Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)

I support the amendment, although I believe the two month criteria may be a little excessive. It is important we examine all of the decisions taken in relation to finance to see if they have resulted in the creation of jobs, extra revenue to the Exchequer and are supporting sections of society that are vulnerable or under immense pressure at this time. Many of the initiatives announced in the jobs initiative are subject to review, which is to be welcomed. I understand that a review will take place after one year. However, what criteria will be used to measure if discontinuation of the airport or travel taxes has resulted in increased passenger numbers? It would have been easy to measure this initiative had the Government kept to its initial promise in the programme for Government that continuation of this measure would be subject to the re-opening of closed routes. However, it is evident from the Minister's speech in regard to the jobs initiative that the criteria by which these will be measured is additional passenger numbers.

It is important we look at the number of jobs created as a result of each of the taxation measures. I acknowledge it will be difficult to pinpoint the particular number of jobs created this year because the Government is attempting to create the environment to foster employment. However, there needs to be some type of criteria against which these initiatives can be measured in terms of whether they are worthwhile or should be continued or discontinued.

As I have stated on previous occasions, the report on the Department of Finance by external experts argued that this type of information should be available to the Opposition and open to public scrutiny. I do not believe any Minister for Finance should have anything to hide in this regard. I am sure the current Minister has nothing to hide. However, Government should make available to the Opposition and others the analysis and differing opinions within the Department in regard to whether particular initiatives are good or not and identifying the risks contained in implementing them. This would ensure as wholesome and as informed a debate as possible.

I welcome the proposal contained in the amendment. I remind the Minister, if he needs reminding, that this type of amendment is similar to one proposed by parties in government when in opposition. If we are to have a new way of doing business in this House we should be able to find a mechanism which provides that we do not have to wait one year to have a review. We could have a review twice yearly and that information could be laid before the House. The Government could then set out whether the initiatives are working and the results in that regard or, to the contrary, whether they are not working to its satisfaction and need to be tweaked, discontinued or enhanced. I support the amendment.

See this speech in context