It is wrong to lump Fine Gael in with the Government when attackingfinancial recklessness, argues Jim Mitchell
I was struck by how ill-informed Peter White was in his article "Uncontrolled spending a political disgrace" (Irish Times, February 20th).
Of course, I agree with the headline, but the text seeks to lump Fine Gael in with the present Government. This would appear to be based on Fine Gael's proposal to treat ordinary Eircom shareholders the same as institutional and corporate shareholders.
We stand over this proposal. It is the only one we have made which will have cost implications for the Exchequer. This will be a one-year cost only and will amount to a maximum of €90 million.
This is based on our commitment to social justice, which will inform all the policies we will propose in the general election. All other proposals like this one will be fully costed and contained within our overall economic projections.
I am amazed at how people can think it wrong to give PAYE taxpayers and pensioners who invested in Eircom the same tax treatment as large investors. Already the Exchequer has rebated over €140 million to corporate and institutional investors, that representing 20 per cent of their loss on their Eircom investment.
What is striking is that these large investors get these rebates every time they make a loss on the stock exchange. Fine Gael proposes a once-off rebate to ordinary taxpayers at 20 per cent because of the gross mishandling of the Eircom shareholding by the Government.
Like Eircom, our proposals to recognise the severe hardship suffered by some taxi-men following deregulation are based on precepts of social justice. In this case, there will be no cost to the Exchequer.
Is the official Opposition to ignore all unfairness perpetrated by the present Government, leaving it to Independents and Sinn Féin to represent groups in society who have a genuine grievance?
Peter White must have written his article before last weekend's Fine Gael ardfheis, where Michael Noonan and I went to great lengths to emphasise that:
all our proposals and our programme will be costed by the Department of Finance;
all our economic projections will be fixed following consultation with the ESRI and the Department of Finance and in line with their projections; and
there will be no increases in income tax or corporate and capital taxes.
It was I, in my then position as chairman of the Dáil Finance Committee, who first suggested that a percentage of the annual Budget be set aside for known future costs. Fine Gael has made it clear that in no circumstances would it agree to any reduction in this.
I have made it clear that, in addition to the National Pensions Fund, there should be, in years of high economic growth, a further set-aside each year, accumulating so that the State would always be in a position to meet unforeseen contingencies. At such times, the first duty of politicians is to protect that prosperity for the future.
Mr White's article ignores Fine Gael's track record. While he acknowledges in a general sense our responsible stances in the past, he fails to mention the Tallaght strategy. Lest others forget, that strategy proposed fiscal rectitude as the best means of boosting the economy.
The Tallaght strategy was the mother and father of the Celtic Tiger. Fine Gael is as committed now as it was then to sound and prudent economic management.
Last year, the Government presided over a 22 per cent growth in current expenditure when inflation was less than 5 per cent and when revenues increased by little more than 2 per cent. In my ardfheis speech, I reiterated my call for urgent corrective action to be taken to reduce the growth of current expenditure. I agree with Desmond O'Malley that this is out of control. However, unlike Mr O'Malley and the PDs, Fine Gael did not support these reckless policies.
Jim Mitchell is deputy leader of Fine Gael and the party's spokesman on finance