growth in public expenditure is excessive but with the commitment given by the rainbow Coalition we are faced with the prospect of a programme which believes good Government is one that increases public expenditure. Contrast that with the philosophy of Fianna Fáil which has demonstrated that good Government is one that regulates and controls public expenditure.
It is significant that the European Council recently acknowledged Ireland's major achievement in correcting the trends in public expenditure. We have clearly demonstrated that we are operating within the Exchequer borrowing requirements in line with the Maastricht criteria as has Luxembourg. It is in a different position from the Irish economy. It is at the core of Europe. The European institutions would be sufficient to guarantee the buoyancy, vigour and prosperity of the Luxembourg economy. It is smaller in size than my native county. We are in good company. If we are to be part of the European economic convergence and maintain our discipline, our inflation and interest rates, which have been a healthy feature of our economy, control of public expenditure is essential.
Tax reform is essential to the generation of sustainable employment. "Reform" is a very nice word. In the United Kingdom in 1988-89 there were grandiose tax breaks and a major increase in disposable income. If that happened here the economy would be over-stimulated and we would be back in the all too familiar spiral of ever-increasing interest rates and inflation. In 1983-87 the trend in external interest rates was downwards but our interest rates spiralled. In 1987, 1988 and 1989 interest rates went up in the UK but they came down here. The Minister referred to the negative impact UK interest rates might have now but we must adhere to our own disciplines. I know it is not the only factor that affects our interest rates. We have demonstrated that we can reduce interest rates even given an outside hostile environment.
There are inequities in the taxation and PRSI systems but we should have a disciplined and consistent approach. We should increase from £9,000 to £15,000 approximately the salary levels to which a lower rate of PRSI applies. The present level has proved to be a disincentive to employment. I am sure the Minister is conscious of that. We must target tax packages and incentives in specific areas to get more for less money. We must target the need to expand small business and bring in more low cost task forces and tax relief for that purpose. The continuation of a partial and well-regulated privatisation programme of some State companies, by negotiation, must be maintained.
I wish to pay special tribute to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the union movement for the spirit of partnership they have shared with us since 1987. The healthy state of the economy is attributable in part to their partnership in helping us implement the difficult decisions we had to take. Day in, day out the Labour Party attacked me and my colleagues in Government for being ruthless and cruel regarding public expenditure. The Labour Party attacked me for reducing by 800 the number of jobs in ACOT and in the Agricultural Institute. However, I thank the trade union movement who helped achieve that reduction while the Labour Party in Opposition followed the easy path of criticism and attack. They accused me and others of having no concern for employment in the public sector. Now they know, as the Minister underlined in his speech——
Look at 1977.
Look at the record.
I will put it on the record.
As the Minister stated, we now have the fruits of that decision. I have more confidence in this Labour Party Minister than I would have in any other member of his party had they been given the job he has. I hope he will adhere to the programmes and disciplines, from which he will now benefit and that the first signals from the rainbow Coalition will not be followed. If they are, we will return to a spiralling public expenditure as was the case when the Coalition which ended in 1987 were in office.
I congratulate Senators Haughey and Mulcahy on their appointment and welcome them to the House. I welcome the Minister for Finance and wish him well in his new portfolio. I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job. Senator O'Kennedy has left the House.
What a pity.
He spoke about 1987. At the time Fianna Fáil had a minority Government. We set the financial——
I want my turn so that I may take credit too.
——parameters and as long as it stayed within them Fine Gael supported us. Fine Gael did not bring down that Government. It seemed to be a good Government but it brought itself down. Senator O'Kennedy took credit for it being a good Government and for starting a revivial in the economy. Fine Gael can take most credit for that and for not bringing down that Government.
Is it not surprising therefore that Deputy Dukes is not in the Cabinet?
He is going on to greater things. The annual Appropriation Bill gives statutory effect to the departmental Estimates to supply services, both capital and non-capital, including all supplementary estimates which are approved by the Dáil since the last Appropriation Act. Apart from authorising the Estimates and any excess Votes, the Appropriation Bill provides a statutory basis for the calculation of issues the Minister for Finance is authorised under the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Act, 1965 to make from the Exchequer towards meeting the costs of the following year services before the Dáil has an opportunity to approve the Estimate for that year.
