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

I support the amendment. When this compact was first presented, the emphasis was almost entirely on debt and deficit reduction. These are the key targets defined in the treaty. However, pressure from popular opinion, protests and alternative analyses by economists has slowly but surely started to shift the powers that be from their sole focus on debt and deficit targets while ignoring the impact on economic growth, unemployment and public services. The Government has claimed that it is among the leading advocates in the European Union of emphasising growth and jobs in order to counterbalance the austerity required in meeting these targets. In developing the Fiscal Council's role, is it not reasonable to require it to consider the matters set out in the amendment? Even the IMF has now acknowledged that the impact of austerity was much worse than initially anticipated and that it will ultimately affect economic growth, thereby increasing the difficulty of meeting the very targets set out in the treaty. If growth does not occur we may not be able to meet the targets. In that context, it is reasonable to widen the role of the council to include a focus on the impact of financial and economic policies on these areas.

The resource argument is not compelling. The fiscal advisory council was at pains to tell us that its costs were not significant. I do not think its members receive any payments other than certain expenses. What are the resource implications of broadening its mandate or even bringing other organisations onto the council to offer a closer focus on growth and employment than the particular economists chosen by the Minister might bring? The amendment appears to be minimal in terms of expanding the council's mandate to include assessments of growth and employment. I do not see why the Minister cannot accept it.

See this speech in context