Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I presume the motion we are debating is a criticism of the four year plan, particularly in the context of the perceived lack of specificity in respect of job creation measures. I also presume the purpose of the Labour Party's tabling this motion is to argue the point in that regard. Is what is being sought specific reference to the number of jobs in each sector and to the taking of targeted approaches over a number of years? The Minister of State clearly indicated that in light of the economic conditions in which we are operating and the general philosophical approach to governing this country, it is not possible for Irish Governments to create jobs directly. The best that can be done is to foster a climate in which jobs can be created.

It is hoped we can stabilise the level of unemployment and begin to reduce it. There was obviously a great increase in employment during the Celtic tiger years. When the Celtic tiger went bust, there was a dramatic decrease in employment in a short period. One thing is certain, namely, we will not be able to recover the jobs that have been lost in a similar timeframe. A longer period will be required to recover those jobs. We are honest enough to admit that even after the four years of the national recovery plan, the level of unemployment will be in the region of 10%. It is slightly dishonest for people to pretend that matters might be otherwise.

The only way to proceed differently would be to revert to the days of the central command economy. There was a time, even as late as the 1980s, when Ireland was accused, in the context of how the Government ran the economy, of being the most centrally controlled state outside of Albania. If it is being suggested that we should return to a period when jobs were created for the sake of doing so and regardless of their export potential, their value added potential or their sustainability, then we would dig an even deeper hole for ourselves in a very short space of time. The debate should focus on those aspects of the matter.

Strangely enough, our State companies are among the better performing enterprises in the country at present and are creating jobs. It is somewhat churlish to refuse to accept that jobs are being created. Even with the economy at a standstill, 50,000 jobs are created each year. Many of these are being created in the green and smart economy sectors. In the past year, 20,000 jobs have been created in the energy sector alone. The Labour Party for the past 18 months has been claiming the Government's retrofit programme as being of its invention. The establishment of this programme came about as result of a direct contribution by the Green Party to the work of the current Administration. When the programme for Government was agreed in 2007, it was hoped that during our then anticipated five-year term of office, 100,000 homes would be retrofitted. The programme has been ramped up to such a degree that 100,000 homes per year are being retrofitted. The expansion of the programme has led to the creation of 5,000 direct jobs. We need to identify and promote similar initiatives in other areas.

Several speakers referred to the general matter of creating a more enterprising economy, ensuring there is access to working capital and seeing to it that an enterprise culture is fostered, developed and harnessed. I am of the view that initiatives relating to this matter would be ongoing, regardless of which parties were in government. There are key philosophical points, however, which must be understood in respect of what might be the differences between various political parties or Governments of whatever composition.

One of the differences to which I refer relates to education. The recent visit of the European Commissioner, Olli Rehn, emphasised this point. What the Commissioner found to be most acceptable and of most assistance in terms of the recommendation of the four year plan was the emphasis on both enterprise and education. The latter is important to underpin the medium and long-term success of the economy. There has been little reference to that matter during this debate and greater consideration should be given to it, especially as we have fallen down in respect of it in the past. Action must be taken on many levels. In the first instance, the workforce must be made competent in the context of operating in a vastly changing technological age. The second point is that there is a need to retrain workers in any event. The third aspect is that we must take workers from particular sectors and move them into new areas. Construction is the obvious example in this regard. The retrofit programme takes into account some of those who will not be building new houses. We have far too many new houses in any event.

Another example is the area of heritage. I received a delegation in my constituency office in recent days - I do not know whether the Minister of State had the same experience - from a newly constituted group of tradesmen who take an old approach to their trade and who style themselves the ancient guild of stonemasons. They are of the view that the way to bring the large number of new apprentices operating in the area of stonemasonry - these individuals work with brick, mortar and block - up to speed is to encourage them to work on heritage projects.

In the Cork area there is much potential in terms of the redevelopment of Fort Camden and Spike Island and other heritage sites such as Charles Fort. If one is talking about direct Government intervention in linking education and training, that is a possibility and where we should be focusing some of our efforts. Obviously, I have given a local example in Cork but, no doubt, examples could be found elsewhere in the country.

In terms of job creation, we need to bring about what the Minister of State referred to, that is, fostering a climate of hope and confidence and a belief jobs can be created in the knowledge they will be sustainable. The biggest dint we have taken in the past few years with the increase in the number of job losses in such a short period of time has been in respect of the belief bubble economies are what we should live with from here on, that there will be rapid rates of growth followed by rapid rates of declines. If we have learned anything from this period of our economic history, it is that we must develop economies slowly, that we must make them sustainable and protect them from the international pressures which cause damage in the short term. If we get that right, we might prevent the cycle we are seeing and saw in the 1980s, 1950s and 1930s. As we approach the hundredth year of independence as a state, we can teach future generations what we have learned and put these lessons into practice. I hope they transcend political differences because it will be a challenge to the Government and its immediate successor to put them into practice in the next year or two which will be vital years, not only in dealing with the uncertainty of the moment but in putting in place the bedrock to ensure we will never come back to this place again. If that is understood across the political spectrum, the hope we need to gain for Ireland can be gained quickly.