Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

It troubles me when I hear such economic analysis from the Opposition benches.The Opposition is the alternative Government and the country is in a very serious position. If the Opposition has to take up the reins of power and it entertains such notions, I do not believe the country has much of a future.

The bubble in the property market was caused primarily by two factors, if one examines the factors of production. One was the availability of cheap credit from the time of our accession to the euro zone and the other was the very cheap labour which was available on the construction side in Ireland from 2004 onwards. The Deputy needs to study the economic statistics to see where our balance of payments deficits emerged before she makes conclusions such as that the existence of tax reliefs was responsible. The problem with the tax reliefs is that the relief the Deputy's party introduced when it was in Government was singularly the worst tax relief of all time in the construction industry. I am still having difficulties in the Department trying to phase that out because of the number of unsold houses existing throughout the country which are dependent on the expectation of a tax relief on their sale. Deputy Burton was part of a Government which took that decision. While we are on Report Stage and I will not engage in further political exchange, that is the reality.

The mid-Shannon scheme is the subject of this amendment, which was proposed by Deputy Bruton on Committee Stage. The amendment would require applications for tax relief in respect of projects under the mid-Shannon corridor tourism infrastructure investment scheme to be accompanied by a social cost-benefit analysis. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, my predecessor engaged Goodbody Economic Consultants to carry out an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed scheme. Their report in March 2006 stated there would be a net benefit from implementing the scheme. The report's recommendations were subsequently adopted when the scheme was introduced, which included, for example, limiting the scope and area of the scheme, time-limiting the scheme and establishing an independent certification body.

In view of the cost-benefit analysis already carried out on the scheme as a whole and the highly targeted and controlled nature of the certification process, I cannot see any case for introducing a requirement for an additional cost-benefit analysis on a project-by-project basis.

See this speech in context