The Order of Business is No. 1, statements on the challenges facing the tourism sector, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 2.15 p.m., if not previously concluded, on which spokespersons may speak for 12 minutes and all other Senators for eight minutes, on which Senators may share time, by agreement of the House, with the Minister to be called upon to reply ten minutes before the conclusion of the debate for closing comments and to take questions from party leaders or spokespersons.
Order of Business
Will the Leader give the House a commitment that he will hold a pre-budget debate on the state of the economy next week? Will he indicate, in the light of the economic crisis the country is facing, whether the House will sit next Tuesday? It is important that we recognise that politics is not continuing as usual. As Members of this House, we must play our part by sitting next Tuesday and debating the state of the economy next week. It is welcome that talks took place in Government Buildings yesterday and good that we have all agreed to the 3% figure which we will all strive to achieve. The nation is holding its breath as it awaits the announcement of the budget in December.
The people are angry, weary and fearful. They want the Government to tell the truth about the exact state of the nation's finances. What is the precise economic position? Every step of the way the predictions of the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance have been wrong. The people want honesty and the truth. I challenge the Leader who represents the Government in this House to give us the answers. If necessary, the Taoiseach should make a state of the nation address on RTE and tell us the way it is. The people are hopeful and resourceful. They want certainty and to be given confidence, but they are not getting these from the representatives of Fianna Fáil, particularly those who sit at the Cabinet table.
There is another and better way. We need a recovery plan predicated on creating jobs and getting people back to work. It should not just be about austerity mesures, slashing and burning. Reform of the political system is also needed. We need to change the way the Government does its business. I, therefore, ask the Leader to arrange a debate on that matter next week also. Those of us who are involved in the political system need to evaluate where we are at in order that we can provide leadership for the people. Although Fine Gael does not have all of the answers, it has vision. In the past 18 months we have developed policies on job creation, reform of the health system, reform of our system of government and reform of the political system.
The ESRI commentary published today, which I welcome, expresses doubt about whether the 3% target can be achieved. Can the Government tell us how much will be cut? What are the growth and unemployment projections? Deputy Kenny was right to say we needed independent verification of the figures. I hope this will happen.
We can all agree that there are no easy options. Not only do the people want honesty, they also want a Government with a mandate. Sadly — for the Leader — the Government has lost its mandate. It is time for a new Government to be given a new mandate to lead the country. I hope this will happen before Christmas.
The perilous economic situation in which we find ourselves is the only story today. It is the closest to a war situation I have ever seen in this country and we need to address it very clearly. Like Ulysses, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. If we turn one way, we will hit a rock and if we turn the other way, we will hit a whirlpool. Very skilful management is needed. We need a wily Ulysses.
During yesterday's poorly attended debate which went completely unreported, I expressed concern that radical cutbacks might damage the prospects for economic growth. That argument is supported by the horrifying figures published today. It has been reported that we now need to cut €15 billion, rather than €7.5 billion. Most economists have expressed serious doubts about whether this can be achieved and their views have been underscored by the ESRI report. We need to bear this in mind.
We need a general election as soon as possible, followed by a Government of national unity. I was laughed at when I made a similar suggestion a year ago, but the situation is now so serious that we must be prepared to sacrifice personal ambition and party objectives in the interests of the country. We need a unified government, supported by a country that is united behind it and a media that supports the measures considered necessary. This is not a time for personal ambition, although advocating this will undoubtedly complicate my political ambitions, as Members of the House will know. Parties leaders must also sacrifice their ambitions for themselves and their parties. We have talent in this country and whoever wins the next general election — I call for it to be held as soon as possible — should be in a position to select from the talent available in all of the parties the best team to lead the country out of the mess in which it find itself. We also ought to be able to call on the expertise of people such as Mr. Peter Mathews, Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev and Professor Brian Lucey who have not been listened to, although their predictions have been accurate. Their figures, rather than those of the Government, have been accurate and, regrettably, are very damning. A Government of national unity should be able to avail of the resources of a panel of experts to guide us independently out of this mess.
