Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I am reassured by my good friend Senator Norris's frankness about his inability to have his worthwhile statements picked up by any aspect of the media. I had always been of the opinion that he had a direct line, if not to God then to the gods of the media in this country, so I am somewhat reassured that he, like the rest of us, must fight his corner in terms of getting news space. His point is well made. The chances are that, unfortunately, it was as much because the statement was emanating from this House as it was about the merit of the statement itself.

It is rather interesting that the overall media reaction to the budget yesterday has been uniformly hostile. The people have been divided into two camps in the sense that the perception is that the poor have been attacked and the rich have got away. I am disappointed by that. In a free and democratic society a free media is entitled to take whatever position it wishes. Like many of my colleagues on this side of the House I attended numerous pre-budget briefings by the Ministers with large spending Departments: the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Social Protection, the Minister for Health and Children and the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills. This will probably be lost on the wind anyway but I should put it on the record that throughout all of those briefings I came to the conclusion that the Ministers who are dealing with these large sums of money that are like Monopoly money had an underlying ethic to try to ensure, even in these most difficult of times, that they would protect the vulnerable and those who need help most. Whatever criticisms are being levelled at the budget in its totality, I would be failing in my duty as a Government Senator and as someone who attended the briefings and saw at first hand the manner in which the Ministers and their advisers were wrestling with the complexities of the various issues that were being put forward by Deputies and Senators in advance of the budget. They have been successful in some respects in trying to protect the most vulnerable in society.

The other aspect of the debate has been about the bank guarantee and the celebrity economists. I never realised there were so many economists until the past two years. Practically every programme now wants to have its own panel trying to outdo every other programme. Newspapers are trying to do the same. It is sometimes forgotten by members of the public that they too are being manipulated by a competitive media with its 24-7 rolling news. Every aspect of a story is now teased out to get a particular dimension in order that one can put a headline in a newspaper so that when one walks into a newsagent with so many competing newspapers, the hope of the newspaper owners is that whichever one has the most attention-grabbing headline will be the one people buy. The reply of those in the newspaper industry would be why not, as they are in a competitive business. My response to that is to ask about their sense of responsibility. Is it only about ratings? Obviously that is all it is about because rational argument in many cases is either ignored or twisted and screwed to come up with a particular conclusion.

In the context of the bank guarantee, the example of Argentina is constantly put before the public. I do not wish to read any more about references to Argentina without any context, background or rational analysis of what the Argentinean Government did. Only one newspaper in the past week went into the detail of what happened in Argentina. It pointed out that there had been a succession of finance ministers and that the country defaulted and was out of the bond markets for several years. The only person from whom the country got money was President Chavez in Venezuela. It was certainly not from the international investors.

Boringly, the question must again be put of what options the Government was faced with in September 2008 that got us into the financial mess we are in. The simple answer from some of the celebrity economists, and I include David McWilliams as one in particular who has consistently said that we should have defaulted, is what difference it would have made because people would have got on with life and said "Hard luck". Obviously he can come to those conclusions because he has no accountability. He can say whatever he likes because he will not be called to account. The public should be aware that there is always an agenda. There is always a context whenever they hear and see people on radio and television spouting about economics from their particular agenda. They are not independent, detached observers or commentators on the economic and political environment or on the decisions made by the Government.

I welcome one budgetary initiative and express concern about another. The concern is about the reduction of 12.5% in the allocation to county child care committees under the Department of Health and Children. I am honoured to be chairman of the committee in County Leitrim. Our current budget is €285,000. According to my administrator, that will be cut by approximately €35,000. That will affect front-line services, to use that loose term. In the next few weeks, with my colleagues on the committee, which is a statutory body, we will have to try to rationalise this reduction. I am not at all happy that despite all that is going on in the wider economy, the child care allocation has been reduced. It is a retrograde step, especially as this is a service that has been built up in the past 13 years and the structures in place administratively and in the provision of child care services throughout the country will now come under severe threat.

My positive comment is on the budget initiative announced yesterday by the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Deputy Hanafin, namely, a reduction in the travel tax to €3. I am sorry it was not abolished. Will this initiative work administratively? Whenever one increases or decreases a tax, there must be critical mass to ensure the process of implementing the change does not cost more than maintaining the status quo. Will it cost more to administer the €3 tax?

The Dublin Airport Authority has decided to incentivise airlines to increase the volume of business. I send the message to Mr. Michael O'Leary - as I have made clear since entering the House, he is a man I have long admired - and, to a lesser extent, Aer Lingus that they now have a real opportunity in the light of this incentive to increase the number of tourists coming to Ireland. I understand Mr. O'Leary has not exactly embraced the budget initiative enthusiastically, but I hope he will realise on reflection that increasing traffic levels into the country will result in an increase in his profit margins. I ask him to give serious consideration and a positive response to the initiative included in the budget with the best of intentions, that is, to increase tourist numbers. Without sounding repetitive, tourism is the most important indigenous industry after agriculture. Some 250,000 people are employed in the sector. I have faith that Mr. O'Leary who has done much to reduce the cost of accessing Ireland through Ryanair, with Aer Lingus following his lead, will rise to the challenge. I ask him to do it as much in the national interest as in the interests of his shareholders.