Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009

Vol. 694 No. 4

Pre-budget Outlook: Statements (Resumed).

The forthcoming budget is being framed at a very difficult time for families. These are particularly tough times for the more than 400,000 people on the live register — some of whom are working greatly reduced hours and some of whom have lost their jobs. Many of them have long years of employment behind them and never thought that they would be out of work. Many are young graduates who worked hard to get the points for college and to get good qualifications in the expectation of starting their careers immediately.

As Minister for Social and Family Affairs, I am acutely conscious of the needs of the 412,407 people who were on the live register at the end of October 2009. I also fully understand that a wide range of other groups — such as people with disabilities, carers and pensioners — depend on the welfare budget for vital support. I assure the House that this Government has done and will continue to do the very best it can to protect the most vulnerable people in society.

Over the past decade there have been very significant increases in welfare payments. The State contributory pension has increased from €113 to more than €230 per week; the weekly rate of jobseeker's allowance has been raised from €93 to €204 per week; child benefit has increased from €44 to €166 per month. We have provided increases in welfare rates that were far in excess of increases in both prices and wages. Even throughout the economic difficulties of the past two years, the Government has done its best to prioritise social welfare. The October 2008 budget provided for increases of between 3% and 3.8% in the basic payment rates at a time when inflation for 2009 was expected to be 2.5% and in reality, prices have dropped considerably this year. By September 2009, prices — as measured by the consumer price index — had fallen by 6.5% and are now forecast to drop by an average of between 4% and 5% for the year. I appreciate it is important to consider not just the overall change in the consumer price index but the impact this could have on individual groups. To that end, the Department of Finance has carried out a technical analysis which suggests that between September 2008 and September 2009, the CPI fell by approximately 3.25% for retired households; 5.75% for unemployed households; and 7.5% for working households. Prices fell by about 7.5% for the highest income decile and 5.25% for the lowest income decile. Therefore, while decreases in the cost of items like mortgages and cars would naturally have had a greater impact on higher income families, the overall cost of living has also dropped significantly for pensioners, for the unemployed and for low income households in general.

In framing the April supplementary budget, very tough decisions had to be made across the whole range of Government expenditure. In that context, the provision of €21.3 billion for social welfare services in 2009 — 20% more than the amount spent in 2008 — was a clear demonstration of our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable people in society. Tax rates and borrowing had to be increased to fund this extra expenditure on social welfare. We know from the pre-budget outlook that if we do nothing next year, just to cater for the increased numbers under all the various headings, that budget will go well beyond €22,000 million next year. Unfortunately, that is not a sustainable position.

In framing next month's budget, the Government is facing very difficult choices. We know we must reduce expenditure by €4 billion next year but we also know that there is no easy or pain free way of doing this. Social welfare spending makes up the largest single block of Exchequer gross current voted expenditure, accounting for 37% of the total, at just over €21 billion this year. Public pay and pensions, at €19.8 billion, accounts for 35%, while other programme expenditure, not including pay, at €15.8 billion, accounts for the remaining 28%. The scale of the savings required from public expenditure as a whole means that some reductions will have to be made in the social welfare area.

I appreciate that any decrease in welfare spending may be hard for people to cope with. However, if the Government does not take steps now to reduce overall public expenditure and restore stability to the public finances, we risk making the economic situation far worse for everyone, including welfare recipients, in the long term. It is clear that excessive borrowing and an unsustainable increase in the national debt will hamper our ability to fund social services, including welfare, in the future. We must find an appropriate balance between protecting the most vulnerable people in the short term and taking necessary action to avoid prolonging our country's current economic difficulties. To that end, I assure Deputies that our deliberations on the welfare budget are not just being informed by analysis and proposals from groups such as the Commission on Taxation, the McCarthy group, the OECD or the ESRI. They are also being influenced by the understanding that each of us has -not just as Ministers but also as constituency TDs — of the real difficulties facing families at this time.

As Minister for Social and Family Affairs, I have met a wide variety of groups recently to listen to their views about the forthcoming budget. The very successful pre-budget forum attended by nearly 30 different groups gave them an opportunity to voice their concerns and to give their views on the budget. I have also met separately major groups representing national interests such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed, the Disability Stakeholder Group, the National Women's Council, Accord, the Carers Association and the Family Support Agency Network. Each has genuine concerns about the needs of the people they represent and genuine worries about the future. I assure Deputies that the views of these and other groups have informed my Department's consideration of potential budget measures.

The Government has not yet made a final decision on the welfare budget and I would welcome any suggestions from Deputies as to how expenditure by the Department of Social and Family Affairs could be reduced, with a view to protecting social services in the longer term. The scale of the current crisis demands much from us as public representatives. It demands that Government and Opposition Members put aside any concerns about political popularity and be frank and open with people about the choices that must be made. Pretending to be all things to all men will not help to get this country back on track.

The Fine Gael spokesperson on finance stated earlier in this debate that we cannot leave the social welfare budget immune. However, he has so far refused to set out any proposals that deliver significant savings in welfare spending. I look forward to genuine engagement and to hearing real proposals, not empty rhetoric. That is what the people deserve at this difficult time.

Child benefit is one area where there are proposals in the public domain. The rates of child benefit have increased significantly since 2001 — having trebled for the first two children and increased by more than 185% for the third and subsequent children. Overall expenditure on the scheme grew from just under €965 million in 2001 to nearly €2.5 billion in 2008 and this year approximately 12% of all social welfare spending will go on child benefit.

The Commission on Taxation recommended in principle that the payment be taxed, while the McCarthy group recommended an across the board cut in child benefit payment rates. The issues involved in either taxing or means-testing the payment for everyone are complex. For a start, we would have to determine the household income of all 600,000 families who currently receive the payment. While the household income of married couples who are jointly assessed by the Revenue would be readily available, the joint income of cohabiting couples would be much harder to determine. I am conscious that child benefit payment has made a significant contribution towards reducing child poverty. I am also conscious of those young working couples who are stretched with mortgages and with difficulties with employment and who perhaps are not on social welfare but whom also have great need of their child benefit payment. The Government is still considering the potential options and no final decision has been made. I am trying to find the fairest way of achieving savings while protecting those on low incomes as much as possible and not penalising any group too much. I appreciate the value of that money to very many people. To reassure people, I reiterate that no final decision has been made. I look forward to hearing the views of other groups who have yet to speak.

The best way to reduce overall spending on welfare is to keep as many people as possible in work and get as many as possible back to work. To that end, the Government has focused increasingly in the past two years on labour market activation measures. My Department is co-operating well with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with initiatives such as the back to education allowance and the back to work enterprise allowance. New programmes such as the short-term enterprise allowance and a work placement scheme, which are specifically designed to meet emerging needs in the current environment, have been introduced. I assure the House that the Government will do all it can to support employment. We will do all in our power to ensure that every last cent of taxpayers' money is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, we must also act now to avoid excessive borrowing and get the public finances back on track in the interests of everyone, including those dependent on the welfare system.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Neville, Creed and Clune.

