Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

There was a certain expectation beforehand that it would be a tough budget but a fair one. There was a certain amount of confidence that the new Taoiseach was a safe pair of hands. That increased the sense of bewilderment when the budget was published because in the public's eye its two characteristics were ineptitude and unfairness. Confidence in the trio at the top of the Government, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, was replaced by the lack of confidence among the public in terms of its perception not just of the economic difficulties we face, but the issue of governance. The Government set out in its budget "to safeguard key public services, protect the vulnerable, refocus spending to enhance our productive capacity, regain export competitiveness, reskill our labour force, retain the substantial gains already made and continue our work in building a fair Ireland". That is what the statement said, but the reality was the complete opposite. None of those particular objectives was progressive and what was remarkable was the universal criticism the budget received. Nobody seemed happy with it. I am not just talking about the people directly affected by cutbacks, but commentators — the heads on the television who comment on these matters, sometimes with great erudition and sometimes not.

We had a rather plaintive cry from the Minister for Finance, who described it as a call for patriotic action. The action he got can be described as patriotic, but it was not exactly what he was expecting. The level of uncertainty and fear engendered by the Government's failure to prepare people for what has happened regarding the changes on the economic landscape and the sense of a very sudden plummeting from boom to bust over a very short period have undermined people's sense of security in ways not recognised by the Government. It was interesting to read the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, in yesterday's Evening Herald, stating that everything was all right when he left office in June and matters just went wrong after he left. However, the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, said a few days ago that we are battling the most severe economic and financial conditions for a century. That certainly did not happen overnight.

The truth is that the danger signs have been there for much longer, unemployment has been rising over a lengthy timespan and the property bubble has been bursting over a very lengthy period. However, Fianna Fáil had an election to win and the former Taoiseach was able to predict suicide for anybody who threatened the pretty picture that had been painted by the Government about the economic situation.

Now it is estimated that up to 200,000 home owners are likely to face negative equity by the end of 2009. Currently, some 140,000 are already doing so, equivalent effectively to one in three, trapped houses worth less than the loans obtained to buy them. Unemployment is expected to spiral to 8% in 2009 and it is interesting listening to Deputy Blaney in this regard. Fianna Fáil loves to rewrite history, but the Government comprising Fine Gael and the Labour Party from 1994 onwards was very effective. It oversaw the creation of approximately 1,000 jobs a week, as against almost the same now in terms of job losses. This is the record the Government is now trying to defend. The losses are largely in the construction sector and, as we look forward, even more construction jobs are likely to go, perhaps somewhere in the region of 150,000. The effect this type of unemployment has on an economy and on individual families is staggering.

We do not know how many repossessions are occurring or in the pipeline, but we know they have started to build up in relation to the number of individual families that cannot cope with the repayments and who were exploited by very unscrupulous mortgage companies who gave out money willy-nilly, regardless of people's ability to pay. Some of us had hoped the budget would contain an economic stimulus package in recognition of all those construction workers and their capacity to be productive if they were put to work. The Labour Party argued for a school building programme in every constituency. For example, in my constituency, some schools are sub-standard in terms of health and safety and students are being accommodated in buildings that are at times dangerous. A national insulation programme is another potential area for developing jobs and also ensuring the overall energy bill for the country may be reduced and brought under some type of control.

We have argued for upskilling, education and training for those people who cannot get work. Other countries have done this. It is not as if we are arguing for some kind of idealistic and unrealistic approach. Other countries have taken this approach because they recognise the capacity within their populations and know that leaving people to languish on the dole is not a good use of human potential, nor does it ensure taxes get paid.

We appreciate there is a significant gap between Revenue and expenditure. However, what action does the budget propose to deal with the issue of tax breaks for the wealthy, or with tax evasion? Why is it the elderly and the young are the prime target for cutbacks? It is difficult to understand this. It appears that a deep cynicism and conservatism underpin this budget.

The reform of the public service is an issue that has been raised many times. If the Government wants to reform the public service, it should, with all due respects to Deputy McGuinness, start with the Ministers of State. We have never seen so many people with so many titles using up——

See this speech in context