Seanad debates

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Finance Bill 2010 (Certified Money Bill): Second Stage.

 

3:00 am

Photo of Alex WhiteAlex White (Labour)

Particularly in discussing the economy and our future I am all in favour of hope. We all want to have a debate characterised by hope in order that we can be genuinely positive and face the future in that vein. That is the basis upon which any of us would like to come to this debate. Certainly, there is need for a restoration of hope and confidence in the economy. However, my problem with the debate is that while a number of speakers stated they hoped things would happen, it has been characterised by a significant degree of what I can only describe as wishful thinking not entirely - in some cases, not at all - based on the facts.

We started with the Minister's speech. He treated us to an account of what he described as "tentative signs that the economy is beginning to stabilise on a number of fronts". He spoke about unspecified key macro-economic and fiscal data releases as being generally in line with expectations. He repeated that growth was likely to return in the second half of the year and re-establish itself on a full-year basis in 2011. He also repeated his famous phrase from his Budget Statement that the economy was turning the corner. On the lunchtime news programme the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, was somewhat less positive than this, couching his remarks along the lines that he considered we had come close to a situation where we might turn the corner, which is somewhat different. I long for the day, as many do, when the economy genuinely will turn the corner. However, I vehemently disagree with politicians, particularly those in positions of power, seeking to persuade people on the basis of an assertion that there is a new state of affairs because, as of yet, it has not.

The second example of wishful thinking involves my colleague, Senator Boyle. He indicated that initially he was sceptical when last summer the Minister for Finance, with little discussion, changed the configuration between cuts and revenue measures that would make up the €4 billion to be taken out of the economy this year. However, he came around to the view that the Minister had got the balance about right. No one has explained to me, or could if he or she was being honest, how he or she believes the Minister got the balance right.

I was interested to hear Senator Dearey speak about the deflationary effect of the budget and say companies had reached the point where the pips were squeaking, at which no further pain could be taken in the deflationary spiral in which they found themselves. This is as a result, at least in part, of a direct decision by the Government which acknowledged the budgetary measures would have a deflationary effect. Last December it was known that taking €4 billion out of the economy would have a deflationary effect because it would reduce the spending power of citizens and, accordingly, the amount of money available in the economy for the purchase of goods and services. While Senator Boyle wishfully thinks this spiral may be coming to an end and that the Minister got the balance right, there is no evidence that this has occurred. Instead, every time one walks down any street one sees yet another retail unit boarded up because they cannot secure finance from the banks, their rents are too high, or, more importantly, because of the deflationary budgetary measures introduced by the Government in the finance Bill.

Many suggest that in a bid to turn matters around, they are seeking agreement through social partnership but often do not show evidence of so doing in their own conduct. I have heard Members opposite asking the trade unions to come back to the social partnership talks which, again, is wishful thinking. Did no one tell Senator Hanafin and others opposite that social partnership was blown up last December?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.