Given the limited time I have, I wish to speak on only one issue, which is the air travel tax. Since it was introduced by the Government in last year's budget it has left a trail of destruction. Even in July, the height of the summer season, trips abroad by Irish residents were down 11.3% compared to 2008, while the number of overseas visitors to Ireland fell by 9.1% in the same period. Meanwhile, US Airways, Delta Airlines and CityJet have all left Shannon Airport. The trail of destruction, however, does not stop there.

The tax is counterproductive. While it may have brought in about €60 million up to the end of September, how much revenue has been lost to the Exchequer as a result of its introduction? Defending the introduction of the tax, the Minister of Finance said that our UK neighbour also has a travel tax. However, the Minister needs to get real. We cannot compare ourselves to the UK. Around 61 million people every year use London Heathrow Airport, which is an international hub serving the whole world. Ireland is an island nation which is very much dependent on air access, and our economy is dependent on tourism.

The reduction in visitor numbers to Ireland means lost bed nights for hotels and bed and breakfasts. It means less VAT for the Exchequer because of falling revenues and less money being spent on tourist attractions, car hire and so on. Everybody is hit by it, from the taxi driver who picks up passengers at the airport to the local shopkeeper. It has a major knock-on effect. When the year-end figures are published in the new year they will reflect another significant decline in passenger numbers at our airports. It looks highly likely that Ryanair will not do a deal with Shannon Airport Authority and will base just one aircraft at the airport, with the loss of hundreds of jobs and an increase in the number on social welfare. I am concerned that Ryanair will simply leave and attempt to increase its traffic at UK destinations. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, to imagine the devastating effect this would have on the region.

The Minister for Finance cannot ignore the situation. Airlines, airports, the tourism sector, hotels and even the Government's own tourism strategy group have joined forces to condemn this tax. I am tired of listening to the same old rhetoric that the Government cannot intervene in aviation matters. This is the one area over which the Minister for Finance has control and for which he has the solution in his own hands. If the economy in the mid-west region is to get back on its feet, the Minister must axe the tax. The ball is in his court. I ask him not to score another own goal but to give the airports a break. A compromise must be found here; otherwise, the tourism industry will suffer. I ask the Minister to axe this tax in the budget.

I am extremely concerned about the recommendation in the McCarthy report that €50 million be saved in the area of mental health and disability. The situation with regard to mental illness and suicide is serious in recessionary times. Studies and experience since the 1890s have shown that the incidence of suicide and psychiatric illness increases during recessions. The director general of the World Health Organisation, Margaret Chan, stated earlier this year that in times of recession, "it should not come as a surprise that we continue to see more stresses, suicides and mental disorders." The director of the WHO's mental health and substance abuse department also stated:

There is a clear evidence that suicide is linked to financial disasters. I am not talking about the millionaire jumping out the window but about poor people.

The potential psychological impact of economic recession on mental health is severe. Job loss, job insecurity and uncertainty, economic strain, loss of income, home repossessions and restricted access to credit lead to a reduction in mental well-being, an increase in mental health problems and ill-health, increased substance misuse, especially alcohol and drugs, and intimate relationship breakdown and divorce. There is a loss of perceived social worth and a loss of purpose and daily structure, a reduction in social contact and an increase in social isolation. Increases in suicidal behaviour — both self-harm and completed suicide — occur.

We saw this week statistics showing an increase of 43% in suicides in the first three months of this year. In addition, the National Suicide Research Foundation in Cork has reported an increase in attempted suicide and self-harm since the recession began. People who are unemployed are two to three times more likely to die from suicide than those in employment. I heard today a statistic from a senior person in the HSE that for every 1% increase in unemployment there is a 0.79% increase in suicide.

The Deputy's section of the slot has concluded.

I urge the Minister to ensure there is no reduction in funding and that there is an increased contribution in this area.

The economic downturn has been felt more harshly in the agricultural sector than in any other sector to date. The Teagasc farm income survey, which has attracted little attention in this House, showed that incomes in the agricultural sector across all product enterprises collapsed in 2008 by 13.7% on average. To take examples from particular sectors, the average income for family farms in the beef sector is €7,700. It is anticipated by Teagasc that the 2009 farm income survey will show a further collapse of the order of 20% on top of the existing fall of 13.7% in 2008. No other sector has suffered as much as the agricultural sector.

My point is about the agricultural budget in 2010. While I accept that no Department is exempt from the search for savings and efficiencies — I recognise that many possible savings have been identified in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, particularly by the McCarthy report, and these should be pursued — the simple message I want to send out is that the Government should keep its hands off the farm gate schemes. There is absolutely no scope for further cutbacks in farm gate schemes in the agricultural budget in 2010. There simply is not room for manoeuvre.

A false economy that has been pursued by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the discontinuation of REPS 4. This is despite the commitment in the programme for Government to maintain participation in the scheme at 70,000. The net effect of that decision will be to force thousands of farmers onto farm assist which, unlike the REP scheme, is 100% funded by the Exchequer, while the REP scheme is co-funded by Europe to the tune of 45% or 55%. I implore the Government not to come looking for savings at farm gate level. However, there is certainly room for efficiencies in the overall budget of the Department, and the Minister could usefully pursue these.

In the next budget, it will be important to protect existing jobs and encourage the development of new jobs. This is a general statement that many people have made, but it is important in view of the actual cost of unemployment to the Exchequer. The ESRI estimates that up to half the gap between Government income and spending will be bridged if we can help people on the live register to get back to work. Every additional person in work will cut €20,000 from our borrowing as a result of the additional taxes and lower social spending that will result. This is why there must be a focus on protecting and promoting jobs. Our lack of competitiveness must be addressed if we are to protect those jobs. We must help employers to continue in business and encourage future investment, both indigenous and foreign. It is equally important to encourage indigenous businesses.

In 2000 we were the fourth most competitive economy in the world. We have slipped now to 19th position. Poor infrastructure, high energy costs, lack of broadband and transport have contributed to our lack of competitiveness. There is a lack of efficiencies in Government and in delivering Government services. In the last budget the Minister offered a list of the quangos he intended to amalgamate and reduce. As a simple example, the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority were to be merged into one but we have heard nothing since. That is a simple example of how the Government has not shown leadership, direction or the bottle to deliver on that.

We need to see in the budget a clear sense there is a plan, that we know where we are going, and, very important, that the current generation of unemployed young people will be catered for. In the main it is young people who are caught in the awful scenario of high debt and negative equity. Some of these people are paying dearly for properties and will continue to do so for a long time. Many cannot afford to do so now and some are dependent on the State for mortgage interest relief. These are our vulnerable young people. There are also those in our education system, our colleges and schools. We need to tell them that things will be different, that Government services can and will be efficient and that this nation can and will return to be among the top in the world league in terms of competitiveness.

