Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the members for their questions. I will go through each of them in turn and will commence with Deputy Kyne's questions. He asked about the legal basis for the country-specific recommendations. They come from two different articles, 121 and 148, of the consolidated treaties of the European Union. With regard to the Deputy's key question on the sanction nature of these recommendations, they fall under the remit of the excessive deficit procedure. Those are the recommendations in the area of debt levels, deficit levels and all the things that could contribute to that, whether that is public spending and all the measures that underpin same. They could, at a point, lead to sanctions but there are many different steps in between that we would have to through to trigger the sanctions.

In saying all that, I wish to emphasise that much, if not all, of what is included in the country-specific recommendations we would have to do anyway to deal with many of the challenges posed by our national finances. That direct answer to the Deputy's question on the source of all this is that it is the two article references I mentioned. The sanction nature of this, were that to happen, is mostly loaded in the budgetary end of the country-specific recommendations.

With regard to the non-budgetary CSR, it operates on the basis of what is called "comply or explain". That means one is recommended to do them but if one does not do them, the relevant Minister must give an explanation at his or her relevant Council group. In Ireland's case, nearly all of what is included in these country-specific recommendations comes out of plans or strategies we are already implementing or have already published.

With regard to whether the CSRs are consistent across all countries, there are some areas of consistent focus, such as, for example, the areas of budget, debt levels and the need to promote the kind of growth that will deliver more jobs. There is a fair bit of variation depending on the particular needs of different countries.

The Deputy made a point about public and private debt. The public element of the debt is covered off, in terms of CSR No. 1, which relates to the fiscal and budgetary measures that we are looking to implement. Some of the private debt is at least included in the measures in CSR No. 5, which refers to what will happen in our banks in terms of access to finance, but definitely in terms of CSR No. 6 which relates to the issue of non-performing loans, which is a different way of looking at the very high levels of private debt we still have within our economy. I would note that there are different indicators that the level of private debt is reducing. As Senator Hayden said earlier, one of the most difficult sources of private debt can be mortgage arrears and mortgage debt. At least there are some signs of stability and progress in that area at the moment, which is welcome.

With regard to Deputy Halligan's questions, I agree with him that jobs and employment growth is the silver bullet that can unlock so much else and all the different interconnections to which he referred. I disagree with him strongly on the following matter. If I quote him incorrectly I am sure he will correct me. He said we need somebody to tell us how we will create good quality jobs, as he called them. My answer is that is our responsibility but other people will give us advice. The European Union will do what it can to create an environment within which jobs will be created but, first and foremost, it is the responsibility of national governments and parliaments and people at the different levels of local and national politics to rise to the challenge. People will give us advice but the people who are going to do the work and come up with ideas and implement them will be the national governments. We must be consistent in how we talk about Europe. On the one hand, we cannot say it has too much power and, on the other hand, criticise Europe by saying that what power it has it does not use. The people whose primary responsibility it is to improve the living standards of people within their own countries are national governments. We cannot outsource that responsibility to other people or pretend that will happen.

Deputy Crowe raised a number of specifics to which I want to respond. Before doing so I shall offer an overall comment in response to his overall approach. He correctly made a point that there are a number of poverty traps. We continue to be aware of them and that is why some changes have been made to lone parent supports which make an important contribution to dealing with poverty traps. For me, a measure that I think is hugely important, and I encounter the issue regularly during my constituency work in Dublin Central, is the poverty traps that exist for people in private rental accommodation and people who are uncertain in work. That is why the measure that has been announced by the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, on the housing assistance payment, which was trialled, has now been rolled out. I know it is a measure that will positively affect a very large number of people by making those payments available in a way that will give them a bit more certainty about their ability to afford accommodation and will also give more certainty to people who can provide the accommodation.

In this case, much of it comes through landlords. That measure will contribute to the kinds of poverty traps colleagues raised.

With regard to the points made about substance and austerity, Sinn Féin is saying that it will abolish property tax, water charges and the universal social charge. In respect of expenditure, it will undo the cut to child benefit and undo all the painful measures implemented in the social welfare system. Sinn Féin also proposes to hire more nurses and teachers and to find more money to build more public housing and create more jobs. I would love to do all those things because I am keenly aware of the pain and suffering of people in respect of these changes. The question I have for Sinn Féin is how it will do that. How will it cut all these different taxes and abolish them completely? At the same time, how will it pay for all the things it says it wants to do? I know what people have gone through has been extremely painful. If our country was still in the situation where we had to pay an interest rate of 15% to borrow a single euro, we could not afford the level of social welfare payments and public services that we all want to deliver. If Deputy Crowe asks for substance, that is my argument for why we have put through these changes, which we know have caused difficulty. I want to hear how Deputy Crowe argues he will do it.

Many of the points made by Senator Burke are within the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality. It is not for me to respond as that Department will do so. One point to be aware of, which I will touch on in respect of the point made by Senator Noone, is contained in the European Commission document, which suggests that one of the costs SMEs regularly encounter is the huge cost of enforcing contracts and of legal work. Paragraph 16 states that legal "fees represent the majority of these costs", at 18.8%. This is the environment in which the Legal Services Regulation Bill is being examined and needs to be enacted. Senator Noone and Deputy Byrne exchanged views on the Taxing Master and legal costs. I am sure this will be dealt with in the context of the Legal Services Regulation Bill, which the Minister will prioritise later in the year.

Deputy Byrne noted something that caught my attention in paragraph 11, which states "Even though Ireland has a relatively young population, public healthcare expenditure was among the highest in the EU in 2012 at 8.7% of GNI, significantly above the EU average of 7.3%." Deputies Byrne and Hannigan pointed out that some of this is due to the awful economic recession, the granting of medical cards to people who need them, and the physical and mental consequences of what we have gone through. Nevertheless, the core point is that the level expenditure as a percentage of national income is high. The reasons behind it are matters the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, will address but the European Commission points to the fact there are still many different systems involved in how our money is spent and that the Health Identifiers Bill, which the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, is dealing with, will give people a better means of identifying where they are in our health system, where they stand and how they are being moved through treatment. It will allow our levels of expenditure to be translated into a better level of care for the people we represent. The Deputy also referred to legal services, which I tried to answer in my response to Senator Noone.

I agree with the comments made by Deputy Durkan. He asked me two questions about the level of far right and far left forces represented in the European Parliament. It strikes me that, despite the severity of the crisis that Europe and Ireland have gone through over the past seven years, none of the forces have been successful in being elected to national government. They have attained a high level of representation in the European Parliament but, with only one exception, I am not aware of any of them being elected to national government. With regard to their role in the European Parliament, this is a major challenge for them. They must find a way of working with other parties in the European Parliament and working with each other. This leads to the challenge many forces of protest face. It is all well and good saying what one is against but when one has a role of influence, one must say what one will do. This is something they must deal with soon in the context of the new European Parliament, which will meet twice in plenary session in July.

Senator Noone asked some points about the Legal Services Regulation Bill, to which I have responded.

With regard to Senator Hayden's point on SMEs and procurement, I must direct her question to the Office of Public Works, which is the lead body on that. I am not in a position to respond to the detailed point. With regard to the sum of €2 billion, I stress the importance of the overall goal, which is to get to a 3% deficit by 2015. Why is that important? Were it to be achieved, our country could continue to borrow at affordable interest rates and, if we can do so, less money needs to be spent on servicing debt and more can be spent on public services.