No matter how committed and energetic the Government is in devising and implementing policies to reduce unemployment, it will not be effective if wage increases are so high that we become less competitive than our main trading partners. There are too many people on the live register and the issue of unemployment, particularly long term unemployment, must be tackled because it leads to poverty and deprivation. The creation of jobs must be a top priority for the Government.
It is essential that the public finances continue to improve. This will free resources through the development of the economy and facilitate the tax reform measures necessary to improve efficiency and create employment opportunities. The best way to convert economic growth into employment is through reform of the taxation system. The levels of PRSI and levies have made PAYE and pay-roll costs too high. The difference between gross and net pay is too great and each year there is pressure on employers to cut their pay-roll costs and shed jobs.
The Minister is aware of the difficulties experienced by the small business sector and, in particular, by small businesses in rural areas. We have seen the difficulties caused by the new licensing laws under the 1994 Traffic Act. If steps are not taken soon to deal with these difficulties then the rural business sector will decline and deteriorate even further. I ask the Minister to look seriously at this matter in 1995. Special concessions should be given to the small business sector, particularly in the areas of taxation and VAT, where the present levels are forcing many people out of business.
Some people have told me that the loss of their medical card, increased rent etc., mean that it would not pay them to work. I am referring in particular to people in low paid jobs whose take-home pay does not match the combined benefits from social welfare. This is totally insane. Previous Governments have created poverty traps and the people caught in them have been condemned to a life of idleness and unemployment. This is one of the reasons the Minister must change the taxation system, particularly as it relates to low paid jobs.
I am delighted the Minister set out the position in which we now find ourselves and outlined where he intends to take us in future years. He said that our improved economic performance has been commended by a number of international bodies, that recently the Japanese Bond Research Institute upgraded Ireland's rating for outstanding Japanese bond issues and gave a positive assessment of the Irish economy. It noted that our debt-GNP ratio has fallen while most other EU countries have seen a conspicuous deterioration in their comparable ratios, reflecting an increase in public spending. This augurs very well for us and I hope the Minister will achieve the targets. I have no doubt that the measures in next year's budget will strengthen the economy in the future.
The Minister said it is expected that our employment performance will continue to outpace that of all our EU partners in the medium term. He said that this rapid expansion in employment has led to a fall in unemployment and that the live register at the end of November stood at 271,000 compared with 297,000 at the end of last December, a reduction of approximately 25,000. This year the live register is expected to fall by 12,000 on average. Has there been a comparable increase in the number of people taking up FÁS courses or working on FÁS schemes? In my area there has been an increase in the number of people working on such schemes. I hope that any reduction in unemployment is not due to an increase in the number of people working on FÁS schemes but to an increase in the number of people at work.
I hope the Minister will address the issue of the level of VAT on the clothing industry which, from an industrial point of view, we have a great opportunity to develop. If the excellent people working in the clothing industry are given the proper opportunities we could become world leaders in this industry.
I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him the best of luck in his portfolio in the future.
I wish to share ten minutes of my time with Senator Dardis.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister and I am sure he has noticed the positive spirit in the House. It is said that blood is thicker than water but this will not deter me or others from advising——
Does the Senator intend to shed it?
Having read the Constitution, it is clear that the job of the Independent Senators and this House is to enrich legislation, not to oppose it. I look forward to a healthy and useful Seanad in the coming years.
I am delighted to see the Minister in the House. I listened very intently to his speech and liked many of the phrases he used, for example, "promote development, spending restraint, lower increases in pay bill, growth which will improve Exchequer position, low inflation, an increase in employment and jobs a priority". That is the sort of talk we want to hear from a Minister for Finance. I am delighted the Minister is showing confidence in the future and that he is an optimist and realist. I am also optimistic and realistic and I believe that running an economy is very much like running a business. Given his background, I am sure the Minister will look on the economy in the same way.
The time has come to take a fresh look at the way in which we control public spending — perhaps I should say the way in which we do not control it. In the past we allowed spending to increase in areas where we believed we had no control, for example, social welfare and public sector pay, and squeezed all other spending. However, we squeezed spending in areas in which it would have been worthwhile to invest. I am delighted that the Minister referred to the IDA, a typical example of an area where we should increase expenditure.