That is how the Government must direct us. I encourage the Government to look at the benefits that have resulted from investment in research and development and from innovation projects. That is the key to our future. If we wish to be up there competing at that level with other nations we need to continue to support the effective investment that has been in place in research and development.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this pre-budget debate. For some considerable time the Government has announced its intention to reduce the budget deficit by €4 billion next year. Earlier today the Minister for Finance indicated that the scope for increases in taxes is minimal and that reductions in expenditure will be the priority on this occasion.

Over the last 12 months the Government has moved speedily to address the difficult economic situation which the country faces. As well as additional budgetary measures to tackle the deteriorating budget deficit, it has also had to deal with the banking crisis and the establishment of NAMA to handle the toxic assets crippling the banking sector. It has been a difficult period for the country on several fronts but it is widely recognised that this Government has moved with conviction and resolve to begin to address the problems besetting us at this time. We have implemented corrective measures amounting to 5% of GDP. We have agreed to reduce our budget deficit back within the EU 3% limit, by 2013-2014 and have had this plan approved by the European Commission.

Already, we are beginning to see concrete results. Labour costs are expected to have fallen by 7% this year, relative to our EU partners. High levels of unemployment represent real hardship for many families but while unemployment is at a high level there was a drop in unemployment in October, which is welcome news. The unemployment figures impact on the budgetary situation in two ways, by increasing social welfare costs and reducing tax income. Therefore, any improvement, however small, is to be welcomed.

Ireland's exports continue to perform well and our balance of payments may move into surplus next year. A number of other factors are a further source of encouragement. A recent business sentiment survey indicated that Irish companies reported stronger levels of activity, felt more optimistic about the economy and were more up-beat than at any time since the survey started in late 2007. Elsewhere, an economist with the IMF recently indicated that the recovery has started while our Central Bank has suggested that our economy may be over the worst. Furthermore, the Government ratified the Lisbon treaty, ensuring that our commitment to Europe is perceived as being back on track. This should help to maintain foreign direct investment in this country.

However, this is not in any way to diminish the unprecedented fiscal challenges we still face. The budgetary difficulties can be illustrated in stark but simple terms. We are spending in the order of €22 billion more than we are generating in tax revenue. This situation is unsustainable in the longer term and further action needs to be taken now if this problem is to be resolved in the medium term. Some have argued for taxation increases but the Government considers this approach alone is likely to have a deflationary impact, with income from taxation already contracting. It appears there may be a year-on-year decline of 20% in tax revenue. Although the Commission on Taxation has produced its report there appears to be a consensus in some quarters that any new taxes introduced should replace rather than complement any existing taxes already in place. In any event, we have increased personal taxation in the past 14 months so the scope for further increases is not realistic. Furthermore, any increases are unlikely to assist in maintaining jobs that are often already under threat.

In promoting economic recovery, the Government is committed to achieving a fully functioning banking sector and bringing sustainability to the public finances. To achieve these goals, reductions in public expenditure are required across all Departments. No Department can escape because all have benefited from the increased revenue available over the last decade. When we examine the fruits of the last decade, we see new transport and other infrastructure, increased and enhanced social welfare payments, greater numbers of teachers and special needs assistants, additional nurses and gardaí. However, if the current budgetary situation is to be resolved — as it must be — then all aspects of public expenditure will need to be re-visited.

My own Department of Education and Science will not be immune from the examination process. However, the recently re-negotiated programme for Government has re-affirmed the commitment that education remains a priority for this Government. I welcome that the Government has agreed in general that there will be no further reductions in the pupil-teacher ratio. I wish to highlight that there are mechanisms open to schools to apply for additional resources, for example, in cases where they are experiencing large increases in enrolment. There are independent appeals mechanisms for allocation of teachers, including language support teachers. Five hundred additional posts will be available that can be targeted at schools with larger classes. However, I stress that funding for these additional teachers will need to be considered in the context of overall funding available to the Government for 2010.

My colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O' Keeffe, has introduced a number of measures in the past year which have been the subject of some attention. However, the determination of the Government to protect scarce resources for education can be demonstrated in two areas where my Department has received concessions in the past year. The Departments of Education and Science and Social and Family Affairs were fortunate to get an increase in allocations in 2009. In addition, when the Government introduced a moratorium in the public service, a special arrangement again was made for the Department of Education and Science, which prioritised the filling of teacher and special needs posts, a privilege not extended to all other Departments.

While the programme for Government emphasises the priority of investment in education, difficult choices still must be made by the Cabinet. My Department of Education and Science, a high-spending Department, will not be exempt but will play a part in the overall budgetary corrective measures, while protecting, in so far as is possible, most vulnerable citizens.

I turn to the area of lifelong learning. In view of the high level of unemployment, education and training become critically important, not only in responding to the immediate challenge but also in securing our long-term recovery. Late last year the Government published its framework document, Building Ireland's Smart Economy, which outlined its strategy to drive an enterprise economy, improve competitiveness, establish Ireland as an innovation hub and encourage research and development while also promoting renewable energy and the creation of green-collar jobs.

Skills will be the engine behind a new modern knowledge-based economy. The national skills strategy sets out clear goals and objectives with regard to upskilling the workforce over time. Speaking as the Minister of State with responsibility for lifelong learning, the Departments of Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment are adopting an integrated approach to a number of activation activities. A range of measures have been introduced to expand services to the unemployed and to promote a flexible learning environment tailored to the specific needs of the individual.

The Government will focus on resolving the budgetary situation while continuing to give consideration to maintaining and improving supports for the unemployed. Since the beginning of the year, substantial additional resources have been directed to doubling job search capacity, providing more training places and supporting redundant apprentices and those wishing to avail of third level studies while improving the back to work enterprise allowance and back to education allowance schemes.

The Government will continue to implement innovative measures to support the unemployed in accordance with its overall strategy as outlined in the smart economy document. It will also ensure that, despite the need for difficult expenditure reductions across all Departments, it will achieve maximum impact from available resources for those losing their jobs. The forthcoming budget is likely to implement many cost saving exercises that will have far-reaching consequences, but the Government will find the resources to see that those in education and the unemployed will continue to receive the supports required despite a diminishing fund of resources.

To listen to Members of the Opposition speak in this debate, one could get the incorrect impression that those motivated by compassion are only those who sit on the opposite benches. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the Government must be committed to taking the difficult measures now to improve our budgetary situation and to help stimulate a more competitive economy. We have not been and we will not be found wanting in this regard.

I understand Deputy Lee will share time.

Yes, with Deputy Connaughton. The pre-budget outlook document, the basis of this evening's debate, outlines an amazing economic disaster as eloquently as any document could. We went from having a current budget surplus of €9 billion in 2006 to borrowing, according to this document, €26 billion this year. Without any changes, we will borrow €20 billion by next year. This is an economic disaster of monumental proportions for a country that was doing so well.