I remind the House — the Leader has spoken passionately about this issue on many occasions — that we are moving towards the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising when a group of courageous and visionary individuals took action which, ultimately, led to a completely independent country. If we are not very careful, however, by 2016 that independence will have been sacrificed. It is already well on the way to being sacrificed. Mr. Brendan Keenan, a very distinguished economics commentator, writes in today's edition of the Irish Independent that our foolishness has removed our national sovereignty, both morally and legally. In the light of the Merkel and Sarkozy agreement, in particular, we will face a situation where our sovereignty may well be removed. My final point, a very significant one, is that if that agreement goes through, we may face another referendum on the situation in the European Union. It is vital, therefore, that we have a unified Government in order that that referendum could be carried. However, we have one political card in this political game which is that we could withhold our vote of agreement on condition that there would be realistic targets and that we would receive assistance from the European Union.
It is time the people, politicians and all of the political parties faced up to the serious economic situation in which we find ourselves, which I believe they are doing. However, it is not time for us to consider the suppression of dissent or debate and I know Senator Norris did not suggest this. This is still a democracy and we have different ideas, opinions and views on how the problems of the country could be solved. In a democracy and, in particular, Parliament we are entitled to and bound to have these issues debated, contested and, if necessary, be in conflict in regard to them. They should be resolved and we should move forward. The best and the only way for a democracy to do this is by having a general election. That is when we will close the doors for four weeks, go outside and say to the people how we believe matters should proceed and what we believe the Government should do in the future. That is what all parties should do. The people should get to decide. Let us not lose sight of the fact that this is still a democracy. It is not time for us to panic, advocate some kind of faux consensus, put all our differences aside or imagine there is none. There are and we should not be afraid to say so. If anything, the problem in the past ten years has been that we have not had enough debate about the differences between us. We have not debated these issues enough.
I refer to a suggestion Senator MacSharry made yesterday about having a series of debates on tax, health, education and social welfare issues. I would have no difficulty with this, but let us be honest about what would happen in such debates. The procedure is that a Minister comes to the House and makes the first speech. If that happens between now and the announcement of the budget, the Minister for Finance will not tell us what taxation measures will be included in the budget because he will not be able to do so. That is not even a criticism of the Government because the Minister would have to wait until the budget was announced. Ministers will not tell us what social measures will be included or whether there will be cuts in health and education services because that is the way government works.
It is ridiculous to say the Opposition parties should state what they would do. We should think about this and be honest with each other. It will not be a real debate unless we remove the shackles from the procedures used in this House and say we do not require a debate to be kick-started by a Minister who will not say anything in the lead-up to the budget. We need to remove the shackles if we are to have the debate required in order that we can genuinely contest the issues involved. By all means, let us do so. However, we must think about the procedures used. One should not imagine that in calling for four debates and when the Leader says it is a very good idea, it will make any difference.
On Seanad reform, the Leader should not tell me about the Minister coming back with a proposal because I know all about it. Will he tell the House about one measure he has introduced in the past three and a half years to reform the procedures of the House?
The issuing of the ESRI report has confused the issue of what the Government must do and what the political system must address in dealing with the budgetary crisis. It has given the impression that somehow we can delay the inevitable. What has been suggested in the report is akin to saying that if one has a 15 year mortgage, one can turn it into a 25 year one and that one would pay less every month, but at the end of the day one would pay more. We do not have choices in the matter; neither would a Government comprising other political parties elected after a general election nor a national Government. Meeting the target of 3% by 2014 has been agreed with the European Commission and by the two main Opposition party leaders who met my party leader and the Taoiseach yesterday. We are obliged to attempt to meet that deadline and it must be done by reducing expenditure and introducing new and different taxes. There is no other analysis and there are no easier ways to do it. Everything done by whatever politician in whatever political party in whatever form of government will result in these decisions and massive unpopularity but I hope in the betterment of the country. Until everyone understands these essential truths, debates in this House essentially will be meaningless.
I wish to pick up on what Senator Boyle said about the ESRI report which has introduced into our discussion something that is misleading. A headline in one of our main newspapers indicates that the EU target could spell disaster. Let us be clear that we are not looking and do not need to reduce our borrowing commitments because of our membership of the European Union or a target set in Brussels. The reason we must reduce them is we cannot afford to borrow on the money markets at a rate that is unaffordable and that there is still a €20 billion gap between what we take in and what goes out, not our membership of the European Union or a target percentage is being imposed on us. To pretend otherwise is to divert energy away from where we should focus it, that is, dealing with the crisis.