One of the two points I want to make relates to the need to exercise stricter control over spending on public sector pay. We cannot continue to accept the position where public sector pay increases by several times the rate of inflation. When one is running a business there is a limit to the amount which can be spent. Some years ago a leading American businessman asked if the then Minister for Finance ever had to worry about where the pay bill would come from on Friday night. People in business know that there is only a limited amount of money and they constantly wonder where they will get the money to pay the bills.
There is a system of management which the Americans call ZBB, zero based budgeting. I am not sure whether this is an American or Japanese system of management, but it says that when one budgets one starts with nothing and we must work from there for every penny, instead of saying "that is what we spent last year and can we maintain spending at that level?" Under this system one starts with nothing and works from there. It is a marvellous way of restricting pay, you have to argue for every single thing. We should work like the business person who wonders where the money will come from on Friday night to pay the wages. We should set cash limits on public sector pay otherwise we will have fewer jobs. We cannot allow — as happened in the past few years — public sector pay to rise above the rate of inflation. That means tight control on every penny of public sector pay.
The very opposite should occur when we come to other spending. I recall the Merrion Street message to the effect that we have paid the public sector pay rises, let us now squeeze everything else at an equal rate and take 5 per cent off everything else. That is the wrong way to proceed. Looking at the great success of the IDA perhaps that is the area into which we should put our money if that is where we will get a return.
I loved the posters seeking help for Africa, a year or so ago which stated: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for life". We have to consider investing in something that will give us growth and success. That is not easily done and it is not an easy political decision.
At the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation last week, I spoke about returning from Enniskillen the previous Saturday and stopping at Ballyconnell, only a couple of kilometres from the Border, where I saw a magnificent hotel. This hotel which has created 100 jobs, if not more, had a couple of hundred cars outside it. People were being encouraged to visit a part of Ireland which they had not visited previously. It is difficult to decide to encourage development in swanky hotels and smart golf courses instead of helping the needy in that area but if it creates wealth and 100 jobs for the next century then we should not be shy about investing in the future rather than filling a gap. We need to set priorities.
An American writer, Petr Drucker. one of the best management economists of this century talked about the dangers of businesses feeding problems and starving opportunities when they should operate the other way round. Our objective should be to create the growth that will finance the things we want to do and to concentrate on doing those in the future. It is important to make a clear distinction between public sector pay, on which we must put cash limits, and areas which will directly help the economy to grow, and to invest in those in order to achieve our objectives. Some areas, no matter how desirable is investment there, will have to wait for that investment if they do not give a return in the immediate future. We must protect ourselves against spending too much in some areas and in the other area we will have to continue to invest. It is not an easy political decision but it will have to be taken. Therefore, I am impressed with the Minister's words today. Likewise I am confident that he and the team coming into office this week will examine the opportunities and identify the problems.
I will finish with a story worth telling. A British battleship commander out on manoeuvres in dreary, dark, foggy, uncomfortable conditions for three or four days saw another light in the distance and sent out a message to the signalman to change direction by 32 degrees. Word came back: "You change direction 32 degrees". The battleship commander was annoyed and frustrated and replied: "I am a five star commander — change direction". Word came back: "I am a second rate seaman, you change direction". By this stage the battleship commander was very annoyed and sent out word that his was a battleship in which the reply was: "This is a lighthouse". The battleship changed direction. That is a lovely story and I do not tell it because I enjoy telling it but because it shows up some of the challenges that will face us.
I do not like the Senator's policies but his stories are great.
Let us look carefully at the long term objectives and use all the information at our disposal. Let us not take chances without that information being available. If we have to change direction let us do so and let us not expect somebody else to do it for us.
I thank Senator Quinn for sharing his time with me. I missed the point of the Senator's story because I thought he was referring to the arrangements which brought the Government into being and not to the economy. I congratulate Deputy Quinn on his appointment as Minister for Finance and wish him well in that portfolio. I am sure he will bring the same efficiency to bear on that Department as he did in his previous capacity as Minister for Enterprise and Employment. I am tempted, once again, to force this matter to a vote to see what would happen and the arrival of the Government Whip tempts me even more, but on the assumption that Senators are writing their Christmas cards and are in their offices I will not press the matter. I thank the Minister for his assurance about the manner in which legislation will be dealt with. The House can work well in improving legislation and it is not our intention, just because we are in Opposition, to vote down legislation.