As all budgetary documents are these days, this one is a multi-year document. It shows how budgets will progress in the years to come. The document on the 2008 budget forecasted that 2010's tax revenues would amount to €55 billion. Much has happened since and income taxes have increased by almost €4 billion. Even then, we will only get €30 billion next year according to this document. Given the target of €55 billion, this is a catastrophic drop of nearly 50% on the country's revenue. Adding €4 billion to €55 billion should have given us €59 billion.

The people who led us into this situation are asking us to trust them to lead us out of it. They are also asking those of us on this side of the House what they should do. It is incredible. Trust is at the heart of this issue, but the country has seen a bonfire of trust. No one can trust the numbers of the Financial Regulator, the Central Bank or the Department of Finance. No one can trust them in terms of their stewardship of the economy, since this document states that they blew it. The Departments of the Taoiseach and Enterprise, Trade and Employment are just as responsible for economic management in terms of the direction of the economy and the country. Nowhere in that apparatus could we place our trust in the hope that what we were about to do in terms of cutbacks could lead us to somewhere positive. It is difficult to believe the same people are asking us to enter into this venture and help with the choice of who should pay the price. The Government must believe that people are stupid.

There has been bad management of the economy, with structural imbalances the likes of which no economy could have endured. No one else would have done nothing about them, but the Government tended to ignore them in recent years. With the collapse of the construction sector, we have gone from being able to make up any number for the economy and the taxes would come through to a situation in which a contraction of 1% in the economy leads to a decrease of 3% in taxes. It is an incredibly bad situation. We used to have a great deal of money in the kitty. It still has some money, but we are €26 billion short.

Now, people are supposed to pay for that incompetence and we are supposed to tell the Government who will pay. The Government must have some neck to expect people on this side of the House to go along with this idea. The Government and everyone around it are responsible. In terms of who should pay the price, the Taoiseach is responsible. He was Minister for Finance for the four years prior to this economic catastrophe. He did nothing about the economic imbalances at the basis of the report. He sits at the head of a Government that wants the Opposition to point out the way forward. What a neck. No one is that stupid. Someone should pay, that is, the Taoiseach. In this context, following the Government is difficult.

The Government brought Ireland into the single currency with great support from all sides of the House. However, this meant different rules of engagement with regard to economic management. When the country hit a recession, there would only be one way of making adjustments, namely, via the labour market. These rules were written large when we threw away economic instruments like interest rates and currency movements. It was important to manage the economy correctly.

We are in our first deep recession since entering the single currency and the only way out is through the labour market, that is, higher unemployment rates and pay cuts. This seems to be how economies adjust. It is certainly how the Government is pushing it, telling people in the public sector and elsewhere that they must take pay cuts. The threat is that, if they do not take those cuts, the IMF will come in and make big decisions for us. This is complete rubbish. The IMF will not come into Ireland because it does not enter regions of economies and Ireland is a region of a single European economy.

Europe is calling the shots. When it tells the Government to give €54 billion to the banks, the Government says, "Yes, sir". When it tells the Government to reduce borrowing to 3% of GDP by 2013, the Government says, "Yes, sir." It is a question of who is running the country and what decisions are being taken. The idea that we would be told to reduce the deficit to 3% by 2013 or all hell would break lose did not convince me in the first place. It is already clear that this target is movable for Europe. The target is now 2014. What Europe is asking us to do in terms of adjustments it has never asked of any other economy.

The report refers to a deficit of €26 billion, €13.5 billion of which is not related to the day-to-day running of the economy. In terms of our collapse, this equates to approximately 7% of GDP. This is not off the scale at all, but we are being told that we must crucify all sectors of the economy because we are supposed to live up to someone else's desire to have us crucified to a 3% deficit of GDP by 2013 or 2014.

Page 23 of the report relates to capital expenditure. It states that the Government will spend 4.5% of GDP on capital investment through the years until 2013. By that time and at 4.5% for capital investment, we will have a deficit of 3%. This means that we must have a surplus on our day-to-day running of 1.5% of GDP by 2013. Despite unemployment being the way it is, with immigration taking off and people being crucified left, right and centre through pay cuts, we are supposed to run the economy with a surplus.

The idea of economic stabilisers is important. It is also important that we be realistic about the cuts for which we are asking. The only cuts that are really important are those that Fine Gael proposed today, namely, cuts in employer PRSI. Jobs should be put at the centre of our economic adjustment so that we can have employment, not the long-term consequence of following a blind mantra on cutting everything because someone else says so.

I have little time, so I have only two pieces of advice for the Government. However it manages the budget, I hope that it will not make the hames of it that it made of the past two, which were patently unfair for the worst off among us. The Government has all the figures at its disposal and one could not foresee again that it could make such a hames of a budget.

I know as well as everybody else in the Dáil tonight that we face a significant problem. We know that it will be a budget the likes of which we have not seen. Whatever else, if the Government wants to bring people with it, at least be fair. I always say that the broader the shoulder, the greater the load, in other words, those who are able to carry the load financially are the ones who should be asked to do it. The Government did not do that on the last occasion.

My final point was mentioned a moment ago by Deputy Lee. Whatever else it does, the Government must ensure that the job creation policies are put in place. Please God, we will find ourselves in a competitive state in the next year or two. All of the factors would seem to indicate that we will be able to produce much more competitively in the next couple of years due to the downward pressure on prices of goods and services. We should at least be in a position to make the most of it.

On job creation and the smart economy, I see no reason why wind energy, wave energy and the like would not be able to support import substitution, and that we will not be able to create thousand of jobs in consequence with a consequent improvement in the balance of payments. This is an opportunity for the Government on budget day to put the building blocks in place on that. It takes courage and imagination, both of which qualities the Government does not possess in abundance, but I sincerely hope it will catch on to it on this occasion.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. No doubt the Government must take decisive action. It is ridiculous to suggest that we continue to borrow €500 million every week and yet not take action.

I listened to Deputy Lee and was flabbergasted at what he stated.

Of course Deputy Kennedy would be. There is more than Deputy Kennedy flabbergasted.

Of course I would be. Deputy Lee is totally out of step with his party's front-bench spokesman on finance. He is totally out of step with all of the international advisers, whether it be the IMF, the ECB or the OECD. Every one of them has pointed out ad nauseam to Ministers, to the Taoiseach and, I am sure, to Deputies Bruton, Kenny, Gilmore and Burton when they have met them, that we must get our public finances in order. We do not have any options. There are no soft options here. For Deputy Lee to make a populist remark that there is an easy way out of this is outlandish.

I never stated that there was an easy way out. I stated that they have already moved the Government's target by one year.

Deputy Kennedy is in possession.

If Deputy Lee does not mind, I have the floor.

Deputy Kennedy was making inaccurate statements.

Every reasonable person recognises — Fine Gael and the Labour Party have lately come o the same conclusion — that we must make the saving of €4 billion. On stating that it might be over two years, we all know it must happen in 2010 otherwise we get further into the quagmire, our borrowings will increase and the rate of interest on those borrowings will increase because those who lend us the money will not be as supportive as they have been in the past.

