Shane Ross (Independent)

It is an extremely important point and it is in the interests of this House that we have the senior Minister here for these issues.

The senior Minister listens to debates in this House. He listens to suggestions and it would be more complimentary and amount to taking these debates more seriously if he were here and had not despatched a junior Minister to take on board the suggestions, proposals and criticisms of Members of this House. I make no apology for saying this to the Minister of State, to his face, rather than saying it behind his back. It seems important to say it to his face.

I am entertained by the fact that already today, as Senator MacSharry justifiably said, the Government is saying, in effect, "Have a look at the wonderful things that Goldman Sachs and the Financial Times are saying about us". It is true that the spokespersons for the financial markets already agree this is a good budget. As Senator MacSharry said, we are leaving Greece, Spain and Portugal behind in the ha'penny place. That is true as well. The Minister should be credited with the fact he has met his targets. He has not funked them, nor has he even fudged them. The figures, as spelt out yesterday, make perfect sense. There is no evidence that the figures have been stuffed or massaged in any way. They are somewhat crude, but he has shown the political will and determination that were necessary. There has been a general welcome outside Ireland from people who have a very clinical approach to these matters for this budget. They are saying we are tackling the problem. That it is true, it should be recognised and it is a characteristic of this Minister which certainly should be applauded. The figures make sense, they may well be met and the markets may be right. However, one or two things are somewhat worrying, as touched on by Senator Donohoe this morning.

Where is the figure for the further recapitalisation of the banks? It is not there. What are we going to do if we have to find several more billion euro in the middle of next year to recapitalise the banks? Are we going to borrow it? In the event, that will cost money in debt servicing. Are we going to sell State assets? Fair enough, but let us hear about it. Are we going to have another budget to do this?

The reality appears to be that the banks will blow these figures apart, one way or another. If, as announced last week, AIB is not paying on its corporate bonds to various people, this will trigger the Government not getting its preference dividend. That will mean it will be paid, not in cash but in shares. If it is paid in shares it will mean the Government's income will go down and these figures are not as accurate as they should be. It will also mean it will probably need more money to recapitalise them very quickly. If this is to be done, we are entitled to be told from where the money will come. We are certainly entitled to a provision in the budget arithmetic for recapitalisation of the banks, which is almost certain to happen. We already know that the valuations placed by NAMA on the so-called assets held by the Government which they bought from the banks are greatly over-stated. All the evidence from valuers, estate agents and others involved is that the price which the taxpayer paid for these assets is ridiculously high, way higher than ever anticipated. What is going to happen in this regard?

The budget, while it makes sense in a cursory way, has been produced in a vacuum in the sense that the banking monster has been omitted. After all, that banking monster is responsible for the fact that we are introducing a budget in these circumstances. We are now pretending it does not exist. Budget 2010 is a bankless budget. This is the elephant in the room. We cannot have a budget without providing therein for the biggest problem facing the State and which has brought it to its knees. These figures represent a flaw which I find enormously depressing and unrealistic, despite that they have been welcomed by many absolutely independent observers, as must be admitted.

We have apparently begun the process of restructuring the tax system. This issue was mentioned in the House earlier in the context of preparations for the introduction of a property tax, which may or may not be a good measure. While I believe it is a bad idea, it is certainly an attempt at radical thinking. The tax system has been tackled in a more radical way for the first time in many years. New taxes have been considered and the Government may shortly introduce a carbon tax. However, in terms of spending, there has been no radical thinking. As I stated on the Order of Business, I cannot understand how we can give €56 million in extra funding to FÁS, while at the same time cutting child benefit. Situations of great financial stress present opportunities for the introduction of radical measures, rethinking how one taxes and spends and taking an axe to those areas wherein there is the greatest waste. What Fianna Fáil Members did not and do not understand when I mention FÁS - it always touches a raw nerve - is that while it does an enormous amount of good and there is a need for further spending on training and for this area to be supported, nobody has ever explained where the budget of €1 billion is spent. Senators Ó Murchú, Cassidy and others said this morning that community employment schemes were doing great work. They are correct, some of them are doing great work. However, nothing is being done to explain where that €1 billion is spent. That is the problem and it has never been explained. We are to invest €56 million in new training courses at FÁS. It emerged last week that a FÁS centre built in County Offaly at a cost of €6.7 million was not being used.