I would not like any party to be omitted from the self congratulation business. The Progressive Democrats were in Government from 1989 onwards and had a significant input into improving the economy and producing the figures, which the Minister has brought to our attention today. I was disappointed that Senator O'Kennedy did not acknowledge our input.
When the House comes to the end of its term the Independent Senators will also be able to say they had a significant input into the prudent management of the economy.
I thank God for Maastricht because without it I do not know where we would be and I would fear where we are going. It is to the Government's credit that it has accepted the Maastricht criteria. However, it is part of a Treaty which was voted on in a Referendum by the people and it is therefore a Treaty to which we are committed. When we debated the Maastricht Treaty, I made the point that it would be to the country's advantage if, whatever Administration was in power, it was obliged to adhere to those criteria which I regarded as important to the prudent management of our economy. That is why we must be grateful for the Maastricht Treaty.
The Minister made a significant point when he said that growth in public spending will have to be less than it has been since 1990. I say amen to that. We need to be careful when we talk about a 2 per cent increase in real current spending because the public takes that to mean a 2 per cent increase. However, that is not so. What we are talking about is an increase after inflation has been taken into account. The other point made was that there would be a 6 per cent maximum increase in nominal current spending for 1995. Again inflation is built in. However, we must be careful that we do not mislead the public by using words like "nominal" and "real" in talking about public spending. I could go on at some length on the points made by Senator Quinn but I will not, other than to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he said about spending in the public sector. It will not be good enough if spending in the public sector is used as a device to doctor unemployment figures or if the public sector is used as a vehicle for appearing to solve the problem of unemployment. If we were to do that we would be going down a dangerous road.
One of the very disappointing features of the excellent growth in the economy is that it has not been translated into jobs to the degree one would expect. It is orthodox economic theory that every 1 per cent increase in growth over a certain level will automatically result in a 1 per cent decrease in unemployment. That does not seem to have happened. I share Senator Burke's suspicion that FÁS schemes and increases in employment in the public sector are in some way hiding the real performance of the economy and suggesting that there is a better performance in terms of a reduction in unemployment than is actually being generated from the growth in the economy.
Because of the extent of our national debt we must ensure that inflation is kept under control. It would be very serious if we were to face a significant increase in international interest rates thereby increasing annually the burden of servicing our debt and eliminating the buoyancy in terms of the amount of tax revenue and money that the Minister has to disburse within the economy. There is a serious danger of that and that is why it is essential that inflation be kept under control. From what the Minister said this afternoon I understand that is his intention. The benefits of growth must be protected to ensure that the people who are working and attempting to create jobs within the economy are helped best by the Government.
It is evident that we must foster an enterprise culture. I have said repeatedly that there is a suggestion abroad that there is not an enterprise culture in our society. I dispute that. We have a highly enterprising and intelligent people, a highly creative people. It is a question of releasing that creativity, that spirit of enterprise and encouraging it so that people who take risks can reap the benefits of those risks.
We must remember also that Structural Funds will not last forever. We must begin to frame economic policies to take that into account. What happens when we get to the end of the rainbow? I am not an economist but I would like to know what is the effect of the Structural Funds on the growth figures that are presented. Are they factored in? Is it growth in the economy when we build and open a motorway in north Kildare?
I hope the Culliton report will not be left to moulder on some shelf. I know measures have been taken in respect of many of the recommendations of the Culliton report but there is still much to be done. It can still be a blueprint which can be used to effect. It is my hope that when the Minister drafts his budget he will take into account some of the things I have said to him in regard to rewarding effort and enterprise.
I have one final point which it is probably not appropriate to make now, but I will mention it because this is the only chance I am likely to get. In this country there is VAT on dog food. I am not referring to the dog food manufactured by a particular company in the midlands which I will not name and which has or may not have a director whom I will not name either. I am talking about dog food manufactured by Provender Millers. If they produce animal food it is exempt from VAT but if they produce dog food it is subject to 21 per cent VAT. Across the water there is a zero VAT rate on dog food. This puts Provender Millers at a competitive disadvantage. I will, therefore, use this opportunity to ask the Minister to look at that aspect of the enterprise economy when framing his budget.
