Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I knew that final line was coming 30 seconds ago. The Minister is correct that I would not have advocated further reducing current expenditure. What I am advocating is that we challenge the EU fiscal rules in order to borrow money at 1% for investment in infrastructure. I am delighted to hear the Minister is having reservations about PPPs and I agree wholeheartedly with him on that point. The Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, has argued that using the moneys raised by selling the State's shares in AIB would not break EU fiscal rules. I would not support a proposal to sell those shares but the point is that using that money for investment purposes would not, according to TASC, amount to a breach of the rules. The Minister is saying that when we were in trouble there was reduced demand for this, that and the other. However, there was always demand for things like housing and for the health centres which are only now being built. The demand was there but we were not concentrating on it because, the argument was made, we had other problems. Joseph Stiglitz would have argued that the best way out of the recession at that time, instead of imposing austerity which impacted most on the less well-off in society, was to have put money into the system, investment in infrastructure being one of the best ways of doing that. If we had done so, we would have got out of the recession in a healthier fashion.

See this speech in context