A tradition is developing of reducing the value of engagement between political leaders. I emphasise the significance of what happened yesterday. The leaders of the main Opposition parties went to Government Buildings, received information indicating a significant further deterioration of the budgetary figures, and still committed us to meeting a 3% target by 2014. That is a substantial commitment made on behalf of my party which will aim to lead the next Government to make the progress that needs to be made to stabilise the country's finances. Senator Norris was right to say the country was in the middle of a war, but he quoted a columnist who said we had lost our sovereignty. Let us not have such a discussion. We are still in a place where we can make decisions on how we can raise and spend money. While we still have that capacity, let us be proud of and make use of our sovereignty and not wish it away.
I agree with Senator Boyle's and Senator Donohoe's excellent assessment of the situation in which we find ourselves. I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on the role of the National Roads Authority and An Bord Pleanála in, and their negative approach to, job retention and creation. This may be microeconomics but it is important from a rural point of view. For example, Brendan and Derek Allen of Castlemine Farm, Fourmilehouse, Roscommon, a traditional farm and artisan food operation, were granted——
Senator Leyden is an experienced Senator. I do not want names of people mentioned on the Order of Business.
To make the situation real, one must make it——
The Senator need not name people. Let us be honest, no Member needs to name anyone when they are making any representation or contribution on the Order of Business. I do not want names mentioned.
They have no objection to it. They were granted planning permission to erect a sign on their own land——
These are private citizens and I do not want their names mentioned. That is standard practice.
They have no objection. I informed them that I would be raising this matter on the Order of Business.
The Chair objected.
I was not informed, but I do not want names and I have said that time and again. I would appreciate if Senators did not name private citizens in the House.
They were granted permission to erect signs on their own land, adjoining the N61, the Roscommon to Boyle road. This was appealed by the NRA, whose chief executive earns €250,000 per annum.
Surely this is a matter for the Adjournment.
On a day like this.
No. I am making a request to the Leader of this House to have a debate on the role of An Bord Pleanála——
Senator Leyden is raising the particular interest of one of his constituents.
——and the National Roads Authority in a particular matter. I am trying to explain why I wish to have this debate.
(Interruptions).
No interruptions, please.
The chief executive of one of the NRA, who earns €250,000 a year, went out of his way to object and was granted an appeal, and this company employing four people in Fourmilehouse in Roscommon was refused permission for retention by An Bord Pleanála. It is very unfair and I ask the Ministers to intervene in this situation.
This is a critical situation. We need jobs in rural areas. These young men set up this small company producing food in an area and they are trying to attract attention. How can they bring people to their area if they do not have signs? An Bord Pleanála——
Time up.
——and the National Roads Authority do not care a damn as far as jobs are concerned in my area.
Senator Leyden has made the point to the Leader.
They do not care a damn.
We will hear if the Leader replies.
From the particular to the general, the ESRI report is unhelpful and its analysis is flawed. We are not in a situation where we are dealing with pure economics. We are dealing with political economy, which is what economics is about, and there are political and economic constraints on this country. On the political side, we have entered into commitments in the European Union in the context of the Stability and Growth Pact and we also have political agreement among all political parties in respect of the target of a 3% budget deficit by 2014. That is very important. On the economic front, we read today the analysis of the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, of the importance of export-led growth, which was the basis of the Celtic tiger and to which we need to return.
The property market is stifled by NAMA and investment and consumption are constrained by uncertainty. Uncertainty is most damaging to economic growth. There is certainty now as to where we want to get to in 2014 and it is important we end the uncertainty by sticking with that policy and going for the necessary cutbacks and control on the public finances. That means we must look at an bord snip nua and the Croke Park agreement, and all bets are off in respect of many of the sacred cows we have adopted in this country. We must get the public finances in order. In that regard, it is important we do not enter into denial once again. We must make hard decisions and we must pursue the necessary control of the public finances.
I very much welcome the positive comments of some of the Opposition Senators. What happened yesterday in terms of consensus was unprecedented and I would very much welcome further debates on the economy. We will be having themregardless.