Last week when I paid tribute to my Fianna Fáil compatriots on the way they dealt with us during the two years they were in Government, I had occasion to attack Senator O'Kennedy. I do it again tonight with as much pleasure as I did on the last occasion. The idea of the Minister, Deputy Quinn, accepting a lecture from Senator O'Kennedy on financial rectitude is akin to accepting advice on protecting the Treasury from emperor Bokassa or Papa Doc because he conveniently forgot that he was one of the people who sat around the Cabinet table and destroyed the income base of this country by removing, at the stroke of a pen, tax on motor vehicles and rates on houses. We are still suffering the consequences. Of all the people in this House he is the least qualified to offer advice on protecting the Treasury of the Republic of Ireland. It is a matter of great regret to me that I am unable to say what I have to say in his presence. I have many more notes relevant to that but there is no point in wasting my sweetness on the desert air.
(Interruptions.)
I have taken a vow to treat Senator Dardis with gentleness during this Christmas time and also because, now and again, we will probably have to depend on his vote.
What about Senator Ross?
Senator Ross is going to join Fine Gael some time this year.
The Appropriations Bill gives us an opportunity to range widely over the Finance portfolio. I welcome to the House my colleague and friend, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. I have no doubt that at the end of his tenure in that office he will have more than justified the confidence we all have in him. The idea of the markets having nerves is laughable because Deputy Quinn in the Department of Enterprise and Employment was the image of a Minister who did not have any sacred cows — if he saw one he would shoot it. He was engaged in modernising the economy and was recognised by all as a modern, far seeing, "can do" type of Minister. His restructuring of the IDA helped to create 30,000 jobs and gives the lie to the idea that he would be anything other than what he is — prudent and dynamic.
I would probably part company with the Minister's cousin on the issue of public expenditure which, as an expression, hides a great deal of pain in the public arena. As Senator Quinn stated, a company sets various norms depending on its income but — and Senator Quinn has a reputation in this regard — one must look after those most in need. There is a great deal of talk about transparency and accountability, but there should also be an audit of where people's money goes. That is not always apparent to the public. Senator Quinn referred to experts in the business world. Business people use a language which the public do not understand. There is also a political and a Civil Service language which the public do not understand. While we sometimes believe we are giving people plenty of information, we are telling them nothing. We might as well be talking in Hindi because they do not understand the language. We may tell the public that the Garda and other public bodies cost a certain number of pounds to run each year, but the ordinary people do not understand where their tax money goes.
The public should be told how much of its money is expended on the services provided by nurses, doctors, teachers, firemen, gardaí, social workers, dentists and so on. They provide a service and make life better for people. The Minister should also publish information on the large amount of money expended on grants to industry and business in terms of training, equipment and so on. I am not saying those grants are not necessary, but such information should be published. We should also publish the income one can get from shrewd investment in bonds and Government stocks or by playing the stock market.
I come from Cork and some people there are very begrudging because it is often termed the second city, but I detest that. I am not saying this in a spirit of begrudgery but in terms of highlighting what our society is like. It gives a wonderful life to a few people — something I do not begrudge — a good life to a substantial minority, a modest life to some and a reasonably hard life to others, but it gives a miserable life to far too many, one wrapped up in poverty, want, degradation and a lack of opportunity. While those people may share the next world with us, they share nothing of this world. If a Minister for Finance has any obligation surely it is to make life better for the majority of our people. That is in keeping with prudent financial expenditure as well as not only a Christian but a good conscience. It is in our interests that this country provides a decent life for all its people, but that is not the case.
The public audit to which I referred earlier would go a long way to towards providing transparency if it was worded in language that could be readily understood by all people. It should be sent to schools, universites and regional technical colleges for the information of students. People of all ages and at all levels should know where their money goes. Senator Quinn referred to the economy as a company — not a bad analogy — but the shareholders do not get much information. They are not told why they must pay billions of pounds in taxes. We are about to pass a Bill appropriating the spending of billions of pounds.
Ten billion.
I cannot even read the figures they are so enormous. Out of whose money are we legislating for spending £10 billion? It belongs to all of us, but it is difficult to find out where it goes. One should be able to buy a book which deciphers insider language, but such a book is not available. For example, people in pubs should be able to have a debate in ordinary language on spending public money.
I understand the Americans can indicate in a referendum where the money they pay in tax should be spent. In other words, if they wish, say, to give $5 of their money to the Third World or to a specific area of Government expenditure, they can indicate that in a referendum. I am not saying that is a good or a bad system, but at least they know where some of the tax money goes, whereas the general body of Irish people do not. When we talk in a global sense about public expenditure, GDP and so on, politicans, clued in business men and their consultants may know to what we are referring, but the ordinary person in the street does not. The measures proposed in the Bill we are about to pass will be financed mainly by the ordinary people.