In this debate I have listened to Members of the Opposition consistently ask us to listen and give them the opportunity to put forward their ideas. I heard the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance state that they would gladly welcome ideas. Tonight we did not get one idea other than the bland assertion that the Government created the problem. Whoever we lay the blame on, we are where we are. It does not resolve the difficulties for those who are unemployed, it does not reduce our balance of payments and it does not get us one cent towards the €500 million that we borrow every week.

In terms of solutions, I want to state in this House what I stated in the public domain about child benefit, which costs €2.5 billion. High income earners who do not have any child care costs should pay their contribution in the national interest, yet Fine Gael says that it will not touch, means test or even tax child benefit. On the other hand, I the Labour Party says it wants to tax the rich, yet it wants to give the rich child benefit at substantial cost.

We know all that. What does Deputy Kennedy say?

How can anyone realistically come up with that argument, that the rich should be taxed, the rich——

What does Deputy Kennedy say?

I am saying that the rich should not get child benefit. Those earning over €100,000, if they have no child care costs, etc., have enough income to make their contribution to the crisis that Ireland is in.

How does Deputy Kennedy know?

I want to hear the Deputies opposite to outline their tax proposals while at the same time advocating we can hand out substantial money totalling €2.5 billion at a time when the country is borrowing so much.

On the overall tax assessment situation, surely it is reasonable to suggest that those who earn €150,000, €200,000, €250,000, or €500,000, or maybe those who are lucky enough to earn €600,000 in income, should pay something towards the crisis that their country is in. That is reasonable. It is time Fine Gael and the Labour Party owned up to that fact rather than making populist remarks that may go well in Dublin South or North Tipperary——

South Tipperary.

Maybe there are no rich people down there, but there are many horsey people who have had substantial incomes.

We need honesty in this debate. The people no longer deserve to be given false hope that they will not pay tax and they will not suffer wage reductions. Some €4 billion is a substantial figure. Those without a job who I have met, who have come into my office and clinics, tell me that those on high incomes and those who have jobs should be willing to share the pain. That is a reasonable proposition in the context of where we are today. It is more than reasonable to ask anyone who has a permanent job with a pension, whether a civil servant, a public representative or otherwise, to make some contribution to the State's finances.

In terms of the budget, I want to state clearly that the less well-off in society should be protected. I have no difficulty in saying that the old age pension should be left untouched. The same goes for the carers and the less well-off in society. I make no bones about that. I have said it at our parliamentary party meetings.

However, those of us who are lucky enough to have jobs must take a little bit of the pain in the national interest. On the suggestion that we run a budget deficit next year of over €20 billion, it is bad enough that this year there will be a deficit of €25 billion, €26 billion or whatever the outturn. On suggesting we continue that for the future, Deputy Lee knows international bankers better than, or at least as well as, I do and they will not be as accommodating, in either providing the finance or in giving us a reasonable interest rate, which they are currently doing. He will be aware that all of the international bodies which rate the credit worthiness of countries——

They all got it wrong for years.

They got it wrong and he is the only person who got it right. The Deputy had a different opinion when he was working in RTE. He has changed a little since he became a Deputy. We all are happy to change our opinions from time to time. However, the Deputy should not use this populist expression that there will not be any pain.

I never said there would not be any pain.

That is what he is saying. The Labour Party Leader, Deputy Gilmore, said earlier that pay cuts should be negotiated. What has the Government spent the last six months doing, but trying to negotiate a pay cut? We cannot wait forever. We are talking about the 2010 budget, which is only six weeks away.

We must get those savings. It would be wonderful if we negotiated them, but the 400,000 odd people who unfortunately have no jobs today do not look at it that way. They envy those with protected jobs with an index-linked pension at a rate that applies to the salary of the existing incumbents. Those people are very envious. The Labour Party should encourage its friends in the trade union movement to get real and put the country's interest first.

Maybe they are. Maybe they just do not want to turn a recession into a depression.

Deputy Lee is really losing the run of himself. He knows well that before we get businesses moving again, we must get the public finances in order. He knows that. Commonsense tells him that. Without it, how would businesses——

Fianna Fáil should acknowledge that it raped the country.

It ruined it.

They ruined the country.

With due respect, the Deputy is getting populist again. As I said earlier, we are where we are, so let us deal with the issues today.

The Deputy's party brought us there. We are where they delivered us.

We have to deal with the problems.

Talk to the 1,200 people in Swords who lost their jobs. The two Ministers were not even awake on the job to address SR Technics.

The Deputy's time has expired.

Am I out of time?

I was deeply disappointed in the Minister's speech. The Minister had an opportunity of explaining a number of choices that he has obviously made so far, but chose not to address them. For example, why has he decided not to seek from taxation a portion of the €4 billion to which he referred? Nor has he explained the logic that led to the April financial statement and how it has changed so fundamentally in the preparation of the budget in three weeks' time. One of the most upsetting things about this debate is its evasive quality. It is not a debate about where we want to be economically. Nor is it a debate about a new form of social economy with a better balance between taxation and services, favouring job creation through green jobs, recognising the work of carers and the immense potential of creative industries. It has been negative in that respect.

It is interesting to see the order in which the Minister put the Government's priorities in his speech. He began by saying he is ensuring that we will have a properly functioning banking system, taking steps to ensure that our public finances are stabilised. He then referred to international competitiveness. He mentioned unemployment almost as an oversight. The social consequences of being "where we are", the phrase that is regularly used now, include low incomes, poverty and a lack of job opportunities. Some 15,000 to 18,000 young graduates will be added to the astronomical unemployment figures.

There is, however, a certain revelation in the Minister's poorly prepared speech. On 26 March 2009, he answered Parliamentary Question No. 59, which I tabled. I asked him about such proposals as he may have had for gathering income from wealth. He replied:

I have been informed that no general research has been carried out over the past ten years by either the Department of Finance or the Revenue Commissioners regarding the extent and breakdown of wealth as opposed to income.

It is interesting to note what we should be discussing in the Oireachtas if one had decided, for example, that one was not going to touch non-productive capital. That is political economy, which is important. One may differ as regards ratios, but as regards what is to be gathered from taxation, a balance must be achieved through a reconfigured capital programme or reductions in expenditure. The speech told us nothing about those matters, although it did have a few clichés on taxation.

The history of wealth tax proposals is interesting. I was around when it was attempted before. It has never been opposed in any country on the basis of its yield, but has always been opposed on the basis of what it revealed. Those who have written articles and academic papers on the subject take that position rather quickly. If there is to be no contribution from non-productive capital, what has been happening? The tax concessions that were made in coming to the current position are very interesting. According to the Revenue Commissioners, in 2003, two thirds of those who invested in hotels and holiday camps had incomes of over €200,000. In 2004, annual tax reliefs cost us €8.4 billion, which was 22% of total taxation. In 2003, the Revenue Commissioners told us that three individuals among the top 400 paid no income tax at all because of tax breaks. Some 48 had an effective tax rate of less than 5%.

