Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:"(a) prioritise the generation of economic growth, job creation and delivery of high quality public services, ".

Ba mhaith liom mo mí-shásamh a chur in iúil nach bhfuil leasaithe a 1 to dtí a 4, go huile, ábalta a bheith glactha.

Téann an Bill go dtí croílár na gcinnithe a bhéas an Rialtas, nó Rialtas ar bith sa todhchaí, ag déanamh. Ceann des na fadhbanna móra atá ag Sinn Féin leis an mBille go gceanglaíonn se, ní hamhain lámha an Rialtais ach lámha pholaiteoirí sa todhchaí a bhéas tofa ag muintir na hÉireann le cinnithe a dhéanamh a rachas chun sochar do ghnáth dhaoine na hÉireann.

Leagann an Bille síos rialacha iontach dian. Níl fadhb mhór ag Sinn Féin le cuid mhór des na rialacha, a fhad is go bhfuilimid ag baint amach na rialacha sin agus ag glacadh ar bord na himpleachtaí atá á baint amach ag na rialach sin ar sochaí na tíre, go háirithe ar fhostaíocht, ar ioncaim leasú shoisialta, ar an tseirbhís poiblí agus ar ghnáth dhaoine na tíre. Ba chóir dúinn a bheith ábalta imeacht ón mbealach sin, na rialacha a chur i bhfeidhm, má tá siad ag déanamh dona do gheilleagar nó do ghnáth dhaoine na tíre.

Is é atá i leasú Uimh. a 5, ná go gcuireann sé isteach san mBille go gcaithfimid an geilleagar a fhás agus go gcaithfimid tús áite a thabhairt do fhostaíocht a ghnothú agus seirbhís poiblí den árd scoth a chur ar fáil nuair atá an Rialtas ag tarraingt plean fá choinne na spriocanna atá leagtha síos san mBille a bhaint amach.

The essence of amendment No. 5, which is taken together with amendments Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, is that when the Government is required to draft a plan aimed at meeting the deficit targets contained in the Bill it would take into account issues such as generating growth, promoting job creating and delivering high quality public services. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

The Bill ties the hands of the Government, and of future Governments, to a set of strict rules of budgetary discipline, structural balances and so on. It does not, however, take cognisance of the impact that chasing these rules and implementing them at all costs would have on the wider society. The amendment seeks to place an onus of the Government, when it recognises that there may be a difficulty in reaching the targets set down in the Bill, to develop a plan that will outline how the targets will be met. It obliges the Government, along with other factors, to take on board the issues of stimulating economic growth, promoting job creation and delivering high quality public services.

This issue was discussed on Committee Stage. It beggars belief that the Minister for Finance will not accept a proposal to set this down as a condition. Why is the Minister for Finance afraid to say that when a future government develops a plan to reduce our deficit to be in line with the criteria contained in the austerity treaty, such a plan should take cognisance of the effect it will have on unemployment or on the economy? If such a legislative requirement had been in place in 2008, when we got into this crisis, we would not have seen the disastrous consequences for the economy. Every economic growth target laid down by the previous Government has been missed. If former Ministers were to be believed, we should have been out of the mess a long time ago and at a fraction of the cost we now face. How many corners did we turn during that period? We have lost track of them. In reality, unemployment increased from 4% to almost 15%, even with the emigration valve opened fully and 87,000 people, particularly young people, leaving the country last year. If, when the previous Government was developing the troika programme, there had been a legislative requirement to measures its impact on economic growth, employment and delivery of high quality public services, we might have had a very different programme which could have assisted us in reaching the targets in a fairer and, in some cases, speedier way. Instead of trying to cut our way to recovery we might have grown towards recovery.

Cuireann leasú a 6 coinneál ar an Rialtas impleachtaí sóisialta a ghlacadh ar bord nuair atá sé ag déileáil leis an bplean. Amendment No. 6 seeks to strengthen the requirement on Government to include these important social and economic indicators in any plan. It is a follow-on from amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 7 seeks to broaden the scope of the plan to include an impact assessment of any proposed measures on key social indicators, such as income equality, social inclusion and poverty reduction. These areas have been allowed to go amiss by successive Governments and levels of poverty have been increasing.

I commend the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for its survey and statistical analysis of the disposable income people have left at the end of the month. In the last seven days, there has been much talk about some of the culprits who got us into the current economic mess and the fact that they are sitting at home with their feet up and enjoying pensions of half a million euro. Former taoisigh have massive pensions. A number of taoisigh who were involved in the heart of the crisis are sitting back and lecturing the rest of the world on how to run economies and getting huge dividends from the taxpayer in the form of massive gold-plated pensions. At the same time, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul tells us that 1.8 million people have less than €100 of disposable income at the end of the month. That is a figure we should repeat time and time again. Real people live in a different reality from the types of pensions that were discussed in the Chamber earlier today and which former Members of the House enjoy upon retirement. Real people face hardships and are vulnerable and scared as they look to the first week in December to see what other forms of misery will be visited upon them by the Government. This amendment places an obligation to carry out equality and anti-poverty impact assessments.

All political parties profess to be supporters of equality and to tackling issues such as poverty. They profess to support policies that will have the least adverse impact on the least well off. The best way to implement such policies is to have these types of impact assessments so that measures can be independently scrutinised. A Minister for Finance should be prepared to say what his proposals are and what he plans to do to reach the targets we will have signed up to if the Bill is passed. He should also be prepared to say what impact his proposals will have on the least well-off section of society.

This amendment does not compel the Government to take a different path.

It simply states that if the Government introduces a plan to reduce the deficit to comply with the rules within the legislation, there is an onus and responsibility to set out in clear terms how the plan will impact on different sections of society and how it will be equality-proofed. It does not place any onus on the Government not to follow the plan but it is important at least when it is devising the plan that it is fully aware of its impact on vulnerable sections of society.

