In less than a fortnight the budget will be announced. There is growing concern among commentators and experts that we are in a situation where spending is out of control and frankly, they are right. There is a certain faint whiff of 2008 around the place. The budgetary oversight committee has heard warnings from the ESRI, IFAC, the Central Bank and me that we cannot keep spending and cutting taxes and expect good outcomes. We have a Government that has no net spending rule. We had a medium-term framework published two weeks ago that had no spending ceilings, a threadbare national development plan published in the summer, and an opaque summer economic statement. We have no transparent way of accounting for existing levels of service. We have budgets that are, quite frankly, works of fiction, as Ministers trot into the Dáil at the end of every year looking for billions more to account for overruns. What is more, the budget process this year is cloaked in secrecy. When we ask questions in the Dáil and, as we did last night, at the budgetary oversight committee, about it we get no substantive answers whatsoever on clear spending plans. It is, frankly, unprecedented. A very serious credibility gap has emerged.

The summer economic statement is predicated on a €2 billion increase in capital spending next year, from €17.1 billion to €19.1 billion. As the Minister knows, the capital ceiling at present is about €15.8 billion, as per the August Exchequer returns. That leaves a further €1.3 billion in capital spending that must be spent before the end of the year. A Revised Estimate for the Department of Housing was tabled last night and included around €600 million in extra spending but we have absolutely no detail whatsoever on where that money is going. No updated departmental Vote group ceilings have been published and that is not good enough.

This morning the ESRI warned about overheating. Corporation tax is this Government's new stamp duty and is being used to fund more spending, with no tax increases on wealth or assets to pay for it. These windfall taxes are to this Government what stamp duty was to Charlie McCreevy and Brian Cowen. Rather than broaden the tax base to make it ready for the future, it looks like the Government will keep hollowing it out. The door is wide open for a massive VAT cut for hospitality but yesterday's National Competitiveness and Productivity Council report showed that there has been a net expansion in the number of firms in the sector, as well as in employment and earnings, in recent years. We have had no evidence from the Government on the need for a VAT cut. The case, in truth, is thin. There is little evidence supporting the case but instead of widening the tax base, this Government is proceeding to do the opposite: to hollow it out despite all of the warnings.

Why is this year's budget process cloaked in secrecy? Why do we not have real budget transparency? Will the Minister publish the existing levels of service figures for 2026 and clarify what exactly is available for new current spending next year? What actual evidence does this Government have to support the case for a VAT cut for the hospitality sector? Will the Minister ensure that budget 2026 broadens the tax base rather than hollows it out?

I thank Deputy Nash for raising this matter. When I was preparing for Leaders' Questions here today, part of me thought it was unlikely that I would get a question about the Government spending too much money. I am really glad that the Deputy has raised this because it gives me an opportunity to respond on what are very important issues.

First, on the sustainability of our public finances and where we are, there is nobody more aware than me - although I suspect that Deputy Nash is nearly as alive to it as me - of what the risks of the past were and of the dangers of them playing out again. It is a matter of which I am aware every single day in the context of the individual decisions that I make and their accumulation.

In response to the charges made regarding the level of risk that is present in our public spending plans at the moment, first I would emphasise the point regarding the scale of the budget surplus we are now running. Second, I would point out that by the end of this year, €16 billion will be set aside in the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund. That figure will rise to €22 billion by next year. That is the aim of the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and I with regard to deposits in those funds. Third, Deputy Nash should note that when I began my work as Minister for public expenditure, debt as a share of national income was in excess of 120%. Today, it is just slightly above 60%. It has halved. That is the work that I have done. I have devoted much of my life over the last decade to the case for running budget surpluses with, I have to say, not a whole lot of support in this House for doing so. I have done that in anticipation of those risks.

I rarely take out my mobile phone in the Dáil. I always try to leave it aside out of respect for the proceedings we have here.

However, I went onto the Labour Party website as the Deputy was making his points. Today on the website, Labour is calling for more spending with regard to equal early years programmes, public transport, housing and public sector pay. That is what the Labour Party is calling for at the moment. I accept the legitimacy of many of the cases the Deputy makes, but those who advocate care in relation to general public spending are always very eager to make the case for specific public spending proposals, sometimes of great value. While I do not believe he makes that mistake, Deputy Nash is surrounded by many who do.

The Government will bring forward a budget that will post another large surplus. Shortly after that, we will outline the plans we have to look at what we will do in the years ahead to moderate, in particular, current public spending and to get it to a more sustainable level of increases. I have no doubt that when we do that, it will be vigorously opposed by many.

I thank the Minister for his response, which was interesting from a number of perspectives. The Labour Party always makes the case for additional public spending, whether that is to meet the needs of demographic changes or existing levels of service. We do that transparently, especially when we are looking at the new investments we need to make our economy work and our society fairer. We are always honest that we simply cannot pay for the new services we require without looking at where we can raise revenue to pay for those services. That is the problem this Government and that which preceded it have had. The Government seems allergic to dusting down the Commission on Taxation and Welfare's report and identifying ways in which we can raise revenue in a sustainable way to support the childcare services we need, eradicate child poverty and build the homes we need in a sustainable fashion. In this budget, accepting that everybody in this House, regardless of their political persuasion, accepts that there is a need to increase public spending and target it properly, will the Minister accept that there is a need to broaden the tax base and that it is unwarranted and unjustifiable to hollow out the tax base by granting a VAT cut to the hospitality sector that is untargeted and that will disproportionately benefit those with very healthy bottom lines, such as McDonald's and other companies like it?

Deputy Nash knows I have the height of respect for him and the points he raises. He is correct in saying that the Labour Party is a rare exception on the Opposition benches in being willing to support, at times, sensible policies to broaden the tax base. He asked me my views on broadening the tax base. I will talk about what we have already done and what we are yet to do. There are: the changes with regard to PRSI to ensure that our pension plans will be better funded in the future; the changes we have made to carbon taxation, which, in fairness to the Labour Party, it has supported, to find better ways of funding the spending we need to make with regard to climate change; and the changes we have made in revaluing and extending the tax base with regard to local property tax, which, again, in fairness to it, the Labour Party has supported.

On the Deputy's point on narrowing the tax base, I am keenly aware of that, which is why the tax package we bring forward for budget 2026 cannot and should not exceed €1.5 billion. That €1.5 billion is approximate to the income that will be generated through our tax code by our economy growing. It is my strong view that that is the parameter within which tax changes should be made.

I really welcome the opportunity for a debate on these matters, including the broad economic policy of our country, but the budget surpluses we are running, where they are going at the moment, is a very strong response from this Government to ensure resilience and safety in our public finances.