Something has been done about this, however. According to figures produced by the Minister last July, it was suggested that, as a result of changes, the top 25 people earning over €2 million each had an average effective tax rate, after application, of 20.45%. I could cite more statistics like those, but I will simply summarise the position. Those who benefited from this raft of McCreevy concessions, which have rolled on to the present Taoiseach's time, were a very narrow group of people. People in the street and those attending my clinics ask me what has happened to all the money. As we know, by 2004, some €8.5 billion had been spent on property abroad by Irish owners. The Minister now says he is leaving all that alone, that he can only look at expenditure cuts and it is going to be €4 billion. The media then join in and say the function of the Opposition is to produce where their cuts might be in relation to this €4 billion from expenditure. It is nothing of the kind. My function as an elected representative is to ask if we are trying to get back to where we were nine years ago. Let us accept that we had a disastrous failure in regulation and a disastrous banking policy. In addition, we had a property bubble which completely distorted the State's revenue income. Are we going to try to get to a new place in the economy and forge a new connection between economy and society, such that we will be willing to debate in Parliament the line below which people should not sink? That is politics and what we are elected for. We are not here to dance to some miserable tune.

I do not accept that the cut must amount to €4 billion, as the Government states. It is a long time since I was teaching economics but I am still aware of the dangers of turning a recession into a depression. Where every job is costing between €25,000 and €30,000 and there are associated employment-related costs, the Government's slash and burn approach to the economy is increasing the gap it is trying to bridge. In 2007, 214 high net wealth individuals were subject to an effective tax rate of 20.08%. It is outrageous for the Government to say it is seeking a consensus on leaving that rate intact. The mindless character of the slash and burn approach to economic redress is such that it results in job destruction.

I know the creative industries well. The figures produced by Indecon's recent study show the Arts Council represents a better multiplier than that associated with the money spent in respect of the IDA. The Arts Council, through its funding, is responsible for the direct employment of 2,042 people. Council funding amounted to 40% of the total revenue for supported organisations. The total employment figure is 3,034. If one were to include publishing, video, music, etc., one would note the number employed through very modest grants amounts to 16,689.

When I was Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, with responsibility for film, among other things, I noted how rich this area was in skill. The mindless acceptance of the McCarthy report proposals would be devastating in that it would wipe out a growth area. The value of the creative sector in the eurozone is €564 billion and this figure is increasing. It is the fastest growing sector in the eurozone, yet it is suggested our function in the House is not to speak about the future form of the economy, the jobs in the creative industries or applied technology through science, or those that would exist if we decided to address the issues associated with caring.

If one asked me directly whether I wanted Scandinavian levels of service and taxes and whether I would be in favour of forms of redistributive taxation that would include a tax on accrued and unproductive wealth, I would reply in the affirmative. We should get to a new place and I do not see why we should wear ourselves out in a narrow stupid debate about what cuts one would propose, in which debate one would say, "Show me your cuts". It is a vulgar piece of rubbish and a poor excuse for an economic debate three weeks before the budget. We have had enough of it and I hope Mr. Charlie McCreevy never comes back to Ireland to see the destruction he presided over.

Is maith liom éisteacht leis an Teachta Michael D. Higgins mar bíonn go leor rudaí speisiúla le rá aige. Tá fealsúnacht an-láidir aige agus ní thiocfaidh salach ar chuid mhaith den tuairimíocht atá aige. I share his belief that we must have a view on where we are going and a vision of Irish society. His vision and mine may not be exactly the same but we share a number of ideas. Arts, music, culture, the Irish language and community are very important. When making our decisions, we must keep them in mind. On the other hand, we must face the hard economic reality that if, as in a household, one continues to spend more than one earns, one must keep borrowing the difference. If one keeps borrowing the difference, the interest will eventually consume one and one will spend all one's money paying it.

There is a wide consensus — perhaps the Labour Party is part of it — that we must close the gap by approximately €4 billion next year. There are two way of doing so. One is to raise more revenue and the other is to cut expenditure. Cutting expenditure is problematic in that it results in cutting revenue at the same time. If, for example, the Government cuts expenditure, thus resulting in the loss of jobs, it loses the taxes accruing from those jobs and may have to pay for social welfare. With regard to increasing taxes, it is not necessarily true that if one increases tax by a certain percentage, one will receive that percentage in extra revenue. This is because one reaches the point of reducing returns. This is where the debate must lie.

Many advocate taxing the well off more. At present, taking the various levies and income tax into account, we have a marginal rate of 53%. Will somebody tell me what he considers the cut-off point above which he believes one can pay more than 53%? Is it the equivalent of the combined income of a married nurse and garda or the combined income of two assistant principal officers in an apartment? If so, one is talking about an income well over €100,000. One must ask how much tax one would raise even if one did decide to go towards the Scandinavian model really dramatically and adopt an effective rate of 63% at the top end. What would the net yield be in a year if one did so?

It is very handy to advocate not hitting the middle-income earners and hitting the high income earners without defining what is meant by "middle income" and "high income". The more one defines the two married assistant principal officers in an apartment or the married nurse and garda as not being in the high income bracket, the less revenue will accrue from income tax.

The other big source of tax in this State is VAT. Many would argue that we are at a point where, if the VAT rate were increased, more people would shop over the Border. Therefore, raising the rate is not the equivalent of increasing income and doing so does not solve the problem.

The Minister should have told the Minister for Finance that last December.

I take it the Deputy is proposing a drop in the rate of VAT.

If the 0.5% were taken back——

If one does so, one must cost it. I have no doubt that the Deputy, who is living on the Border, will agree that if excise duties are increased, there will be diminishing returns.

Sinn Féin advocated today a tax of 1% on properties, on assets.

On wealth. This would mean every farmer in the country——

We would exclude farmland.

Would the Deputy exclude farmland? What about private houses?

They would be excluded up to a value of €3 million.

Up to €3 million. I have no doubt but that if these exemptions were made, the retail sector would come into question.

The tax would apply to assets valued in excess of €1 million.

One would not have much of a shop for €1 million. Sinn Féin would probably argue on another occasion there are too many taxes on the productive sector, including small businesses. Deputy Morgan will find that, when he does his sums, he will not be raising a great deal of money when he takes all the inevitable exceptions into account.

It would raise €1.6 billion.

I am not saying one cannot raise some money by taxation — the issue of carbon tax is under consideration — but we must accept there is not a great amount of money to be gained by increasing taxes because one reaches the point of diminishing returns.

It would raise €1.6 billion.

The Minister is a year late with that great insight.

VAT receipts are reducing.

Exactly. Therefore, the Deputy agrees with my theory. This is a useful debate because we are getting cohesion in our ideas.

I do not think so.

