Shane Ross (Independent)

I was interested in the last paragraph of what the Minister had to say because he appeared to touch on a change in attitude which is the first encouraging thing I have heard in his speeches. He admitted two things. He drew attention to the power of Europe and the markets. In both cases he tipped a forelock to those two powerful elements. That is realistic and a reflection of what has been happening in the past few months. By implication, he acknowledged a mistake made in the past in coyly referring to the tasks that lay ahead and the need to do things immediately, saying "there are some who in good faith are saying that we do not have to act now and that we should delay doing so for one or two years." That is interesting. The Minister of State is a little coy, but it is obvious about whom he is talking. He is talking about the ESRI and Mr. David Begg, the head of ICTU. I am delighted to see the Minister of State and the Government are beginning to acknowledge the reality that the European Union is dictating the remedies, that the markets are stronger than the Government and that it is time we told the unions to jump in a lake. That is in major contrast with what we have had in the past ten years. The last Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, referred to taking every measure after consultation with the social partners. He did this in speech after speech; it was the sine qua non of every speech made by him before a sensitive audience. That was one of the problems as pointed out by some of us. The Government deferred to the public service unions at every possible opportunity. That is what landed us in the first phase of benchmarking, a plot between the Government and the public service unions and in which IBEC and others capitulated. Now the figure of 8.9% awarded in 2002 must be rowed back on. We must say we made a mistake because of the power of the public service unions. The Government placed the favoured sons and daughters on the benchmarking body. Cronyism decided the matter and it gave power to the public service unions. We are now paying the price.

I am delighted the Minister of State is saying those guys are and were wrong, even if it is being said in a yellow-bellied and cowardly way, and that we will not listen to them as much as we did in the past. The reality is that this is a case of force majeure and the Government cannot listen to the public service unions. Let us say goodbye to the old days when the oligarchs could come in and dictate budgetary policy. They have a major responsibility for what happened, not in the banking sector but to the nation's finances. Now we must tell them it is time to row back and that we will not listen to them anymore. They must play their part in administering the remedy because they benefited so much in the good times.

That is one of the points the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, Mr. Olli Rehn, must make when he comes over soon. Peculiarly, his agenda includes a meeting with the Government which he does not need to meet because he meets the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, every week. He is the only man who can delay a Cabinet meeting at Farmleigh by holding the Minister in Brussels. Even though it is the supposed reason for his coming over, he does not need to meet the Minister. He is meeting the Opposition to read it the riot act and is supposedly meeting the social partners, I presume at the instigation of the Government which has asked him to tell these guys a few home truths. That is encouraging and, at least, we will tell them to go to hell, to get back in their box and that they do not have any longer the powers they usurped from the democratic bodies in these Houses. That will be a benefit gained from this economic crisis, for which the social partners hold great responsibility, as the Minister of State in his roundabout way has conceded in the last paragraph of his speech.

I do not know who is right or wrong about the figures, nor does anyone else. Deputy Noonan said in the Dáil yesterday that one could pick a growth rate and work backwards. Davy stockbrokers has given a completely different growth rate figure to the ESRI. A major benefit from this economic crisis could come in the form of what the Minister called structural reform. I do not know what he means by that term, but I presume it is Civil Service code for public service pay cuts. Structural reform refers to permanent changes in work practices in the public service.

I also hope there will be structural reform in the semi-State bodies. There should be radical reform and thought about this. Today in the Dáil the Tánaiste said she would change FÁS and that there would be a new training agency. If that amounts to a fundamental and forensic carve-up of the old FÁS, it is welcome, but if it amounts to rebranding and having a new name because it is embarrassing to use the name FÁS, she should forget about it. I could be forgiven for being sceptical because we have heard such promises in the past and nothing has happened. FÁS is rotten, as are masses of semi-State bodies.

Why is there so little talk about selling semi-State bodies? Would it be a sin to put the ESB up for sale? We might receive €3 billion, €5 billion, €6 billion or €8 billion. The reason we have these assets is not just to protect the electricity supply, an idea that is outdated, but also in order that we can sell them when the rainy day comes. Why do we not put the DAA up for sale? It is inefficient and structurally flawed, to use the words of the Minister of State. It would do it good to be put up for sale in order that it would be able to compete elsewhere. It is a monopoly. These semi-State bodies and An Post are worth money and could produce money for the Exchequer in our hour of need and I would not mind if some of it was used to fund current spending. Ideally, it ought to be used to reduce the debt, but when one is broke, one must feed oneself. Some of it could be used in the short term to fund current spending, with other measures. I would rather see An Post being sold than those on social welfare benefits suffering real hardship.

In the European context and in view of the forthcoming visit from Mr. Rehn, has the Government considered cutting corporate taxes? The obsession with keeping the rate at 12.5% is laudable because it is necessary to attract multinational companies, but why do we not go the other way? The Minister of State should not reply that we need the revenue. The vibrant part of the economy which has saved us in recent times and provides employment and energy is the multinational sector. The other vibrant part is the IFSC which offers a similar parallel tax concession. Why does the Government not propose to cut the rate to under 10% to attract more multinationals, foreign investment and create more employment?