I began by attacking Senator O'Kennedy and to be consistent I will conclude on that note. He proferred advice on financial rectitude to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, but I would remind the House of the Senator's record as a member of a Cabinet which took tax off cars and rates off houses without providing any other means of obtaining Exchequer funds. Not to be outdone, the former Minister of State, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, looked on the public service as a substitute IDA; if decent self-sustaining jobs could not be provided, jobs which the taxpayer sustained were created. That was his way of dealing with the crises.
I have no doubt the Minister will do an excellent job on behalf of this Government, and at the end of its term the idea that a Labour Minister should not have charge of the premier position — the Finance portfolio — will be buried forever. I wish him and his wife well and hope he enjoys his job because it is important to enjoy what you do. I look forward to seeing the fruits of his labour over the next two years.
I appreciate the warm welcome given to me. I have positive memories of the apprenticeship I served here on two occasions.
Senator O'Kennedy has already borne the brunt of in-house criticism, something on which it would be inappropriate for me to comment other than to say that whether we take a starting date in 1987, 1973 or 1977, we as a people have started to come of age in a manner which is a credit to us all. We have demonstrated that the political process can learn from its experience. I share the view expressed by Senator Dardis about the Maastricht criteria. They are an external discipline which will make my job and that of subsequent Ministers for Finance much easier. It is not only the Minister of the day who benefits from the Maastricht criteria, the people voted for that Treaty and all the political parties in both Houses have recognised the benefits of their discipline.
At the time of the collapse of the Berlin Wall an American historian of Japanese origin, called Fukuyama, had the temerity to write a book entitled "The End of History" simply because of the collapse of one distorted form of socialism. Anybody who looked at the turmoil since 1989 will recognise that the fundamental issues of history did not end simply because one particular political ideology, in its discredited form, fell on its contradictions. Constraints on the allocation of resources — which will always be scarcer than the needs prevailing at any given time — demanding attention, is one fundamental issue which has informed the history of political dialogue and debate within all sorts of Chambers and societies.
In response to Senator Michael O'Kennedy, we are now moving in a direction that will enable us to consolidate the gains made under different Governments.
Senator Burke referred to problems of unemployment, small businesses and the need to tackle poverty. He asked, in particular, whether the welcome increase in numbers employed was exclusively or substantially related to an increased participation in FÁS schemes. The answer is "no". The Labour Force Survey shows there are an additional 30,000-plus people at work. Increased participation in special employment schemes — and this is subject to correction — has risen from the late 20,000s to 37,000 approximately at present. There has been a reduction in the number of people directly employed in agriculture which will continue over the next couple of years because of the historic reduction in that sector. Therefore, we are recording not only a drop in the live register but an increase in the total number of people at work in our economy at present. I think I am correct in saying that there are now more people at work here than for a long time. The actual tax base has increased.
Senator Burke referred to VAT on clothing in respect of which representations have been made to me but obviously that must await a Cabinet decision on the budgetary package to be presented to these Houses. The original date for the presentation of the budget, Wednesday, 25 January 1995, has been changed to Wednesday, 8 February 1995, allowing an extra two weeks for the transition from one Coalition-combination administration to another, not an unreasonable postponement given the circumstances.
Senator Quinn referred to the optimism underlying my contribution and my positive remarks.
With regard to public spending generally and public sector pay which constitutes approximately 50 per cent of current supply services spending, the social partners in general, in particular the trade unions, within the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, have agreed to a much more modest array of pay increases over the next two years than was previously the case. The distortions in the public expenditure profiles that manifested themselves in budgetary form were aggravated in that commitments given at the beginning of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress were deferred because, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, our economy did not perform as well as expected, when those commitments were rolled-over, suspended and-or postponed. Therefore, to achieve a new Programme for Competiveness and Work, we had understandably to clear accumulated arrears, hence the distortion of the figures. In fairness to the Progressive Democrats, who have been accused and criticised in another sense, I should point out that these were accumulated commitments properly paid out at the end of 1993. Therefore, we are in a much better position now to limit the increase in public expenditure.
