Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The proposal and the elements the Minister has outlined are strange and baffling. In terms of the language used by the Minister, it almost feels we are in a "Back to the Future" moment, with extremely Bertie Ahernesque language being used in referring to there being more people at work then ever before, things being better than ever and so forth. I sat in these and similar rooms ten years ago when I was very sceptical about that type of language. At the time I warned about some of the inherent dangers. I can understand the reason the Minister is delighted that more people are back at work because I am delighted too. I doubt that anybody in the room is not delighted. However, the tone of the language of quasi-celebration, with fist pumping almost taking place, except that we do not do that in the Dáil, is strange.

The crash happened from 2008 onwards because as the economy collapsed we could not borrow internationally. Around September 2010 the markets rated Ireland's debt costs as extremely high, to the point where we could no longer afford it. Once the debt interest rate went over 7% - John Palmer knows these figures - we were basically out of the game. There were many discussions about when the IMF would arrive with a package and the model it had adopted at the time. Incidentally, it subsequently did not adopt that model for France, Italy and Spain because they were bigger EU countries.

What I am hearing from the Minister is both intriguing and confusing. At the time we had the National Pensions Reserve Fund which, if memory serves, was up to €18 billion. It was certainly over €17 billion. It was nabbed by the troika as our first payment under its package. The money had been set aside, not in law but in general indicative commitments similar to the ones the Minister is indicating today, to pay for Civil Service pensions in the era after 2025 and potentially, although it was never clarified, retirement pensions paid by the Department for Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I was never clear on the second point, but they were the indications. I see Mr. Palmer nodding; therefore, my recollection is right.

We face the very same challenge on pensions, except that it is closer and higher. If the Minister said he was going to set aside funding to pay for the demographic changes occurring in the country, for example, I would understand it. However, the last such fund was taken in its entirety by the troika. I stood in a room with a tall Hungarian - I was in opposition at the time - who asked me if we were prepared to give everything up. The troika specifically had in its sights on all public utilities, led by the ESB. The Government of which I was a member held it off and there was a difference of views on what should happen in that Government.

I am really confused. Technically, I do not understand the status of the rainy day fund in respect of our debt level. I agree that the current level of debt is a negative in the assessment of Ireland. There is a profound argument that if surplus funds are available, they should be used, as has been done by the Department, something on which I have supported the Minister 100%, to recycle debt to cheaper debt at lower rates of interest or to pay down debt when it becomes opportune and advisable to do so. Even in the scenario outlined by the Minister today, that would be the most sensible argument. We would then have an enhanced or enlarging capacity to meet at cheaper debt rates in the current markets.

I realise it was the Minister's predecessor who came up with this idea and that the Minister inherited this horse, camel or giraffe - to be honest, I do not know what it is. I also understand and accept his comments on the contingency reserve fund. I was Minister in a Department which every year had to expend millions to deal with flooding, including in the Chairman's constituency. A couple of months after we took office there were extensive flood waters coming down from the Dublin Mountains into various rivers; therefore, I accept the remarks made on the contingency reserve fund. There is also the pensions issue. Dealing with all of these issues would make much more sense.

The Minister has not yet said what the rules for this fund will be in the context of withdrawals, except to indicate that it will come out of public expenditure. That is what I understood him to have said.