John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

I wish the Government well in the course of its term in office and encourage it along the route it has taken in recent days in respect of the jobs initiative. Anything positive that comes from the Government, such as this initiative, should be supported on all sides. While Fianna Fáil has described the measures as modest proposals, one can only expect modest proposals in the context of Ireland's current economic position. Bearing this in mind, I welcome all the proposals. The initiative sends a clear signal to those who create employment that the Government at least has acknowledged that there are serious difficulties for businesses in respect of job creation. Moreover, it sends a signal to the 14% of the workforce who are unemployed at present that at last, someone is listening to them. From this perspective, I support what the Government is about.

My concern relates to the 0.6% levy and how the initiative is being funded. The retrospective legislation is something that is new to me and it is interesting to see it being applied in this case. I note that in all other cases, when Members sought to catch the big fish such as the bankers and others, it was explained to them that they could not apply legislation in a retrospective manner. Consequently, this is something new and I look forward to it being applied to those cronies in Irish society who are well-off, well-placed and are being well paid. I look forward to it being applied to claw back at least some of the moneys being made by major organisations, including State agencies. It would have been better had the scheme been funded by the Government's imposition of a form of levy on those State agencies that are making money. I refer to those entities that can afford to pay their top management colossal sums of money, such as, for example, €740,000 in the case of the ESB and others.

One issue I have in respect of government in general is that while this is a positive step to a degree, it is a little bit of window dressing that does not tackle the real issues that must be confronted. Another example in this regard is the Government's decision to reduce salaries. The Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, led by example by reducing his own salary to €200,000 per year and by then extending reductions to the other Ministers. However, although the real people who needed to be caught by such a decision were the Secretaries General of Departments and other chief executive officers of State agencies, the reductions could not be applied to them. I wonder why? This decision should be applied right across the board. If it is good enough for the Taoiseach and Ministers to take a salary cut, a way should be found to ensure that those who are well paid should in turn make a contribution with regard to the correct decisions and courses upon which the State now is embarked.

While these were the big decisions, what is the big decision in this regard? Behind this decision lies the other side of the balance sheet. How much more pressure can be put on companies to pay taxes to support a system which the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has described as being not fit for purpose? When I suggested it was not fit for purpose in 2008, Deputy Stagg was aghast that I would have said that about the public sector. However, all focus is now on middle and senior management in the public sector, their pay, their outturn and on value for money. Reform of the public sector is essential to the delivery of efficient schemes nationwide and to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well. Many issues that were addressed by colleagues when in government and by the present Government when in opposition should now be taken on board.

For example, what would be wrong with the Ministers for Finance and Environment, Community and Local Government introducing a new scheme of rates? I refer to a system of rates that would be fair to the business sector. It would ask those on the outskirts of cities, who may not make as much as those on the main street, to pay lesser rates. Why should one's valuation be increased when one applies for planning permission? Why should one be penalised by the State through the payment of additional rates simply because one has been a good and prudent business operator who is able to expand? Why can valuations struck in better times during the Celtic tiger period not be adjusted downwards to ensure less is paid by those businesses that are struggling at present? Why can retrospective legislation not be applied to upward-only rent reviews, as it has been in the context of pensions? Some of the recipients of those rents probably are financial institutions that operate pension funds and which we support. There must be a level playing field for everyone. I do not believe this to be the case. Similarly, local charges for pubs and hotels of €3 per cubic metre for water in and water out is costing them a fortune.

Moreover, I do not believe the money being collected is being spent wisely or that value for money is being achieved. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, knows this and the Minister of State, Deputy Perry knows it only too well because he is in business. I am on the Government's side in this regard and I encourage it to take up the challenge. It has a huge mandate and should do this for the country. It should do it for the businesses that struggle day in and day out and will not be affected by the positive message or the initiative the Government has taken under the jobs initiative under discussion. The Government must reach beyond what it is doing at present. It must do things differently and must be brave in so doing and it will have support from this side of the House.

Similarly, money was given to the banks on the basis of what they told the Government. Only now, we discover that what they said was not true at the time. How much is yet to be told about personal debt in the banks? How many more billions of euro in bad debts are we to be told about? The answer is, many more. Some 33 companies go into liquidation every week. Families with small businesses and their employees are suffering the hardship and indignity of going through that process, not to mention the other companies that are going bust because the banks will not give them money. Recently, a businessman told me he wanted a review of his loan to determine whether he could spread it out over a longer period. He was paying interest of €7,000 per year. He came out of the bank with a reviewed position of €15,000 in interest per year. It is outrageous that the banks are not telling us the truth.

IMF deal or no, the Government might not be right to follow the Fianna Fáil policy. Perhaps it should stand back and review its position. If the policy was wrong back then, as described by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, it is wrong now. While we are and have been reasonable Europeans, Ireland is becoming the EU's whipping boy. This is not good enough. We are being bullied into taking all sorts of measures. When Greece put it up to the EU and stated it would leave the eurozone, there was panic. We were not even told about the meeting, which was held behind closed doors. We should do the same as Greece, which will now get a better deal. We should get a better deal. I do not mind saying this, as our last deal was not a good one in hindsight and the banks did not and are not giving us the information necessary to make a complete and final appraisal of the situation. The Government is up against it.

When on this side of the House, many Government Members stated that FÁS was not fit for purpose. I agreed with them then and continue to do so. Why not devolve the workings of FÁS to the county enterprise boards, CEBs, and ask them to reskill those in need? It would create a connection between the employer, the entrepreneur and the person looking to be skilled or searching for a job. The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, is responsible for the enterprise boards. The Government is going to dump them into the local authorities. Councils can no longer collect refuse because that service was privatised and someone made money on it and they will hand housing issues over to someone else to make money on it because they cannot handle that situation either, yet we are to give them the CEBs. I hope the Minister of State will stand up for the boards and ensure they are retained in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, which itself requires a great deal of work. I also hope there will be a good connection between the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and Enterprise Ireland because Irish companies, including family businesses, are our future. They created 800,000 jobs in the indigenous sector. They will lift us out of this recession and I encourage the Government to support them. I believe in them and am passionate about the fact they have skills, innovation and courage. The Government must ensure they get the money from the banks they need to trade, to fund their businesses and to create and sustain jobs. This is what the situation will be about. I hope the Government gives the banks hell in the coming period to ensure money is made available to those in the business sector who need it.

I conclude by wishing the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, well. I listened to him carefully while he was in opposition and admire some of the positions he has taken and the policies he has begun to roll out since being in government. I do not agree with him on everything, but he is moving in the right direction. I have confidence in the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, given his good business background and his connection with those at SME level who require this support. I appeal to the Government to address their concerns, to make the big decisions and to be courageous. It will then be able to put in place the right policies, which will be supported on this side of the House.

See this speech in context