In reply to the points made by Senator Quinn and Senator Dardis about increased public expenditure, we have been very fortunate to have in place a social partnership which is increasingly becoming the envy of other northern European countries within the European Union as a consequence of which we have achieved moderation in our pay, albeit somewhat belatedly, and security in the operation of our economy, enabling people to take investment decisions, because they know the likely variables in a manner not possible within open market economies in which domestic costs, such as labour costs, are not planned and agreed on a rolling three-year cycle. It is not unreasonable that people who have committed themselves to pay moderation — which clearly the social partners and trade unions have done — are entitled to a share in the fruits of the growth which will flow from it. Senator Dardis referred to a figure of 2 per cent real increase. He is correct in that, if taking into account an average inflation rate of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent, it will be seen that one is talking about public expenditure increasing between 4 per cent and 6 per cent. We are saying it will be a 2 per cent real increase on top of inflation. Hopefully, inflation will remain at its projected level over the forthcoming two years and approximately 2.4 per cent for this year.
It is not unreasonable to say to a labour force, who have moderated their pay increase and demands over a three-year period, that they are entitled to a share of the net additional economic growth that will accrue as a consequence of prudent management of our economy. In this respect the Economic and Social Research Institute has given us a cautious but nonetheless very optimistic forecast of growth between now and the end of the century. If we are looking at average figures of GNP growth of the order of 4 per cent to 6 per cent, then 2 per cent of that additional growth being deployed on improvement in public services strikes a reasonable balance. The programme, A Government of Renewal, to which the three parties in Government have committed themselves, has set out a principle that, all other things being equal, we intend to share the fruits of growth equally between reductions in taxation on employment and improvement in the necessary provision of essential public services. That is why I take issue with those commentators and others who say that public expenditure should be frozen at the rate of inflation because there are still considerable gaps in certain areas of the provision of social services which need to be addressed. One need only listen to an Adjournment Debate in this or the other House and hear the demands for extra expenditure in specific cases because a specific problem or anomaly has arisen, to realise the justification for the principle I have just outlined. Indeed the Senator proved his case by requesting a reduction in VAT on dog food at the end of his otherwise fiscally correct contribution.
Those are the understandable and normal tensions in our kind of society and the objective is to strike a balance between the two. I agree fully with the comments of my friend and colleague, Senator Magner, in clarifying the background to those figures, eliminating the jargon surrounding much of the public language with which we have become all too familiar in the course of debate. I shall certainly explore the idea of communicating to our taxpayers what their money is spent on and how the community at large contributes. We are all members of clubs, societies, or bodies of one kind or another; we know our membership fee, which is uniform or related to ability to pay, and we know our rights and entitlements as members. If I understood Senator Magner correctly, he was suggesting something on similar lines so that taxpayers understand that their money pays for a range of services, that the quality, efficiency, or lack thereof, is related to the manner in which that money is spent. That will be one of the hallmarks of this new administration.
I respectfully suggest to Senators on both sides of this House that they read carefully the Programme for Government in which we commit ourselves to improving the quality of delivery of services to the citizen, as customer, as client. Particularly within the public service we have neglected the overall question of quality — as distinct from quantity — of service. The new Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance and Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Avril Doyle, will be responsible for co-ordinating and improving standards of service delivery.
During my term in the Department of Enterprise and Employment I came to the conclusion there was something incongruous in my being asked, as Minister, to present certificates of ISO 9002 to various companies in recognition of the improvement of the quality and delivery of their service when such a system did not obtain in the public service sector. I asked a group of horrified public servants why the Department of Enterprise and Employment could not apply, qualify and maintain an ISO 9002 standard in the delivery of its services. Why can the Companies Office not aspire to standards of quality and performance? They are not just buzz words; they are the constituent components for improving the internal competitiveness of our economy. We have to take full responsibility for the areas over which we have exclusive control to maintain external investor confidence in this economy. There are things that only we can do and it would be my intention, as Minister with responsibility for the public service, among other areas, with the help of the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, to focus on those areas. It is not a question of spending extra money, but of getting better value for the money already spent.
I thank the House for its courtesy and support in relation to this substantial legislation. I am acutely aware that this is taxpayers' money, not the Government's money. As I said in an interview over the weekend, I am acutely aware that every penny of public money is taken painfully and I am committed to ensuring it is spent effectively with equity and with justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.