Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Government's jobs initiative. I extend best wishes to the Minister without Portfolio, Deputy Brendan Howlin, in his new job. I know he will use to good effect the Croke Park agreement with which the Labour Party agreed and the Fine Gael Party disagreed. The agreement provides flexibility and is the bedrock on which we can transform the public service.

I have never accepted the view that public servants are generally inefficient or unwilling to work. While I fully recognise the need for radical change to the way the public service works, anyone who believes it can operate on the same system as the private sector has clearly not worked in both sectors. The norms and requirements in terms of information and justification of public sector decisions are completely different from requirements in the private sector.

During my time as Minister for Social Protection, I observed a change in attitude. For example, in March 2010 the previous Government announced that we intended to break up and move FÁS. By the end of the year, we had secured a comprehensive service level agreement between the Department and FÁS in which the latter agreed, in principle, to come within the remit of the Department again. In the same period we managed to integrate the community welfare office service into the Department of Social Protection, thus achieving an objective that had been sought for many years.

I wish the Minister well in implementing the Croke Park agreement and ensuring we obtain from it the maximum benefits for public servants and citizens. I also wish him well with his expenditure review. During my time in government I went through all the Estimates in my Department, including in the years before the hard times arrived, seeking ways to refocus expenditure. There are two types of waste - that which can be saved and that which cannot be saved - and it is the latter which breaks one's heart. The Minister will find that the figures on proposed savings which were bandied about when the Government parties were in opposition - I refer in particular to those cited by the Fine Gael Party spokesperson on health at the time - will not be easily realised. I will watch with interest what the Minister does in this regard.

No one could argue with some of the elements in yesterday's jobs initiative. For example, the changes made on VAT and measures to stimulate tourism are positive and I am big enough to recognise that is the case. However, when I compare the initiative with the promises made by the Government parties while in opposition I am reminded of the answer given by a person who had previously held an important position when asked if he was busy in a new post. He stated: "I am busy, ach rudaí beaga", in other words, the little things. The jobs strategy brings to mind this reply in that it has good elements but they are all rudaí beaga and a far cry from what the Opposition told us it would be able to achieve if it got into government. Where, for example, is the investment bank which was to be funded by €2 billion from the National Pension Reserve Fund and a further €18 billion to be plucked from the air? To where did this €20 billion investment bank and the 100,000 jobs promised by the Fine Gael Party disappear? None of this is mentioned in the jobs initiative. However, bíonn gach tús lag - every beginning is weak - and I welcome the positive elements of the initiative.

I propose to address a number of specific issues in the statement made by the Minister for Finance. I am mesmerised with the Government's recycling of measures that were already in train. While I knew the Green Party was keen on recycling, it now emerges that Fine Gael and the Labour Party are even more enthusiastic about it. The Government states it will create 20,000 jobs through job activation measures and establish a new employment action programme. As Minister for Social Protection in the previous Government, I had all these measures in train. Before Christmas, we announced 13,000 activation places in the budget, of which 5,000 were in the Tús programme. In reply to a parliamentary question I asked the Minister for Social Protection last night, she indicated that only 1,000 of these jobs would be in place by the end of the first half of this year. This means 4,000 positions that we had created and which were linked to the employment action programme will not be filled.

The Government also announced a national internship scheme in the private and public sectors. I remember this scheme being announced in the previous budget. It has not been implemented and I understand the Government may be making improvements in the area of bureaucracy, which is welcome given that I fought to keep the scheme simple. Nevertheless, it is not a new scheme. I changed legislation at Christmas in three areas, namely, labour, employment and social welfare law, to facilitate the scheme. We proposed to allow employers pay employees €100 per week under the scheme, a figure the Government has reduced to €50. There is, therefore, nothing new here. It is time the Government got on with the job and created the positions the previous Government put in train before Christmas by passing laws which the current Government parties opposed at the time but have since implemented.

I was actively engaged in reforming the employment action programme. This is a simple matter of calling in for interview every person who has been unemployed for one year and offering him or her either a job or place on a scheme or a place on a training or education course. The Government is moving at a slow pace in this regard. As I stated, the proposed measures were ready-made because the building blocks were in place and pilot schemes were up and running. The Minister for Social Protection also referred to this in reply to a question I asked her yesterday. There is no question, therefore, that the schemes were in place.

I propose to discuss the source of funding for the jobs initiative. The Government's proposal to levy the pension funds is incredible. As a former Minister for Social Protection with responsibility for pensions, I was cognisant of two significant concerns in this respect. The Government was worried about the decrease in the value of pension funds and the pressure this was placing on them. In recent years, 90% of pensions were underfunded and the previous Government was forced to give extension after extension to defined benefit schemes to try to ensure the commitments entered into could be fulfilled. While 0.6% may appear to be a small figure, when one considers that pension funds returns are less than 2% per annum, it represents a significant amount of the money a person would gain each year on his or her pension fund. In recent years, some pension funds have been in decline and their policyholders would have been better putting money under their mattresses.