Cuireann leasú Uimh. 9 dualgas ar an Rialtas an plean a chur os comhair an Oireachtais go bpléifear é agus go mbeidh vóta sna Tithe fá choinne an plean a chur i bhfeidhm. Mar atá ráite go minic, go háirithe roimh thoghcháin ghinearálta, tá ról níos láidre de dhíth ar an Oireachtas, tá níos mó dualgas de dhíth air agus ba chóir go mbeadh páirtithe san Fhreasúra go háirithe ag imirt ról níos lárnaí ó thaobh polasaí agus mar sin de. Sa Bhille seo, tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh go mbeadh plean á chur le chéile mura mbeimis ábalta na spriocanna sa reachtaíocht seo a chomhlíonadh, agus go mbeadh an plean sin bunaithe ar an phlean atá againn ón triúracht, agus go mbeadh an Rialtas féin in ann an plean sin a cheadú agus a thabhairt i gcrích. Ba chóir, áfach, go ndéanfaí an cinneadh deireanach i dTithe an Oireachtais. Mar atá a fhios againn agus an daonlathas mar atá sa Stát seo, bíonn móramh i gcónaí ag an Rialtas agus mar sin an rud a bheadh i gceist anseo ná ar a laghad an plean a chur os comhair na Dála agus an tSeanaid, dá mbeadh Seanad go fóill ann, go bpléifí é agus go gcaithfí vóta, ar a laghad go ndéanfaí an scrúdú ceart ar an phlean.

The key aspect to this amendment is that the Houses of the Oireachtas will have the power to scrutinise and approve or reject any plan brought forward by Government to reach the targets set out in the legislation. We have heard a lot about Oireachtas reform and the important role the Opposition parties must play in legislation, and the Government has taken some good initiatives in this area, but there is much more that must be done. This is a fundamental issue. If the Commission addresses a warning to the State to say there is a failure to comply with the budgetary rule which constitutes a significant deviation, the Government must within two months prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a plan specifying what must be done to secure compliance with the budgetary rule. The budgetary rule will be binding on the State if the legislation is passed. If the Commission says we are not likely to meet the rule and issues a warning to the State, the Government must devise a plan. What will that plan entail? The legislation spells it out, stating the plan shall specify the period over which compliance with the budgetary rule can be achieved. That is very like the troika agreement, where we have a three year plan, a four year plan or a two year plan.

The second point in the plan states that if the period is longer than a year, annual targets must be met to move towards such compliance, again like the troika plan where there is a certain target to meet each year until the overall target is met. The third aspect of the plan is that the size and nature of revenue and expenditure measures that are to be taken to secure such compliance must be specified. Again, that is similar to the troika plan, which lays down the amount of tax revenue that must be raised, the cuts that must be made and savings sought in a particular year.

The fourth point that must be outlined in the plan if this legislation is passed is how any revenue and expenditure measures that are to be taken will relate to different subsectors of the general Government. It goes further than outlining the savings that must be made, or the taxes that must be raised - it must outline the subsectors, another aspect that also exists in the troika plan, including carbon taxes, property taxes and cuts to social welfare and health. It is similar in nature and design to the sort of troika plan the Government is implementing. The plan also, however, must take on any recommendations made to the State under the stability and growth pact in the period over which compliance with the budgetary rule is to be achieved and the size of measures to be taken to secure such compliance under the current stability programme. It must encompass any direction given to us by the Commission on matters it has raised.

This plan, therefore, is very like the troika plan. No one can say for certain if we will ever have to develop such a plan, please God this Government will change direction and we will see economic growth when we would be able to reach the budgetary rules and debt rules within the prescribed time frame. There is, however, a likelihood, and we must be conscious of what we are agreeing in this House, that if the targets are not met, the Government must develop this sort of plan within two months and then lay it before these Houses. The amendment does not say the Government should not draw up the plan, it states very simply that when developing that plan, when it has been agreed in Cabinet and meets the conditions laid down in this Bill and is in compliance with the austerity treaty, it must be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas, debated, improved and voted upon. It is unacceptable that such a plan would be devised in a Cabinet office without Dáil scrutiny. Laying a plan before the Dáil is very different from the plan being debated and voted upon. This amendment seeks that provision for a debate, it does not restrict the Government in any way bar having a democratic debate while scrutinising these measures.

If we have learned anything from the economic crisis it is that there was a lack of scrutiny and debate and those in power failed to listen to alternative voices. The Government almost always has a majority so, de facto, unless some backbenchers jump ship, the plan will be carried but this amendment would allow the elected representatives of the citizens in the State to have the opportunity to discuss, debate and vote on such a plan.

Amendment No. 10 allows the Government to derogate from the debt and deficit rules if it believes it is doing so for the best social and economic interests of the State. In doing so, it also places a requirement on the State to explain why this is the case. This goes back to my earlier comments. The structural deficit and budgetary rules are not the issue, the key issue is that we are laying down rules when we do not know what the Irish economy will look like in future. We are being forced to put in place rules that we know could have a negative social and economic impact on the State but because they are legally binding, if we do not do so the legislation contains penalties and punishments that can be imposed.

It would be folly for us not to have an opt-out clause that would allow the Government to derogate from the debt and deficit rules in such circumstances. While the legislation makes provision for special circumstances, they are not clear. It is my interpretation of the Bill that those are not the types of exceptional circumstances we are discussing. The exceptional circumstances are more likely to relate to natural disasters and such issues. However, this is where the Government can prove to the House and the Commission that the debt and deficit rules would have a negative social and economic impact on the State and therefore can seek a derogation from them. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context