When it comes to expenditure cuts, if people say not to cut social welfare and public service wages, that leaves one with approximately €22 billion in which to do all the cutting. If one does that, the result is Garda cars with no petrol and hospitals with no bandages because one cannot keep taking the money out of the service delivery area and leave all the rest intact. They are the hard facts.

I welcome the debate because it provides an opportunity for Members to tell us how they intend to make up the €4 billion. Every day we hear groups agreeing the cuts are necessary but not to cut them, please. That is not the reality. Therefore, we have some difficult decisions to make. It is important that in the debate speakers put the figures on the table. I would love for Members to point out where in the Book of Estimates we should change the figures and how they would make the saving. It is great to talk in generic terms, as Fine Gael often does, about eliminating waste. However, every time we present a budget Estimate to Fine Gael Members and ask them to show us the waste and suggest where to make cuts, they always disagree and say such a scheme is a marvellous one and that the cut should not be made there. They suddenly find that there is not as much waste to be eliminated from the system as they claimed. It is important for Members of the Opposition to say where the waste is and under what heading, and that one can provide the same service by reducing the budget head by such an amount. That is what it comes down to at the end of the day.

When one does it that way one then has to face up to the reality that it is not that easy and that one has to make the hard decisions. Then the Opposition will find its own Members arguing, as they do with us all the time, that no heading should be cut, that all the savings should be made in a vague theoretical exercise to eliminate waste without ever identifying where they see the waste. If there is waste in the system, it might not be so easy to eliminate it. I am talking about waste one can eliminate. It is an impossible notion that one will ever get a perfect system with workers who are perfectly efficient, do everything in a perfect way and there is no waste, or that we would have more than 250,000 people working in the public service always focusing on the work. Life is not like that. There is a certain amount of inefficiency.

If the Minister cannot achieve that, he should get out of Government and let someone else do the job.

I did not interrupt anyone. We are perfectly capable of doing the job. It is Fine Gael that is talking about——

The Minister has not made a single suggestion since he began his contribution. He is outlining all of the problems but none of the solutions.

I am highlighting the issues we are considering. We will give the answers to those problems on budget day.

However, the Minister wants the answers from us now. This is Dáil scrutiny.

The Fine Gael Members are the ones who are telling us there is another way. They should put their cards on the table.

This is the modern way of developing choices.

We do not find it out on budget day. We usually only find out about it three or four days after the budget.

I ask Deputies to refrain from interrupting the Minister, please. He has very little time left and a number of other Members are offering before 10 p.m.

I am sure Members would like to make an input into the budget and that we would listen to that.

I would be interested to hear the Minister's input to the budget.

The Deputy will find that out on budget day.

The Minister has about three seconds left.

Tá a fhios agam. It is interesting that all the Members of the Opposition are so sensitive about being asked for their ideas.

We are anxious to make things happen.

We will make them happen, but we have to deal with the real world, not the kind of utopia the Deputies believe can be created and that they pretend——

I ask the Minister to conclude.

——is possible. I have inquired of small employers with ten or 15 employees whether any of them are not working to their optimum efficiency and they admit that is the case. I worked in the private sector for years. I worked in productive industry and manufacturing. Of course some people are more efficient than others. Anyone who tells me that his or her staff work at full tilt all the time never worked in business and never produced any goods.

I call Deputy Tom Hayes, who is sharing time with Deputy Coveney. I ask the Deputies to please bear in mind that the Tánaiste will need a certain amount of time for her closing remarks.

How much time do we have?

It is now 9.45 p.m. and we will finish the debate at 10 p.m. It is a matter of getting the three speakers into the 15 minutes. Perhaps the Deputies would take three or four minutes each.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the budget and to highlight some vital issues on which I would like to see improvement. I have listened to the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív. The one thing I would ask the two Ministers present to take back to the Cabinet is the importance of giving people hope. People have read reams of newspapers and listened to endless stories about how bad the economy is. Their minds are made up in that regard. People want and need hope.

In my constituency more than 8,500 people are unemployed. A total of 1,888 people under the age of 25 are unemployed. People in my constituency are leaving this country every day for destinations as far away as Australia and America. They have no hope in this great country of ours. I am proud of this country, as are many people. Past generations were given hope, but there is no hope for the many people in this country who are unemployed. What has been missing from this debate is what the Government is going to do about job creation. The harsh reality is that if people do not have jobs they cannot pay the taxes the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, was talking about. They cannot rear their families and go about doing the ordinary things in life.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coughlan, is responsible for job creation but she has not put any thought into addressing people's need for jobs. A stimulus package is a simple way to take many thousands of people off the dole. People could be engaged on small, productive projects that are needed in communities and in the education sector. Schools are in need of repairs and there are many efficient and able persons who could be given a chance to do that work, but the Government has not put anything on the table in that regard. Do I have more time?

I would appreciate it if the Deputy would co-operate.

The Minister should do something for the people of this country, especially the young people, in terms of job creation in the budget.

I ask Deputy Coveney to confine himself to three or three and a half minutes.

It is difficult to listen to Ministers speak for ten minutes and say little or nothing when one has a lot to say and one only gets three minutes to say it. I wish to focus on one element, which I hope the Tánaiste will take on board. She heard Deputy Bruton speak earlier about some of the hard decisions we are willing to take to reduce expenditure. I wish her to focus on the opportunities that exist for radical reform. The breadth of the thinking I have heard from Government is purely around revenue raising through taxation, and expenditure cuts through pay cuts and cuts in social welfare. There are numerous things the Government can do to reform the way we do things, to sweat State-owned assets in a far more effective way, and to get more from less.

We have put forward proposals on a radical reform agenda and restructuring process for the semi-State companies we own which are responsible for much of the uncompetitiveness in the Irish economy in terms of energy prices, water prices, broadband provision, infrastructure provision and so on. We can change that by changing the delivery process for those elements that are fundamentally important to getting growth going again in the Irish economy and putting a new platform in place where we can grow a new economy. We are not doing that. The ESB needs reform. Bord Gáis needs reform. It may no longer need to stay in State ownership. The way in which we deliver water to business and to households must change. We spend €1.2 billion every year delivering water and 43% of the water leaks out of our pipes into the ground, yet we are not looking to reform that.

The Dublin people would not pay.

The Minister is missing the point.

I am not missing the point.

The reason that is so inefficient is that 34 different local authorities deliver water in their localities. For a small country we have no economies of scale, no sharing of bureaucracy and no delivery system that is centrally controlled.

I ask the Minister to examine some of the constructive suggestions on fairly radical reformation thinking in terms of the semi-State and the public sectors so we can get more from less or at least get more from what we already have by bringing about restructuring and taking on some of the sacred cows the Minister seems to view as being off the table. We must take these measures to try to get people back to work, get stimulus back into an economy and get competitiveness back on the agenda in a real way. I ask the Minister to examine the opportunity in crisis for real reform rather than looking at simplistic cuts and taxation measures, which seems to be the limit of Government thinking and particularly the Taoiseach's thinking.