During the boom period there was a danger of overemphasising the positive — perhaps in that sense we talked ourselves into a bit of a black hole — but there is a danger now of overstating the negative in the economy. I want to refer to some of the more positive statistics that are before us if we look at them. Any debate on the economy should give hope and should have a light at the end of the tunnel. According to current statistics, we live in a country where exports are up, imports are down, manufacturing and industrial production levels are increasing massively, agricultural output is increasing massively, houses are considerably more affordable, inflation is pretty much under control, interest rates are at historic lows, consumer sentiment is rising, road deaths are very much down and transport infrastructure has improved immeasurably. It is a country which is now ranked 13th in the world in terms of broadband infrastructure, up from 17th. That is very positive. It is a country which, by 2020, could be a net exporter of wind energy on some days of the year.
There is much hot air all right.
The Government has increased our wind energy capacity in the past three years from 7% to more than 15%. That is fact and the Opposition should check out those facts. There are many positive aspects in this economy. It is wrong to have debates where we switch off the light at the end of the tunnel.
We need to look at stimulus packages. When we are dealing with the public finances, we are very much dealing with the issues of cuts and new taxes, but we are not dealing with the issues of new hope and new stimulus. Both sides of the balance sheet should be looked at. Senators who talk themselves into a black hole or who are in danger of doing so are adopting the wrong approach. I look forward to the continuing debates on the economy. Let us look at the positive as well as the negative.
I want to raise my serious concern about the €15 billion in cuts that we must make. I understand that we are in challenging times, however what worries me is that front-line services, such as local hospitals, will be cut. I would ask that the Croke Park agreement be renegotiated and that we would have a serious debate about that in this House and make ourselves relevant.
I read an interesting article in the Irish Examiner about the national children’s hospital. The question was who should have resigned — the Minister for Health and Children or Mr. Philip Lynch. It seems, having read that article, that Mr. Lynch is an extraordinary entrepreneur — I apologise for using his name——
The chairman of the board.
——a wonderful person who never sought the limelight or employed public relations people to spin on his behalf. He worked in a voluntary capacity and gave many hours of his time. I question why he resigned. The way all this has happened seems clandestine and underhanded and I would like a proper, transparent explanation.
A 16-floor hospital in the middle of the city where there is barely enough car parking for the staff, never mind for families visiting, seems wrong. There is a critical time when a child is ill and, if one is stuck in traffic and the hospital is inaccessible, it is in the wrong place. We need to discuss it further. This House is also the forum in which we should do that. Let us discuss the national children's hospital. Have it in the midlands, the proper place for it.
I join others in welcoming the meeting that took place yesterday. It achieved a great deal in reaffirming all parties' commitment to the 3% deficit by 2014, and that was very positive. I fully agree with Senator Alex White that it is important there be difference as we consider the tangibles that will get us in that direction, on which we are all agreed, of 3%. Of course it is important that there is difference because otherwise it is just public administration. If I have a suggestion on a taxation measure, it is important that people criticise it and tease it out. That is what I would like to see in the debates that take place. If Ministers are coming to the House next week to consider what we think should be in the budget, I do not want to hear what the Minister wants in the budget, rather what the Members of this House suggest should be in the budget. That is what politics is about and why we have our positions — to add, on behalf of the people, our tuppence worth to what should be in the budget.
I welcome the publication of the ESRI report, which has many good things in it and will focus minds. As Senator Regan correctly noted, there are no longer any sacred cows. We now have official recognition from the ESRI that we may have to adjust aspects of the Croke Park agreement as we contemplate the measures that will take us on our journey. I also agree with the Senator that aspects of the report are unhelpful. It is not helpful, for instance, to announce before we begin, as it were, that the target is the wrong one. Let us first see how we go towards meeting it.
If, as we approach 2014, the target of 3% is too far off, it may be possible, as the Minister for Finance stated last night, to extend the deadline. I share the view expressed by Dan O'Brien in today's edition of The Irish Times that it would be preferable to take such a step “when the deficit is lower, the banking system sounder, the bond market calmer, the euro construct stabler and the world economy stronger”. It would be foolish in the extreme — Dan O’Brien uses the word “insanity” — to announce at this stage that we will not adhere to the target to the fullest extent possible.
I ask the Leader to arrange four debates next week on taxation, health, education and social welfare, respectively. The purpose of these debates should not be to listen to the relevant Ministers prescribe tonics for the budget but to enable Senators from all sides to make suggestions on where savings can be made.
