Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

There is a fundamental flaw in the Taoiseach's approach to this matter and it is in this regard that I basically disagree with him. The shorthand version of this approach to our problems appears to be that we should stabilise the public finances and the economy will recover. With the greatest respect, I am of the view that it will have to be the other way around — stabilise the economy and the public finances will recover. It is similar to pouring water into a sink. If one does not put a plug in the sink to stop the water flowing out, one will lose it faster than one pours it in. That is what is happening here. The Taoiseach is concentrating almost exclusively on the stabilisation of the public finances and on cutting public expenditure. In light of the rate at which jobs are being haemorrhaged, however, money is pouring out of the economy.

The incredible loss of 36,500 jobs in the month of January alone will result over the course of the year in a cost to the Exchequer of €730 million. The Taoiseach will be obliged to make cuts elsewhere in order to procure that money. The nub of the matter as regards our economic difficulties is that unless we get people back to work, business moving and the economy growing again, we will be faced with a problem the Taoiseach will not be able to solve. While acknowledging that the public finances are part of the equation, I again say to him that the core issue which must be addressed relates to jobs and getting people back to work.

The Taoiseach referred to the Government stimulus plan. The latter is not a stimulus plan, essentially it is the capital investment programme — the national development plan. It is what would have been in place in any event. That is what the Taoiseach is describing as a stimulus plan. Such a plan means actions that are taken in addition to provisions that have already been made in order to get additional people into employment. That is the issue we must address.

With respect, the Taoiseach is guilty of old-fashioned thinking in respect of squaring up the public finances in order that the economy will recover. That type of thinking belongs to yesterday. The United States is taking a different approach. In that country, the concentration is on addressing the question of getting the economy back on track and moving again. I accept that this approach would require additional injections of capital, extra efforts, different approaches and lateral thinking in the context of retaining people in employment.

Let us consider the position of Waterford Glass, which is a practical example. Some 450 people at the Waterford Glass plant are keeping the furnaces burning because they want to work and want to ensure that the operation remains ongoing. It is generally acknowledged that there is a future for Waterford Glass. The company may not continue to operate as it did previously but it does have a future and glass-making at its factory can continue. This is an iconic industry which is almost a symbol of the country. If it is allowed to disappear, apart from the impact on national morale, the Government will, according to the figures the Taoiseach provided earlier, be obliged to pay out €9 million each year in respect of those who will be made redundant. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and their Cabinet colleagues must engage in lateral thinking in order to ensure that this industry will survive and that the jobs relating to it will be retained.

If the Taoiseach speaks to the House not with regard to what the Government intends to cut but rather in the context of what it intends with regard to saving jobs and generating new employment, he will have the support of the Labour Party. That is the territory we need to occupy. Unless we take such an approach, the problems we face now will become much worse by the end of the year. At that stage, the Government will be obliged to make cuts far in excess of those announced yesterday.

See this speech in context