The release of the pre-budget outlook last week sets out the parameters within which we must all work when considering budgetary decisions.

We all know that Ireland has experienced an extremely challenging 18 months. The pre-budget outlook reflects that. The global recession has had a particular impact on small, open economies, such as that of Ireland, more so than others. Allied to the severe contraction of our domestic construction sector, that has placed enormous pressure on the Irish economy and on our fiscal position. Considered decisions, therefore, many of which will not prove popular, are required to address these challenges and return our economy to a sustainable growth path. This Government has already taken such decisions, and I can assure the House that it will continue to face up to the challenge that such decisions present as we near the budget of 2010.

I have heard nothing from the benches opposite this evening that would convince the public that the parties opposite are prepared to address comprehensively the realities of the position the country is in today. For example, Deputy Bruton talked about transforming government and the way we do things. I agree with him. We, in government, are committed to public sector reform. We have taken steps to rationalise government and further measures will be announced in the budget but what we need now is €1.3 billion savings in public sector pay. No reform or transformation will provide that saving in the immediate term. That is the issue any party in government would have to focus on, and the Opposition cannot escape that reality.

Deputy Bruton also spoke about the importance of protecting young families. We agree with that but in a time of scarce resources surely he would agree that we must distinguish on the basis of need. Resources must be concentrated on those most in need if we are to advance equity in this country. At a time of growing birth rates we simply cannot afford to leave child benefit outside of our budgetary considerations. If Deputy Bruton was on this side of the House, he would do exactly the same thing.

No, he would not.

Meanwhile, Deputy Burton expressed her support for the Government's position on the undesirability of high marginal tax rates by describing them as a nightmare. I welcome her conversion but I note she did not spell out the detail of the third tax rate that has previously featured in her party's policy statements.

While there would appear to be broad agreement that we must correct the public finances, we have heard nothing from the Opposition to assist in stabilising the general Government deficit. The Deputies opposite need to realise that to delay such necessary action can only prolong the agony required to achieve economic recovery. Already, we are borrowing approximately €500 million every week to bridge the gap between expenditure and revenue. This mounting burden translates into larger debt interest payments, which ultimately erodes the Exchequer's discretion on spending decisions.

The Minister should tell us something we do not know.

The Deputies opposite must realise that the Irish people live in the here and now.

(Interruptions).

The revisionist history lessons and the refrain of "we wouldn't start from here" are no longer credible with the public. The general public realise the scale of the challenge we face. They are facing it day in and day out as they search for employment and struggle to manage their finances. If the Deputies opposite are sincere about their desire to assist unemployed people find a job and see Ireland return to the path of economic recovery and growth, it is time for our national debate to hear their proposals — real proposals that reflect the realities of our economic position.

Does the Minister have a single idea?

I have many of them.

The Minister does not have a single idea.

For our part, the path we have adopted to address the issue of budgetary sustainability has been backed by international organisations such as the Commission, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. To take the apparently softer path of delaying actions as advocated by some would also mean that confidence would be lost both domestically and internationally in our ability to manage our economic affairs.

The Minister sounds like a commentator rather than someone in power to make decisions.

Through taking clear steps to arrest the deterioration in the public finances we will signal to international investors that the Irish Government possesses the ability to take necessary decisive action.

Equally, at home, reducing budgetary uncertainty——

After all it has done.

——would have a positive effect as individuals and companies will have the confidence to increase their spending or decide to expand their enterprises.

The reality is that the forthcoming budget can most effectively contribute to economic recovery by way of support for the export-orientated enterprise sector. Ireland can only regain its ground lost through harnessing the skills base and intellectual capital of our people and target it at creating innovative solutions and products that the world will want to buy. By selling abroad, we create jobs and income at home. That export income will then trickle down through the local economy, sustaining new jobs in the local traded services that we can choose to avail of every day.

Our overseas markets are slowly starting to recover. International organisations such as the IMF and the OECD have upgraded their global economic growth forecasts in recent months. We have already seen signs of that in Germany, France and Japan, for example.

Significant challenges remain, however. Although our economic prospects are improving, we still face negative growth this year and at least for part of 2010. Despite recent encouraging trends, high rates of unemployment are expected in the medium term. The rise in unemployment and the increasing financial pressures has placed a heavy toll on individuals and households. Many of those still in employment have had to take pay cuts and there are still uncertainties to be faced before our economy recovers.

We will continue to limit the rate of unemployment through targeted activation measures, creating a higher skilled and better educated workforce that will drive Ireland forward in the next decade. How many minutes do I have remaining, a Cheann Comhairle? Is it only three?

About two and a half minutes.

Deputy Coveney complained about the time. I know how he feels, having only two minutes to discuss very important issues.

Competitiveness continues to be a major issue. I do not disagree with Deputy Coveney on the issue of energy costs.

What does the Minister intend to do about it? She should give us something to chew on.

On competitiveness, we have seen a reduction in energy costs although more remains to be done in that regard. There has been a reduction in labour costs. We are reducing the regulatory burden on business. We are looking at new innovative ways of supporting business. Competitiveness is a real issue and will continue to be a focus because our competitiveness is recovering. Prices, rents and wages are dropping. That will place us in a better position internationally but we will continue to have more work to do.

We have been remarkably resilient in our exporting sector. It is important to say that this year we will have a 2% increase in our export potential. That is hugely important and is indicative of the right policies which are to concern ourselves with the export opportunities that are available.

That will be done on the basis of the implementation of the smart economy document. Targeting our research and development skills and venture capital is hugely important to creating our own smart economy and indigenous industries. The change we have seen in our indigenous and foreign direct investment companies towards sustainability and growth in the context of research, development and innovation is huge. The Deputies will see that the smart capital aptitude in this country will continue to create new opportunities.

The opportunities available will be high value, innovative and within the green technology sectors. I established the High Level Group on Green Enterprise in May of this year with a number of key initiatives. I agree with Deputy Coveney that we must cut through certain parameters to allow that to happen. I am determined that will happen in the context of access to the grid, for example, and other new ways in which existing companies in particular can reduce their energy burden in the context of the green tech opportunities here and in lean manufacturing.

Activation continues to be hugely important. We have had some very good discussions in this House on new measures of activation. It continues as very much a platform the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the Minister for Education and Science and I to ensure we have appropriate responses and that we are developing, upskilling and dealing with the needs of the unemployed, a seismic task but one in which we have seen some change and some innovation.

On sustaining people in employment, we have seen the employment subsidy scheme. The first tranche of that has now been sanctioned, with a spend of €68 million. At the end of this week and beginning of next week, I will be advertising a further tranche of the employment subsidy scheme, along with the stabilisation fund, which has been hugely important and welcomed by those within industry.

The emphasis in my Department has to be on sustainable employment, improving competitiveness and safeguarding the future living standards of this country. None of that can be done without taking particularly difficult decisions and those are ones which we will continue to debate and consider prior to 9 December.

Top
Share