I look forward to the debates requested by Senator MacSharry. We should add a fifth pillar to the four issues he has proposed for debate, namely, discussion of growth options and job opportunities. While cuts are one part of the measures that must be taken, we must also focus on incentives, growth and hope. The House will shortly debate tourism, one of the sectors in which progress could be made. Agriculture is another such sector. I ask the Leader to provide time to discuss positive aspects of the economy.
On the broader question, on which most of our colleagues are commenting and reflecting, the brutal reality is that if, on a specific date next year, the Government does not have the capacity to borrow up to €20 billion, old age pensions will not be paid, nurses will be sent home from hospital wards, teachers will lose their jobs and the country will shut down. Will we have the capacity in the next two or three months to secure loans of approximately €20 billion from the international banks? It is essential that we attempt to reach the borrowing targets we have agreed with the European Commission. If we do not set the 3% figure in stone, we will not have international credibility and will be unable to borrow money to keep the country tickingover.
I admit the choices facing us are dreadful. To describe our position as a Hobson's choice is to understate the scale of the problem. Senator Norris was correct when he reflected on 1916. If we do not get our economic house in order by 2016, this country will no longer be an independent republic but a province of the International Monetary Fund.
Debates in the House will be useful. I take on board Senator Alex White's comments but I am not interested in listening to the Minister next week. I want to hear colleagues on all sides present their views and options because we have constructive, workable proposals to make. The House has shown that it has a role to play and I hope it will build on that role next week. I ask the Leader to arrange the four discussions requested by Senator MacSharry as well as a fifth debate on growth strategies for sectors of the economy from which employment and hope can spring.
The ESRI report is unhelpful. I heard on a radio programme this morning a great deal of backtracking from its contents. For instance, an acknowledgement was made that the political context is that we must reduce the public deficit to 3% by 2014. It is of dubious merit to produce a set of hypotheses that were immediately regarded as unrealisable. I wonder what effect the report would have had if the party leaders had not been involved in a lockdown yesterday to analyse the financial position. If the meeting had not taken place, we could have been thrown into a great deal of turmoil today, if for no other reason than that the talks created a deal of stability, as Senator Regan pointed out. The meeting needs to result in the restoration of some confidence.
A great deal of the recovery will depend on global growth. We need to start exporting again. People often criticise the term "smart economy" but what we had in the period preceding 2007 was a stupid economy. The smart economy is the export economy and the opportunities it creates for individuals and businesses. Exports depend on global growth and to that extent Ireland is vulnerable. Export figures will vary and it is difficult to provide the certainty we require but at least the cost of the banking crisis has been identified. This is a significant advantage, horrendous as the final figure is.
As Senator Ó Brolcháin stated, while stimulus is necessary, it will not be provided on the basis of cash injections into the economy. There are ways to stimulate some mobility in housing again. We could, for instance, remove some of the impediments to mobility. Rather than starting a building boom, I propose that we create some mobility.
There are also ways to instil confidence. I am aware of a person who recently purchased prize bonds to a value of €2.5 million. These types of decisions by individuals act as a drain on our economic prospects. We need to unlock spending power again. This will be done through providing certainty which will lead to confidence. In that context, yesterday's meeting was a good start. I hope the Minister for Finance and the party spokespersons on finance can build on it in the coming weeks. I do not seek further rounds of talks among the party leaders. The finance spokespersons can play a vital role in continuing the analysis and arriving at some form of consensus.
It is useful to hear the diverse views of Senators notwithstanding our differences. Differences are the reason we are here. This is a democracy and people elect us on the basis of the views we offer. Now that we have the stark reality of the Government figures, even if unverified, and ESRI figures, there is an amazing convergence.
In recent days, I have asked the Leader to arrange a debate on the conclusion of the talks between the party leaders. It appears they will not meet again, although further consultations will take place between finance spokespersons and the Department of Finance, which is useful and helpful. Perhaps we can now have an all-encompassing debate on the economy, especially as the other House will have such a debate next week. The Leader should arrange this debate to allow us to further develop points of difference or convergence. There is, I believe, significant convergence in the national interest on the commitment to achieve a target of 3% debt to GDP ratio by 2014. Irrespective of whether it is achievable, we must stick to this objective. Let us hear more from the different parties. While it goes without saying that we will not be able to agree fully on the detail, we can develop the convergence that is obviously emerging. This House serves a useful purpose and we should have this debate next week.
