Michael Noonan (Limerick East, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister for his complimentary remarks and for doing us the honour of participating in the latter stages of the debate. I also thank all colleagues who participated in the debate.

We all know that both politically and in the interests of the people we represent the economy is still at the heart of the matter and economic debates are important. If we can throw some light on the difficulties, that will be helpful. There is a great deal the Government parties are doing that we, on this side of the House, supported over the years. They did the right thing in moving towards fiscal correction but they left it too late to begin. That was to do with the expectation of the Taoiseach when he was about to take over from Deputy Bertie Ahern.

I recall a debate on stamp duty following the election in 2007. The CSO had published statistics on housing starts for May 2007. I had checked the statistics from January 2007 onwards and it was as clear as crystal that many thousand fewer houses would be built that year. The rule of thumb at the time was that for every 10,000 houses built, €1 billion would be generated in taxation. I pointed out to the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, that he would be short approximately €5 billion from house building alone in his fiscal estimates. That was in mid-June 2007 before the Dáil went into recess and the record will show that I asked him to publish a White Paper on what could be done to bridge the emerging fiscal gap. He did nothing in the budget in late 2007 and while Deputy Lenihan was reading himself in on succeeding him, no action took place either. However, when the Minister began to realise the magnitude of the problem facing him, he took rigorous action and I compliment him on that.

There are also difficulties with the manner in which the cuts are being applied. The Minister needs to go back to first principles and make a commitment that cuts will be applied fairly across the community and that the most vulnerable will be protected because we will not go forward unless there is a sense of social cohesion. If people feel they are being unfairly treated or the vulnerable are being attacked, there will be a major problem. We had an example earlier with the protest outside the gates.

A protest took place two weeks ago outside the office of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power, in Limerick about the closure of a respite house and I went along to meet the parents of people affected. I cannot understand how such a house run by the Brothers of Charity would be closed for the sake of €150,000 when one considers the HSE's budget. It employs 110,000 people while the Department has 500 staff and four Ministers. Why should it tap along to the bottom affecting the most vulnerable group of people on the front line who try to get a break at the weekend? The vulnerable most be protected. On the same day I was asked by one of the parents on the protest to read an article in the Irish Independent. While they were protesting to protect an allocation of €150,000, it was reported that 18 executives in Anglo Irish Bank had higher salaries than the Taoiseach. How can the Minister explain to the parents of people with special needs whose respite house will be closed that €150,000 could not be found while 18 executives in this bank, which is completely funded by the taxpayer, are in receipt of salaries in excess of that of the Taoiseach?

When the budget is introduced later this year, the Minister needs to apply the fairness test to protect the vulnerable. He also needs to protect the capital programme.

I am worried about the capital programme. First, the Minister has announced already that €1 billion is being taken out of it. I believe he should re-examine that. Regardless of anything else, we need demand in the economy, and demand from the capital programme can be quite significant. The second problem with the capital programme is that what has been allocated is not being spent. The Revenue Commissioners figures published last week showed a very big discrepancy on the capital expenditure side. There is no point having the money allocated; a number in a book does not create jobs. With shovel-ready projects the shovels should be out. There is no point saying at the end of the year: "We had all this money in the capital programme but we are great lads because we saved 20% of it." If it is allocated, it should be spent. That is the nature of budgeting.

There is a third issue with the capital programme which the Minister should check with his Department. I have received reports from reasonably significant people in the semi-State sector that they have capital projects ready to go but the paperwork is stacked up in the Department and has not been signed off. I have been told they are waiting up to eight months for the go-ahead. These are capital projects where the money is available and jobs would be created, yet they are not being given the go-ahead. That should certainly be examined.

Many Members spoke about confidence tonight. Confidence is vital. We do not have the capacity to provide the type of stimulus package that was provided in the United States. We cannot print money because we do not have our own currency, and it probably would not be wise to do so anyway. However, this country is spending approximately €19 billion more than it collects in tax each year. It is borrowing the money abroad and is spending it domestically. That is a serious stimulus package, so there is no shortage of demand on that side. Where the demand shortage occurs is in the lack of confidence in consumers. As the Minister reminded us, there are almost 1.9 million people at work and the banks are full of their savings. Savings in Ireland are at an historic high. The Minister's task is to inspire enough confidence in people to encourage them to spend in the domestic market again. His problems, as the Minister's Deputy said, relate to confidence.

People have confidence in the Minister, but they have no confidence in the Government. I facetiously suggested last week that the Minister was like the mythical first mate on the Titanic. He has no captain, no crew and is trying to do the job alone.

See this speech in context