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

I do not accept the Minister's reply, which is similar to the reply which he gave on Committee Stage which did not deter me from trying to convince him of the merits of these proposals. There is nothing in the treaty that precludes us from taking into account the impact of the plan on economic growth, unemployment or public services. The treaty requires us to include in the plan the items to which I have already referred and those contained in this legislation but does not preclude us from taking into account the other areas. In my view, it is wrong of the Minister not to include them. It is an acknowledgement that the plan, if we have to develop one, could potentially and likely have a negative impact in the three areas mentioned.

The Minister stated, in regard to my amendment that the plan be discussed, debated and voted on in this Chamber, that this would be in conflict with our treaty obligations. As I have stated previously on Committee Stage, that is not true. The amendment requires the a plan be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas within two months. There is nothing in the austerity treaty which precludes a democratically elected Parliament from taking a vote on a plan. The Minister knows as well as I do that there have been many votes in this Chamber on measures which have not been implemented. There is no reason the plan could not be debated and voted on in this Chamber. There is nothing in the austerity treaty that precludes us from doing this. The idea that a European treaty would preclude a democratically elected Parliament from voting on a plan of economic recovery is ridiculous.

I intend to press this amendment. This issue goes to the heart of our not being afraid of having this type of scrutiny.

The Wright report, in dealing with Department of Finance advice to the Government at the time, was critical of that Department. It was also critical of Government in terms of its not heeding some of the advice given to it by the Department.

It was very critical of the Department of Finance for not amplifying or increasing the tempo at which it gave advice and issued warning signals that the Government was heading in the wrong direction. One of the recommendations contained in the report on strengthening the Department of Finance was to establish the Fiscal Advisory Council and another was with regard to the need for those in power to listen to alternative voices. One can see in the report and in other information we have on the banking sector that time and again lone voices in the Department of Finance issued warnings to the Government at the time on the policies it was pursuing. In fairness it was the previous Government and not the present one but those voices were ignored, sometimes by more senior officials in the Department of Finance.

It was not only in the Department of Finance that warnings were issued. People on the outside also issued warnings. We all know of the economists such as David McWilliams and others who issued warnings in the past. We know the type of response we had from the Taoiseach at the time, that they would be better going away and committing suicide. It was the dismissive attitude summed up in such statements as "We know better", "Let us be", "Things are going grand" and "The economy is fine".

The Wright report identifies the need to listen to alternative voices. We have had discussions in the House about the herd mentality which existed in the past. The herd mentality did not come into existence in the lead up to the banking crisis. It can exist at any time when a group of individuals think they know better. As I said on Committee Stage, the amendments I propose today may not be the right solution but they are an attempt to try to strengthen the legislation and offer a constructive critique of it. This legislation could be potentially damaging for the Irish economy and Irish society.

This is about listening to alternative voices. If the Minister is unwilling to allow the plan to be debated in the House how can he genuinely say he has learned any lessons from the previous Administration's mishandling of the economy and the arrogance it showed when it followed the path which led us to destruction? He is not willing to have a simple debate in the House and offer it the democratic right it has. People shed blood for this country so we could make decisions and define our own destiny, and if the Minister denies the House the right to cast a vote on a future troika plan it is deplorable. The Minister knows well that when he sat on this side of the House he condemned the previous Government for not allowing a vote on the troika bailout programme. This vote was subsequently allowed and I acknowledge the role of Deputy Michael McGrath and others in allowing that debate to eventually be held.

See this speech in context