I have listened for years to Senators argue that social partnership sidelined the democratic input of the Houses of the Oireachtas. While I recognise that social partnership played a pivotal role in the recovery from the dark economic days of the 1980s, in the past ten years it has contributed significantly to the current economic mess. The social partners should take their share of the responsibility and play a part in finding solutions. I concur fully with the comments of many Members today. I welcome the all-party consensus on reducing the State's borrowing requirement to 3% of GDP by 2014. This will be absolutely essential if we are to meet two objectives. The first is to give confidence to the bond markets in order that we can borrow at much cheaper rates of interest than is possible at present. The second aspect is that having a consensus and injecting stability into the position will help to restore consumer confidence, which will be a prerequisite to any economic growth. I would like to think that much emphasis will be placed on that area. I was highly impressed by Senator Ó Brolcháin's positive research and the points he brought to the attention of the House. A debate should be devoted to such positive aspects because people need to be reminded of them and this must be amplified. The media have been highly negative and have not been constructive throughout this period. I refer in particular to the national broadcaster, of which I am highly critical, that could have had a role to play. This is unlike the position in neighbouring jurisdictions in which people get the bad news but it is balanced by positive developments within the economy, as well as by the sound steps that are being taken to restore the economic position.
I ask the Leader to arrange for a debate along the lines and on the four areas suggested by Senator MacSharry. I also agree that job creation, as mentioned by Senator Bradford, should be one such topic and suggest that the Leader should include proposed measures to restore consumer confidence. I seek a continuation of Members' earlier debate on the Croke Park deal. It is unconscionable to think we would be able to ring-fence 40% of expenditure without being obliged to address it.
Time, Senator.
I am terribly disappointed by senior management within the public sector who have been dragging their feet about getting real and impressive action in this area. Failure to so do obviously will have an impact on good public servants in the years ahead.
The focus of such a debate should be on where Ireland could end up, were one to begin to agree with certain commentators in respect of what the political parties have agreed to in principle. When the State pays more than 5% to borrow money and when growth in the economy is not expected to exceed 3% over the next few years, we are in trouble. As matters stand, the State is paying in excess of 6% on borrowed money and this simply is not sustainable. The State will seek to borrow €50 billion in the next four years and even if we manage to reach the 3% target by 2014, we still will be obliged to borrow every year to pay for public services, pensioners and social welfare recipients. We need to demonstrate to the individuals who will loan the State billions of euro in the next couple of years that we have copped onto what has gone wrong with the country and that we are willing to put our shoulders to the wheel to sort it out.
I ask those who believe the ESRI is correct to outline what they think would be the consequences, were the State to agree to the objective of stretching out the deficit reduction another few years. We would lose credibility on the grounds that we were afraid to take on our own problems. Such people also should comment on where that would lead us because if for any reason the State's cost of borrowing rose to 7% next year, that would constitute an unsustainable option for the country. All Members acknowledge there will be massive suffering for everyone in the coming years. It does not matter whether one is a social welfare recipient, a pensioner or a middle-class person. Everyone will suffer because the economy has been badly mismanaged over recent years, the game is up and we must deal with it. The debate must be based on this premise. We must be mature about it because this is an awful position in which to be.
Great emphasis should be laid on the absolute patriotism shown by the Opposition leaders yesterday in adopting the 3% target. It displays great patriotism and they deserve enormous credit. Those who are in government should ask themselves whether, were the roles reversed, they would do the same. Second, anyone who is in government should, at every public occasion — I presume the Leader will do so later — applaud that patriotism and acknowledge it as an outstanding display——
We proposed it.
——which must have international ramifications.
The target of reducing the State's borrowings to 3% of GDP by 2014 is unavoidable to sustain our credibility for borrowing on the bond markets. Therein lies the critical issue, in that if we are to borrow at realistic prices we do not have an option. This is frightening and is an enormously difficult position in which to be but is unavoidable. However, if we are to address this problem, it must be paralleled by specific efforts in respect of job creation. People need hope and realisation in this regard. Great potential exists in agriculture, food processing and in value-added product in food but there is much to be done in that regard. Moreover, there also is enormous potential in tourism, which is an expanding sector internationally and there is much to be done. In addition, Ireland also has great potential with regard to exporting green energy and we must continue to work towards that goal.
