Shane Ross (Independent)

At times such as this, we all must try to play a constructive, not a destructive, role and try not to be overly critical of what is happening and what has happened. In a serious crisis, it is not helpful to come in and kick at an open goal, at a Government or Department of Finance which are both a kind of beaten docket at this stage anyway. I will try not in any way to play the blame game in my contribution because there is no point. That is for another day and, by God, there will be plenty of time to do that in the budget debate, and the Opposition will have plenty of time to do that during the general election campaign. The situation we are facing today is critical and very fluid and we all have a duty to try to make constructive suggestions in the hope that some of them may be at least listened to.

I thank the Leader of the House for organising this important and useful debate about a plan which will change a great deal in the four years to come. It is just a blueprint and there will be such substantial changes in the years ahead that it will become unrecognisable. Nevertheless it is useful to get an idea of the Government's thinking, even if it is somewhat in a vacuum and in a situation that may not be the same tomorrow or the day after. I do not believe this is the Government's document. I was just on a radio programme and the message came through that it had been approved by Olli Rehn. No one was quite sure whether it had been approved by Europe, but it has. If it has received Europe's approval, in the present changed circumstances it means it is Europe's document. Europe has approved the plan's parameters and so has the IMF. That is something with which we must live in the next few years.

To my mind the plan is a kind of compromise between the public service unions and Europe. I am surprised the Croke Park agreement has been set in stone and that the Government is living in the same straitjacket in which we have lived for so long. If one can be critical of the document, one of my principal criticisms is that it is very unimaginative and written along the same lines as conventional budgets have been since time immemorial. I would have thought this was the time to make radical departures.

I would like to ask the Minister of State a few questions to explain things I do not understand. If Members of the Opposition have raised these already, I apologise. How can the Government possibly have a credible four year plan without mention of the banking crisis? It makes it pretty well irrelevant because the banking crisis is the most important economic factor and the biggest hole in the economy at present. Despite this, we have a four year plan that does not mention it, at least not in the overview and summary, which are all I have read. I have no doubt in his reply the Minister of State will say we are in the middle of negotiations because of which he is probably not willing to indicate the cost of the money we will borrow. The interest rate to be paid will be will be an enormous factor. Even if the plan had included an optimistic and pessimistic scenario - a best and worst case - it would have been acceptable because at least we would have been able to have a look at it. The arithmetic of budgets for the next four years will be completely and utterly controlled by this very important factor. Neither I nor anyone else knows whether this €85 billion, if not more, we are about to borrow will be borrowed at a rate of 7%, 5% or 4%. It may be lower or higher, but probably not higher. That is such a material factor that the budget arithmetic would be greatly changed by it, yet it is not mentioned in the plan. All the cuts in social welfare and public service pensions will be dwarfed by the figure that comes out from the loans to the banks and the interest rates. What are we supposed to make of these figures if they are irrelevant in terms of the big figure? Could the Minister of State-----