The previous Government adopted a pension strategy to encourage more people with modest means to invest in pension funds. There was an agreed value system that, as our population ages, we should encourage people to have private pensions over and above the State pension. The Government has undermined this approach. I recall giving an extension of time to defined benefit plans to produce viable solutions as to how they would fund pensions in future.

However, the sector that is in huge trouble now is being attacked by the Government. No matter how one looks at it, essentially the Government is taking €2 billion out of the pension funds. While some might put a spin on this measure to the effect that it is an attack on big pension fund owners, that was done by Fianna Fáil when in Government by proposing to reduce, over the four year plan, the amount of tax relief people may receive by investing in pension funds, by placing severe caps on the amount one can put into a pension fund and by imposing a heavy tax once a pension pot goes over a certain amount. The Government is hitting those ordinary people who had been encouraged to put money into pension funds.

I have heard an argument that the idea behind this proposal is that pension funds are invested abroad, which is largely true. At Christmas, however, the previous Government brought in legislation with the intention of setting up sovereign annuities in February. Basically, we were coming up with a win-win scenario that would have brought €4 billion of pension funds into the Irish economy and Exchequer in replacement of foreign borrowing on a 35-year basis. It would have involved twice the amount of money under discussion here and the interest rate would have been similar to that which Ireland is paying for loans at present anyway. There would have been a double win in that Irish people's money would have been kept in the country and rather than buying German bonds and the Government would have been paying a high interest rate to its own people. As they then would have spent it, the Government would have got tax back in a circle. The former Government was creating a virtuous circle that had the potential to bring in €4 billion according to the estimates I was given by the NTMA and the Department of Finance. However, instead of helping pension funds, the Government is penalising them and instead of bringing in €4 billion, it has come up with a way of bringing in €2 billion, which is bizarre.

Did the Government consult the Pensions Board about this issue or ask it about the health of such funds? Did it even consult the Minister for Social Protection? Did she not warn the Government about the perilous position in which many Irish pension funds find themselves or of the drastic measures that had to be taken by the Government, the Oireachtas and the Pensions Board to try to deal with the pension issue? Ultimately, the Government is hitting the ordinary people who have saved money over 20 or 30 years to have a small amount of money over and above their State pension on which to live in their twilight years.

While there are so many points one could make in this regard, I will now turn to the moving around of money in the Estimates. Basically, I understand what the Government is doing as my colleagues and I did it all the time when in office. However, we did not come into the Chamber to announce it as a budget initiative but just did it. In other words, in the event of a project not proceeding as fast as one thought it would or of an underspend in one subhead, one moved the funds into another subhead. For example, the Government has stated it will get €20 million from the budget of the Department of Education and Skills and will put it into the summer work scheme. I have no argument about this and it is a fantastic scheme that was established by Fianna Fáil. However, did this €20 million come from specific projects that had been announced but which will not go ahead or is it available because of a slowing down in the progress of such projects whereby the money happened to come to hand?

If specific projects will not now go ahead on foot of a conscious decision, rather than unforeseen delays leading to the money being surplus to the requirements of the committed projects for this year, in the interests of transparency and openness the Government should tell Members what are those projects. The people who have been promised them should be told what projects will not go ahead. Similarly, there is a so-called saving on road projects and money is being moved from bigger projects into maintenance. Is this because some of the major projects, such as those involving PPPs for example, are delayed and the Government is recycling the money? The Government would have done this anyway and there was no need for a big announcement as anyone running a Department with a bit of common sense would have done so as part of its daily management. Alternatively, has the Government decided to pull the plug on specific projects and if so, what projects? It is time the Government lived up to its promise to be open, transparent and clear in what it intended to do.

I refer to one sector of the economy about which I used to argue with my colleagues in Government and about which some progress had been made. Despite all the emphasis on tourism, the Government has not focused on this point but I was advised that 3,000 real jobs could be created in our economy by investing in rural recreation in all its many manifestations. It ranges from people walking around bogs to look at bog cotton to people abseiling, mountain cycling or walking or whatever because we happen to live in a country which, given its topography, probably has one of the greatest varieties of possibilities.

Another source of jobs that could be spread around the country based on natural resources is marine leisure, which is completely underdeveloped in Ireland. I believe that a modest investment, matched by private sector investment with proper planning, could create sustainable jobs that would bring in tourists who would continue to return here because of the available facilities and who would stay here for fixed periods rather than for short weekend breaks. Such tourism, based on quality products, is likely to be much more resilient in downturns than the other type of tourism involving people looking at the scenery and generally coming here for non-specific purposes.

