Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister knows, both People Before Profit and the United Left Alliance are utterly opposed to this Bill and the commitments into which it locks this country essentially to pay off the gambling debts of banks and bondholders across Europe for years to come in a way that we believe will amount to a near death sentence for the economy in the medium term and really choke off any possibility of serious economic recovery. We believe that is even more the case given the admission now by bodies such as the IMF that the narrow focus of austerity and meeting debt and deficit targets has had a far worse effect on the economy in this country and in Europe generally than they projected and anticipated previously. Crucially, the IMF has admitted it has had a far worse impact than the Government was willing to admit during the course of the referendum campaign.

It is folly in the extreme to plough ahead with this given those admissions and given the obviously devastating effect this approach to dealing with the crisis is having, particularly in the absence of the Government getting anything concrete in terms of write-down of Irish debt. We are being put into a straitjacket which guarantees devastation of our economy and further pain for the people. However, we have made all those points clear and that argument has been had elsewhere and will continue to be had elsewhere. Obviously, the Government intends to press ahead with this commitment to these rules. Given that it has done that, it seems Deputy Doherty's amendments are eminently sensible fail-safes to insert into the Bill. While we may have committed to targets that some of us believe are absolutely crazy, we should at least put in some sort of fail-safe mechanism where if it is absolutely obvious that the demands of the European Commission to meet these targets are going to mean that we have no growth, damage to the employment situation in this country or other adverse effects on the economy, then those issues will be considered as part of any plan the Government is required to serve up to our masters in the European Commission.

This, to me, appears to be an eminently sensible fail safe.

Equally, we should have a fail safe which ensures that criteria such as poverty, income inequality and social inclusion rather than only narrow accountancy targets of debts and deficits, expenditure ceilings and so on are taken into account in any plan which the Irish Government would be required to draw up for the Commission. This is about the Government admitting that the troika might be wrong and that it is possible that those of us on this side of the House who opposed the fiscal treaty may be right. The Government will probably not admit so now - it obviously it will not - but this would at least acknowledge that we may be right that these two measures of meeting these targets while promoting growth, employment, economic and social justice in the country may be at odds. This should at least be a consideration in any plan that we may have to come up with if we find we are unable to meet these debt and deficit targets. I do not understand how the Minister cannot see the wisdom of including this type of fail safe so as to ensure we are not tied completely to a policy that may do extreme damage to our economy and society.

I agree with Deputy Doherty that the plan we will be required to serve up, if issued with a warning by the Commission, is the outlines of another troika programme. It will require us to give detailed commitments to it on different sectors of public spending, including specific targets for cuts, Department by Department, in order to meet these debt and deficit rules. Surely, if we find ourselves in the desperate situation of being forced to do this, such a plan should at the very least be put before the elected representatives of the people of this country so that we can debate whether continuing to sign up to such a programme is in the best interests of the people, the economy and our society.

I believe these are reasonable amendments which should be included in a Bill which we believe is foolish in terms of its being a form of economic madness. The inclusion of these safeguards would be a reasonable move on the part of Government. I support Deputy Doherty's amendments and hope the Government will consider doing likewise.

See this speech in context