Seanad debates

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

3:00 pm

Photo of Kathryn ReillyKathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)

Fragile consumer and business confidence will be crushed by the rise in VAT and the anticipated fall in public sector demand, and the reality of falling incomes, will depress job creation. The economy has been starved of investment in recent years, and we cannot begin the process of recovery in the absence of significant investment. Without consumer demand and the ability to spend, and without investment, jobs will not materialise.

Before the election we said, along with every other party, that we had to reduce our deficit and that that meant tough decisions. It was not an argument about whether we must see the deficit reduced but a practical one about how we can best make that happen. We said the National Pensions Reserve Fund should be used for a stimulus programme in that the remaining €5.3 billion in the fund should be invested in job creation and not pumped into banks yet again. We said additional money should be drawn down from the European Investment Bank. We set out the real benefits of a €7 billion stimulus plan over three years where such investment could protect almost 100,000 jobs and create an additional 60,000 jobs.

Of course, the Government thought we were wrong. It still believes we are wrong but the figures speak for themselves. The Government's Jobs initiative fell far short of the stimulus shock that was required to get the economy moving again. Overall growth is being held back by the scale of shrinking domestic demand, and that has had a chilling effect on our economy. At this stage growth should be powering ahead. Unemployment should be falling fast but every month when unemployment is higher than it should be stores up long-term damage. Every month when growth is lower than it should be it hits the future potential of our economy but instead of admitting that the Government refuses to change course. Is it not far better to change course and have a credible deficit reduction plan based on higher growth and employment than a failing plan based on low growth and high unemployment?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.