Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to have an opportunity to contribute to this discussion on the economic situation. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance for the work they are doing to seek a better deal for this country in relation to its bank debt. Last week, our media learned a little lesson in how quickly things can move in European circles. RTE possibly learnt the folly of broadcasting a prerecorded current affairs programme. We all watched a programme that referred to the failure and the confusion caused by Chancellor Merkel, despite the fact that Chancellor Merkel and the Taoiseach had issued a communiqué earlier in the evening to clarify the matter. Things move quickly in Europe. As the Minister for Finance put it, we sometimes have to take two steps forward and one step back. Perhaps politicians and people in the media need to become more familiar with the way the European institutions are working with regard to the complicated ongoing negotiations the Government is involved in.

I do not want to use any of my time to talk about how our economy got into the position it is in. That is well documented and we have strong views on it. To be frank, I think the people are beyond caring about it at this stage. The people really want to know what sort of economy we will create. That is why every Deputy in this House was sent here. We all have a duty to make it clear that we are not trying to recreate the Celtic tiger economy. We are not going back to the way this economy was. We do not need to return to the era when the poor dog could not pick up the newspaper because of the weight of the property supplements that came with it and we were all talking about the economy on the basis of the value of the houses we were selling and trading with each other.

We need to create a more sustainable economy. I would like to set out how I envisage and hope such an economy will develop with specific reference to four areas. I will speak about what real public sector reform should involve; how our society can support the self-employed and job creators and encourage enterprise; how our society and our economy should scrutinise the banks, particularly as long as taxpayers have a stakeholding in them; and how society can move away from what I call Bertie Ahern economics, whereby people with disabilities and others are viewed in terms of how much money we can throw at them to keep them happy.

Rather than dealing in dole-outs, we should deal in providing dignity for people and enabling them to reach their full economic potential. We have to stop looking at the costs associated with people with disabilities and start looking at the supports we can put in place which can actually save money for the State while improving the quality of life for people with disabilities.

With regard to the Croke Park agreement, there has been much debate on public sector reform, a lot of which has been rather unintelligible. This Government did not negotiate the Croke Park agreement and it is a statement of fact that it is due to expire in roughly 14 months' time. The discussion we must now begin to have is what we want the public sector to look like and what a post-Croke Park public sector will look like. We all know about the reforming element of that but I would like to place two issues on the record. First, never again as a country can we have a discussion about public sector reform which treats all people in the public sector, from the person earning €25,000 or €30,000 to the person earning €120,000, €150,000 or more, the same and offers them the same level of protection. Second, we can no longer have a public service that does such a disservice to those working in it by just throwing allowances at them - which is the situation that evolved over many years - instead of giving them a simple, easy-to-understand pay structure. The Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, has been examining public sector allowances over the last number of days and, to be frank, I have found no conspiracy or gravy train. What I actually found is that successive past Governments of every colour, instead of grappling with the issue of public pay, threw allowances at many low-paid public servants as opposed to giving them a decent salary. For example, instead of looking at the wage of the caretaker in Mayo who might have been earning X amount and was carrying out extra responsibilities, it would give him an allowance for eating his lunch. This sort of thing was going on and it is the reason we have such complexity.

The Action Plan for Jobs 2013 needs to examine job retention and, in particular, the issue of rates. Job creation and foreign direct investment are welcome but the 2013 plan must deal with job retention and a safety net for those who are self-employed. I know the Minister is looking at this and it is something we need.

In regard to the banking sector, we must hold the banks to a greater level of scrutiny. Only four of my constituents in Wicklow, according to a reply to a parliamentary question, have ever referred an issue to the Credit Review Office, and this is despite the fact that in more than 50% of cases the Credit Review Office has come out in favour of businesses.

We also need to examine poverty traps in regard to disability. There is another way. Rather than just cutting, we can reform and save money at the same time. The programme for Government details this, as does the value for money report and policy review, and the Irish Association of Supported Employment outlines ten things that can be done. Simply cutting without reforming is failing to do what we were elected to do. I trust the Government will address this in the budget.

See this speech in context