Just as there was all-party agreement yesterday on the targets, which is an enormous advance, there should be all-party agreement and a common stated objective to protect front-line services. The needy and the vulnerable need not suffer and that if they do it will be because the cuts were misplaced and were carried out from an incorrect basis, a wrong ethic and a wrong value system.
I thank the Senator. His point is made.
The provision of front-line services, such as bandages and wheelchairs for sick people, etc. cannot be compromised.
The ESRI report throws down a challenge to Members and throws into sharp relief the importance of the decision taken by the party leaders yesterday. I found the report from the ESRI and the presentation of it today to be contradictory and somewhat confusing. I believe the challenge for all Members and for the party leaders is to spell out clearly to people the reason it is so important to stick to the key target of reducing the deficit to 3% by 2014. A number of speakers in this House have highlighted that the country would not be able to continue. We will not be able to continue paying for basic services unless we convince the international markets that we are serious in our intent. This is the importance of yesterday's decision.
However, I make the point to Senator Boyle in particular and the Government in general that given the debate that took place in the House last week on the Croke Park agreement, it is incumbent on the Government to revert to Members and outline what it is doing to ensure its implementation. Members were given no specifics last week by the Minister. They need to know how the Government intends to speed up implementation of the Croke Park agreement, what savings are being achieved or can be made and the timeframe for them. This is absolutely critical and there is a real onus on the Government to be honest about the Croke Park agreement, its implementation and the savings that together with the partners to the agreement it believes can be achieved.
The disagreement between the ESRI and the Government with regard to the future also highlights the importance of the point on independent verification of figures that Deputy Kenny made yesterday and to which Senator Buttimer referred earlier. This also is critical and should be pursued by the Government and by agreement in both Houses. Finally, I support Senator MacSharry's suggestion on debates on a Department by Department basis, as the Seanad could play a useful role in this regard. For example, Members could discuss tourism and the potential therein in detail. As the infrastructure, hotels, access and airports are in place, Members should discuss job creation in that sector. A debate on that subject in this House could prove to be extremely useful in the formulation leading up to the budget.
Were we to be really honest, we would accept that we have very little choice regarding the tough things that must be done in the next few years. Moreover, I am afraid that it flows logically from this that much that will be said in these Houses will be superfluous. While Members will be engaged in much conversation that is necessary at one level, at another level it will be quite superfluous because the same decisions must be taken anyway. In the next couple of years we will face the test of whether we can get on with the business of improving the country, particularly in ways that do not involve major cost, and avoid getting caught in the headlights of the economic crisis.
Despite our angst about animal welfare legislation in the past year, it would be terrible if we were to lose our nerve regarding the need to improve animal welfare legislation. The primary animal welfare legislation in Ireland will be 100 years old next year. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 is still the principal Act, but it was clearly written for a different era and it has many failings. For example, it is difficult to believe, but true, that attending an animal fight is not unlawful. One can dock the tail of a pup up to one month old without using an anaesthetic. These provisions may not seem important in the context of the economic crisis, but they have to do with how we civilise ourselves and the culture we are seeking to achieve. I would hate if Ministers and politicians felt paralysed to deal with such issues for fear they would be accused of trivialising matters. These issues are important and need to be attended to.
We also need to be very careful that we push against any notion that it might be acceptable to ask questions about the role of immigrants in our society. We were very happy for people to come to the country and do the jobs we were not able to do. There is some evidence that there are still jobs we are not willing to do. This is evidenced by the presence of many fine immigrants, particularly in nursing and other professions. We need to be very careful to lead from the front in the national debate on this issue in order that we do not see the emergence of negative attitudes at a time when that could happen because of the economic challenges faced by many.
I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on the funding of local authorities. It is very important that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government comes into the House to tell us how he intends to arrange for the funding of local authorities, some of which, we are led to believe, are in serious difficulties. The Leader should see to it that we have a question and answer session in every debate. We had a number of debates on the economy recently, but we did not have a question and answer session, which would be beneficial.
I agree with Senator Fitzgerald's proposal for a debate on tourism. We have the hotel infrastructure, but we would like to know what the proposals of the Department and Bord Fáilte are to increase numbers, as they have promised to do. That would be a great start for the country. Having question and answer sessions, particularly on tourism, agriculture and the funding of local authorities, would be a good way forward.