There are all sorts of measures one can take and the sky is the limit in this sector. For example, one activity I had never considered but which now takes place in the west is descending into the deep river and mountain ravines. In addition, there are all the land-based activities such as mountain climbing, hill walking and so on. The previous Government had done quite a bit of work in resolving the issues with the farmers and there is now a completely different attitude on the ground on foot of the establishment of Comhairle na Tuaithe. Yesterday, I met a former Member of this House, Mr. Roger Garland, who told me that nothing is happening at present regarding this sector's development compared with what was happening when I was Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, when we did so much work to resolve the outstanding issues in order that the land mass could be used in a positive manner to increase the employment potential and wealth generation for those living throughout the countryside. Moreover, much of this can be done anywhere, from urban areas such as Dublin Bay to the most rural areas in the countryside.

In addition, mar dhuine Gaeltachta, tá iontas orm nach bhfuil aon airgead breise curtha ar fáil d'Údarás na Gaeltachta. Labhair mé leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta McGinley, faoi seo aréir. Dúirt an Aire Stáit le gairid go mbeadh cruinniú don fhochoiste Rialtais atá ag plé le straitéis na Gaeilge. Tá a fhios ag an saol fodhla nach bhfuil dóthain airgead ag an údarás i mbliana. Admhaím gur dearmad é sin a rinne an Rialtas deiridh. Nílimid in oifig leis an dearmad a rinneadh a chur ina cheart. Is féidir leis an Rialtas nua é sin a dhéanamh. Ní thuigim an fáth nach bhfuil an méid sin á dhéanamh acu. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go gcuirfí€6 mhilliúin breise ar fáil don údarás i mbliana. Nuair a thabharfar ar aghaidh an reachtaíocht leis na moltaí seo ar fad a chur i bhfeidhm, tá súil agam go mbeidh an €6 mhilliúin sin curtha ar fáil, ionas gur féidir leis an údarás na feidhmeanna fiontraíochta atá aige a chomhlíonadh.

An féidir leis an Aire fiontraíochta a mhíniú conas a n-oibreodh sé le IDA Ireland nó Enterprise Ireland muna mbeadh an t-airgead ar fáil dóibh? Is rud é seo nach raibh ceart sa cháinfhaisnéis a d'fhoilsigh muid. D'admhaigh méé sin. Tá sé sin ráite agam. Bhí cuimsí faoi cén chaoi ar tharla sé. Is iomaí rud a dhéanann chuile duine nach bhfuil ceart. Ar ndóigh, is féidir leis an duine mór rudaí a chur ina cheart nuair a bhíonn an deis aige nó aici. Dá mbeadh mise fós sa Rialtas, chinnteoinn go mbeadh airgead curtha ar fáil chun an scéal a chur ina cheart. Bhí an ceart ag an bhFreasúra casaoid nach raibh dóthain airgid ann don údarás, ach nuair a bhí deis acu rudaí a chur ina cheart trí phingineacha beaga a chur ar fáil don údarás, ní dhearnadar tada faoi. Sílim gur trua é sin. B'fhéidir gur cheart dom focail níos láidre ná sin a úsáid.

Mar a dúirt mé, ní shéanfainn go brách go bhfuil rudaí beaga maithe sa tionscnamh seo. Neamhchosúil leis an Rialtas atá ann i láthair na huaire, nuair a dhéanann duine rud maith, tá mé sásta a admháil go bhfuil rud maith déanta. Is rudaí fíorbheaga ata i gceist sa chás seo, áfach. Níl mórán ann i gcomhthéacs an dúshlán atá romhainn. Tá go leor anseo nach bhfuil ann ach athrá ar rudaí a bhí socraithe agus déanta ag an Rialtas atá imithe. Níl sé de mhisneach nó d'ionracas ag an Rialtas a rá gur amhlaidh atá, agus gurb shin an méid atáá dhéanamh. Mar a dúirt mé ar ball beag, cén mhaith atá ann áiteanna breise a chur ar fáil nuair nach bhfuil na háiteanna gur chuir an Rialtas deiridh ar fáil faoi na scéimeanna fostaíochta líonta fós? Tá mé ag súil le freagraí soiléire ar na ceisteanna sin a fháil ag deireadh na díospóireachta. Caithfidh mé a rá nuair a fuair mé freagraí ar mo cheisteanna parlaiminte aréir, i go leor cásanna níor tugadh aon fhreagra ar an cheist a cuireadh. Tugadh eolas nár bhain leis an gceist, ach níor tugadh aon eolas faoin cheist. Ar ndóigh, ardóidh mé an ní sin leis an gCeann Comhairle.

See this speech in context