Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

This initiative was our first opportunity to judge the new Government on its merits and on its own measures. I am sympathetic to the Government's daily mantra in the House, that is, to blame the current main Opposition party for the state in which the former inherited the country. This can carry some weight for a short period, but this is the first time we can point to the Government's part of the solution. It is something on which we can judge the Government.

The measure has all of the characteristics of an election promise that the Government has realised it cannot or is unwilling to keep. This is the second leg of a big back pedal by the Government on its election promises, the first being its promise to revise, amend and dramatically change the deal with the IMF and the EU. This budget - I am insisting on calling it a budget, given that it has the characteristics of a budget, including the applause from the backbenches to the Fine Gael Minister for Finance that we traditionally associate with a budget - is a damp squib that promised so much and delivered virtually nothing. One or two of its provisions are good. For example, the concentration on the tourism industry is to be commended and there are some other concessions here, there and everywhere, but the Government is tinkering at the edges. Where is the vision we would expect from a new Government that has inherited such an appalling situation? This has the markings of the Department of Finance. It has been conceded by the Government that this is being dictated by the IMF and the EU. There is nothing new, no imagination and no big picture. There is simply a tiny tinkering with tax rates.

I will echo the words of my colleague, Deputy Halligan. I cannot believe that the solution to the unemployment problem is to give a bigger mandate to FÁS, the most discredited agency in the nation. The Government intends to put 20,000 more people on training courses with a company that is utterly discredited, not just because of its junkets but also because of its training. The FÁS training schemes have been exposed as empty vessels in many cases. Why did the Minister not say, instead of promising to spend €500 million, that he would cut the FÁS budget by €500 million? Where is the promise to abolish FÁS? Instead of that, we will train people for jobs that will not necessarily be there at the end. There is no big picture.

There is one aspect on which I differ from my colleagues. We refuse to acknowledge the role played by multinationals in job creation and the development of this nation. Around 140,000 jobs have been directly created by multinationals and supported by the IDA, while 250,000 jobs have been created indirectly. That is one in seven jobs here. More importantly, this is the only identifiable area in which we can say the number of jobs increased last year, although it was admittedly by few. At a time of depression, when the economy was in decline, this sector managed to buck the trend and create 1,500 jobs. Why, then, do we not look to this sector - which, after all, accounts for a majority of exports - to support us in our hour of need? Why do we not encourage such companies to come in? These are high-end jobs; the average salary for a job in a multinational is €5,000 to €10,000 higher than for any other type of job. This is an area on which we should concentrate. We should not ridicule the prospect of reducing corporate tax if necessary. If it is necessary to attract more multinationals, let us consider the cost of doing so and say "Yes". It is estimated that a 1% decrease is equivalent to the creation of many thousands of jobs. That formula would result in the creation of many more jobs than the one that the Government, as so eloquently interpreted by Deputy Doherty, has come up with - a derisory figure.

The solution offered by the Government to raise the money has been touched on by all speakers. It is a serious problem when the Government sees a big lump of money and decides to pillage it. As Deputy Murphy so rightly pointed out, a high percentage - nearly 90% - of the pension funds it intends to raid are in deficit. They are insolvent; they are broke. Their liabilities are larger than their assets. Yet the Government says it will go in there and take €470 million a year out of these broken entities. That is the height of irresponsibility. It is also unjust, because these are people's savings. Let us not dress this up as something else: raiding these pension funds will reduce people's pensions and income. In addition, as one speaker rightly said earlier - I think it was Deputy O'Dea - if the Government can raid the savings of pensioners, it can raid next the savings of depositors. That is what will happen, because it is almost exactly the same thing. Reducing the income of pensioners will reduce their power to spend.

See this speech in context