Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)

Deputy Joe O'Reilly made a few points that were very fair. He spoke about the lack of credit and stated the Government would ensure credit would be available soon. From my experience in business, I note it is now nearly three years since credit was freely available. I have been listening for a long time to Governments stating credit will become available every time the banks are given money, but, unfortunately, credit is not yet available and I am not sure when it will be.

It was good to hear Deputy Joe O'Reilly refer to mortgage restructuring. When we debated the notion last night, some Members on the other side of the House were throwing seriously cold water on it. The taxpayer and the bank is now one and the same person. If somebody bought a house for €400,000 which is now worth €200,000, does it make more sense for the taxpayer or bank to repossess it, put it on the market and sell it for €150,000 or to give the person some help, even in terms of €50,000? There would still be €350,000 for the State, rather than getting €140,000 from an initial investment of €400,000. We must seriously fight repossessions. They just do not make sense, financially or socially.

The Minister also mentioned the importance of equity and fairness. We agree on that. In the period before the publication of the revised terms of the EU-IMF programme, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, stated that all changes must be fiscally neutral and that in terms of total cuts and taxes the revised memorandum of understanding remains unchanged. Does this mean we will still achieve the target deficit of 3% of GDP by 2015? In the past couple of weeks the forecast for our growth rate has been revised down from the 1.8% forecast last December to an optimistic estimate of 0.8%. Can we still achieve the target of 3% in 2015 with the same figures?

I understand that cuts amounting to €3.6 billion are planned for the December budget. Will that figure be larger to compensate for the fact that GDP growth will not be as good as we thought? We are probably being very optimistic in anticipating that the levels we are calculating for 2013 and 2014 will be reached, given the serious effect of the austerity measures. If the budget is to be even more severe, do Members agree that the people who will probably suffer most are the most vulnerable? It is generally accepted that those who are most hurt by budget cuts are, as a rule, the most vulnerable. Fairness is disappearing at this stage.

There is reference to property tax and water charges in the document. I find it hard to believe that even the current Government could have the neck to impose water charges and property tax on people who are already suffering as a result of the universal social charge, rising interest rates - we have not seen the last of them - and mortgage problems. God knows, the figure of 44,000 households being 90 days behind with their mortgage repayments will certainly increase dramatically in the next year. All this adds up and makes one wonder about the role of the State. Is it to protect big business, look after the financial institutions and play ball with the boys in the ECB? I understood that the role of the State was to work towards protecting the most vulnerable in our society. Undoubtedly, history will be hard on the last Government, but I believe it will be hard on this one as well.

See this speech in context