Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In the first instance, I welcome the arrangement between the Central Bank and the Government in replacing the promissory notes arrangement. Fianna Fáil also welcomes the fact that the ECB, in noting this arrangement, offered no objection to its configuration, in the main, as it provides for no write-down and honours the State's commitment to meet its obligation in full, albeit over a much longer period. Its effect of reducing the debt burden on the State in the short term is a welcome development. Like others, I acknowledge the role played by the key personnel involved in arriving at this conclusion, namely, the Ministers, Deputy Michael Noonan and Deputy Brendan Howlin, and their respective staff, the Taoiseach and Professor Honohan and his staff. It is the conclusion of what has been a long, difficult and complex process whcih was not fairly reflected by the same principal participants when prior to the last general election, they told the electorate that the bailout deal was not only an onerous commitment on all our parts but one which could be would be radically overturned immediately by them on assuming office, as the mandate achieved warranted this to be the case.

The deal, as stated, reduces our immediate debt burden, but it remains a debt to which we are committed to meeting, no matter how long the period involved. It is a deal that provides for no write-down. This is unfortunate but understandable. I am glad that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have confirmed that they never sought a write-down. This finally but publicly kills the myth peddled by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, prior to the last general election. The massive majority afforded to the Government and to his party was due to the promise he gave to the public that it would be Labour's way, not Frankfurt's way.

I acknowledge the Government's continuance along the path of fiscal rectitude in the past two years. In the main, it has continued the thrust of the four year plan. The fact that they have deviated from some memorandums and blamed other memorandums when making choices and decisions only confirms that, in its efforts to cling to the vague election commitments not to increase taxes and not to reduce social welfare rates, the Government parties have allowed themselves to blatantly dishonour and renege and make U-turns in areas such as education and on issues such as tuition fees, property tax, child benefit and the abolition of the PRSI allowance.

The real authors of the new deal, the new arrangements, are citizens. They have patiently borne the brunt of the reduction in earnings, loss of jobs, reduction in services and loss of facilities, lack of infrastructural investment and the decimation of morale. They bought into the Government's commitment on assuming office that it would immediately overhaul the promissory notes deal, the arrangements for the retrospective capitalisation of the banks, that there would be pro-jobs budgets, jobs initiatives, special meetings on job creation and that NewEra would lead to the creation of 100,000 jobs. There was a commitment that the banks would be forced to lend to small and medium businesses and that upward rent reviews would be abolished. There would also be an overhaul of the commercial rates system. These are just a few of the commitments made.

When a member of the Government was asked why they had engaged in such electioneering to an electorate which was in need of realistic guidance and reassurance that the path to recovery and stabilisation, let alone growth, would be slow and painful, his answer was, "Isn't that what you do in elections." In response to Fianna Fáil taking the lead in recent opinion polls, he said he was alarmed at the electorate's capacity to return such figures. I hazard a guess that he might be better off in concentrating on the demise of the Labour Party rather than on the renewal of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Last autumn the Taoiseach acknowledged that the previous Government had been bounced into decisions to capitalise and guarantee. He finally gave us some insight into the reason he and Fine Gael had supported this policy, yet he ridiculed it every time he was asked about progress on its replacement or restructuring. He also told us after last June's summit that the structures were being put in place to allow capitalisation of the banks into the future and said it had been acknowledged that Ireland was a special case. He acknowledged that the actions of the previous Government had staved off contagion and secured the survival of the euro. This afforded him the opportunity to deal on behalf of citizens with the issue of retrospective capitalisation of AIB, Bank of Ireland and TSB. This remains outstanding and I expect the Government to agree to this on our behalf.

I urge caution on the part of the Government parties in seeking to oversell the deal and which somehow believe they are entitled to majority support in opinion polls. That might be the case if it was the case that the deal could deliver in a manner that would mean kids would not go to school hungry; that pupil-teacher ratios would rise tomorrow; that rural schools would reopen; that career guidance teaching hours would be restored; that third level fees would come back down again; that children's allowance would be increased; and that home help hours would be reinstated. The property tax will still be introduced regardless and the banks, unfortunately, will not suddenly lend to struggling or small businesses. They will probably still exercise their veto on deals with distressed mortgage-holders.

I will admit and acknowledge, however, that there is now a better foundation on which progress can be made. Some €1 billion more than was perceived to be available will be available and choices and decisions will again be sought and made by the Government which I expect will learn from its mistakes. If it is the case that the Government parties really want to clear the debt in a manner that it will diminish in value and significance, we all know that growth must be achieved. To achieve it, it is obvious the Government will have to up its game. For example, rather than penalising and taxing the pensions industry, it should work with it. It wants to invest in the economy, not to be punished or taxed for being part of it. Many constituencies such as my own and others have suffered greatly from the lack of jobs and opportunities for their inhabitants.

In the past, my constituency maximised its potential by virtue of exploiting the resource available to it in order to provide power to the national grid. It continues to do so and it will utilise the resource to which I refer up to 2020. Those in the constituency recognise the alternatives and diversifications which are necessary. The previous Government opened up the electricity market. Alternatives and renewables offer much potential. This potential must be realised through consensus. Local innovators based in Lumcloon in my constituency sought to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in this regard. They sought permission to develop wind energy and to build a back-up plant and a power plant and got it. They sought a licence from the regulator and got it. They sought connection to the national grid and got it. They sought a pricing policy for their development from the Department 11 months ago but did not get it. Some 500 jobs are at stake in respect of the development in question, for which investment has been secured. However, there has been no ministerial leadership forthcoming in the context of progressing the project. This is a blatant example of the fact that, as usual, the Government is high on spin and rhetoric but low on action in the area of job creation.

The promissory note deal affords the Government another opportunity. It stands at a crossroads and can begin again from a new, sound financial base. If it takes this opportunity, perhaps then its actions might be judged to match its rhetoric. As stated, the rhetoric in respect of jobs heretofore in the absence of the deal has been nothing but a puff of wind. We acknowledge the effort that has been made in achieving the deal on the promissory notes. We also acknowledge that reaching an agreement on those notes proved to be much more difficult than those in government perceived it to be prior to the general election. We further acknowledge that it took the Government two years to put together the deal when originally it stated it would take less than two months. Having said that, I know the basis exists for the Government to attract the right sort of investment to encourage job creation. It has no excuse to offer the country from now on. It will be judged on its success in this regard when the electorate is next asked to vote in a general election.

See this speech in context