Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

There is no doubt that our future is uncertain. We know for sure that if we are to climb out of this economic hole, we have to get people back to work. Over several years, we have spoken at length in this Chamber about how this country's fiscal and banking challenges might be resolved. That debate was rekindled at the weekend when Professor Morgan Kelly delivered his bleak analysis. Regardless of the steps we take to try to find a solution - such as debt restructuring, debt reprofiling or debt-for-equity swaps - it is absolutely certain that if we are to return to anything like the living standards of the past, we will do so by growing our economy. That means putting people back to work, producing real goods and services and putting money into people's pockets.

I regret that we have had to tax people's savings to fund this package. I do not like it, just as I did not like the increase to 27% in the rate of deposit interest retention tax at the last budget. I dislike many taxes. The only reason to stomach this measure is that it will make some contribution to sustaining and maintaining the State pension for older people. If we do not put people back to work, we will not be able to pay the existing State pension into the future. It is a question of establishing priorities. I have to accept this measure, even though it is unwelcome. I ask the Minister to clarify what it means for people and to state how long it will last. That is important.

I welcome the package of measures announced. It will make a real difference, if not a big one, in generating employment and particularly in employment retention. As it is modest, it will not come anywhere near to getting each of the 500,000 unemployed back to work. It does not purport to do so. Any Government that cannot borrow and has a limited ability to cut services and raise taxes is constrained when it attempts to stimulate the economy. I do not accept the argument that because this initiative is revenue-neutral, it will not stimulate the economy. The manner in which one taxes and spends will either stimulate the economy or cut down on economic activity. There are things we can do, however.

The real value of this package is that it will raise confidence. It is a good news story because it presents Ireland - however beleaguered it may be - as a country that is trying to do something to solve its problems.

Yesterday morning, I visited a multinational company which last year located its European shared services in my constituency. This is a good news story, especially as the company continues to recruit. However, it also warned that bad news stories emanating from Ireland keep our financial difficulties at the forefront of people's minds back in its US headquarters. While we cannot deny our difficulties, we must show ourselves willing to tackle them. The package on jobs before the House reflects such a willingness.

We must do much more than is provided for in this initiative, which is the first in a series of packages. We have an opportunity to make certain changes which, if implemented previously, may have enabled us to avoid the current crisis because they would have countered the reduction in competitiveness and reduced our dependence on the property sector. While change is not easy to accept, the crisis offers an opportunity to effect changes that will create an environment for future growth. At times such as these, even the most vested of interests, including Members of the Oireachtas, must realise and accept that things cannot go on as they were and nothing is as it was. I refer specifically to the monopolies, closed shops and restrictive practices in the private sector, including the medical and legal professions, and public sector, including Dublin Bus.

During the recent general election campaign, employers and potential employers repeatedly raised a number of concerns. One recurring theme was that developments in the area of alternative energy were inhibiting employment. A worrying number of entrepreneurs expressed utter frustration with the regime in place for new entrants to this sector. While some of their complaints related to planning, all of them stated that those trying to enter the alternative energy business faced barrier after barrier. Complaints were articulated by such a variety of players as to make it imperative on the Government to identify and remove barriers to entering alternative energy, particularly given that those who first invested in the sector in this country have, in utter frustration, taken their money, expertise and investment elsewhere.

I am aware that a report has been done on registered employment and joint labour committee agreements. This issue was raised with me repeatedly during the election campaign. Reforms in this area must be radical as these agreements are no longer appropriate and act as a disincentive to employment and business. Last weekend, one entrepreneur who charges €2 for a cup of coffee informed me that he is paying €20 per hour for a staff member to wash dishes. At more than twice the minimum wage, pay rates such as this make discussion of the minimum wage almost irrelevant.

The social welfare trap, which was relevant in the 1980s, is relevant once more. A system which encourages people to work for only three days per week is nonsensical and must be reformed. Employers who are willing to provide work are frustrated because they cannot find people who will work for more than three days per week.

See this speech in context