Senators Buttimer, Norris, Alex White, Boyle, Donohoe, Regan, Ó Brolcháin, McFadden, MacSharry, Bradford, Dearey, Coghlan, Walsh, Twomey, O'Reilly, Fitzgerald and Mullen expressed their opinions and congratulated the four party leaders for getting together yesterday in the national interest on the initiative of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, which was endorsed by the Taoiseach. It was an historic day on which we will look back and which future generations will say was a turning point when all parties accepted their responsibility to see what could be done in the national interest. The all-day debate on the four budget action plan and the ESRI report will take place next Thursday. The four issues of taxation, social welfare, health and education mentioned on the Order of Business will be the highlights of the debate.
Senator Alex White asked what changes I had made since my reappointment as Leader of the Seanad. One was the inclusion of question and answer sessions in debates, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach correctly pointed out, with Ministers present on all occasions. That is a serious advance on what used to happen in the House for the longest time. The Minister will be here all day on Thursday to discuss the economy. If the debate needs to be rolled over to the following week, there will no be difficulty in arranging this. I do not have any difficulty in going from Department to Department to see what their future plans are.
The priority must be job creation and growth in the economy. We have been hearing on radio this morning and last evening about the ESRI report. If we do not achieve an economic growth rate of 3.5%, we will not be able to reduce unemployment. Everything relates to job creation.
I agree with what Senator Fitzgerald said about tourism, a matter on which Senator Burke has sought a debate on many occasions. We will be discussing the issue all day. I have allocated 12 minutes for spokespersons and eight minutes for all other speakers. If more time is required and the debate needs to be rolled over, I will have no difficulty in arranging this.
The tourism sector has huge potential in terms of job creation and growth. Undertakings were given by successive Governments to allow family-run businesses, new businesses and multinationals with big brand names to promote Ireland abroad using their various marketing teams. Various Departments gave certain undertakings at the time for which we now seem to be legislating retrospectively. I have a vested interest in the sector, as my family is heavily involved in it. If the strategies in place are continued, there will be massive unemployment in the sector. On the one hand, the Government must balance the books, but, on the other, job protection and creation must be a priority. I ask colleagues, as requested this morning, to make job creation the top priority in their contributions to the debate next week.
The tourism sector faces a serious challenge because of the changes made in the last three budgets. One could almost say undertakings and guarantees were given to entice and encourage people to invest in the industry. Now legislation has been brought forward which will seriously damage the sector. Within six months we will all see the difficulties NAMA will face in relation to the number of hotels, restaurants and guesthouses on its books but with no one to buy them. That is what will happen. I will be making a contribution to today's debate and will mention the serious challenges facing the Minister for Finance, Deputies and Senators in trying to sustain the jobs in the tourism industry. The 300,000 jobs in the industry are the future jobs of our boys and girls.
Senator Leyden called for a debate on the National Roads Authority and An Bord Pleanála. I will have no difficulty in arranging such a debate.
Senator McFadden raised the issue of the children's hospital. Everyone in Ireland wants to see work on the national children's hospital progressing. We have been listening to a debate on this matter for 15 years. The project is progressing and the hospital will be in place in 2015 or 2016. That is what we all want to see. There will be 1,000 car-parking spaces on site. I wish everyone well involved well in their deliberations.
Senator Paddy Burke called for a debate on the funding of local authorities. This presents a huge challenge. My own county of Westmeath faces a massive problem, as indicated in the publications yesterday. I will have no difficulty in arranging a debate on this issue in the coming weeks.
Is the Order of Business agreed to?
I asked the Leader if the House would sit next Tuesday and he has not replied.
I understand it is a staffing issue. The Houses do not sit on the Tuesday when a bank holiday falls on a Monday. I will find out the real reason for the Senator, but neither House will sit on Tuesday. We will be sitting at least three days each week until Christmas and four days some weeks.
Is the House sitting on Tuesday? It is a simple question.
The answer is no. The Dáil is not sitting either.
On what basis?
We are on the Order of Business.
I will revert to the Senator on the matter, but there is a genuine reason.
The Leader cannot blame the staff.
I am not blaming them.
The Leader did.
Order of Business agreed to.