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

I will keep this extremely short. Prior to the adjournment of Second Stage I stated my problem with the Bill is that it is part of a suite and architecture of economic control and surveillance which is demanded by the fiscal treaty and the EU Commission. It is fundamentally misconceived in that it identifies the problem which led to the crisis and the solution to preventing further economic crises as being public spending, and therefore setting ceilings, even on a multi-annual basis, is somehow a recipe for economic stability, growth and development. This is clearly the view the Government holds. I disagree because it identifies the wrong problem. It was not out of control public expenditure which caused the crisis. There were gross examples of misspending, particularly at the top by consultants, politicians and top executives of Semi-state bodies, but the fundamental reason for the crisis was not out of control spending, it was out of control markets, banks, developers and greed, mostly in the private sector but facilitated by politicians in the public sector. Therefore, to create an architecture which puts very strict limits on public spending does not necessarily solve our problem and may hamper our ability to get out of the crisis.

I will give an example of what I mean, and ask the Minister of State for a quick reply. It follows on from the earlier discussion on privatisation. We have made the very positive decision, with some dispute about how it was arrived at, that Coillte will remain in public ownership. If Coillte is to be used as a vehicle for job creation there should be substantial public investment in it and the State should employ people in forestry to reach our re-afforestation targets and develop the potential of forestry in tourism, timber and a range of areas. This could be best done by employing more people in a body such as Coillte; not just employing them for the sake of it, but with a specific plan in mind about how, through greater levels of timber production and enhancing our tourist amenities, we could create jobs and therefore fuel economic growth.

The type of ceilings included in the Bill will preclude our ability to do this, and we will not be able to invest money in these areas if, for example, we decide at a particular point that substantial public works programmes would be a way to get people back to work. One could make the same argument about social housing and the value it might have in terms of saved revenue to the State, given all of the money going into rent allowance at present. If we build more social houses by employing people directly in the local authorities to do so, we could save money and create employment. These rules preclude and prevent this type of stimulus by the State in creating the employment and growth we need. It locks us into a particular ideology, to which the Minister of State may subscribe, but at some point he, or another Government, may decide we need to do things differently but will be prevented from doing so because of these straightjackets the EU Commission and the fiscal treaty impose on us. This is my question to the Minister of State. I probably know what the answer is but I thought I would ask it anyway.

See this speech in context