George Lee (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Last April, there was much hullabaloo when it became clear that we had a large deficit. In such situations, corrections must be made. It cannot be ignored that €5.3 billion in potential savings have been identified by the McCarthy report. According to the Minister, the statement by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that the Government has forced it to take this strike action is not correct. My understanding is that one of ICTU's principle concerns is the pace at which the Minister is going about the adjustments. This matter is at the centre of today's strikes.

Last April, when it became clear that corrections would need to be made, the target was to reduce a 10% deficit of GDP to 3% by 2013. At the time, there was a concern that if we did not make great efforts to do so, financial markets would take fright and interest rates would become high. Some suggested that we would not be able to borrow money.

Since then, the situation seems to have changed. The numbers were wrong in the first place and the deficit has turned out to be greater than was believed in April. As a result, the 2013 date has been allowed to slip, but not by the Minister originally. The European Commission has given us until 2014 to reduce the deficit from 12% to 3%. From next January, this will be the same time span that the Minister would have had between last April and 2013, yet the reduction is greater. It would not have been possible to reduce it from 10% to 3% in the time given. In my opinion and that of many others, it is not possible to reduce it to 3% by 2014, even given the pace of these significant adjustments.

I am not saying that adjustments should not be made, but the pace is the cornerstone of the debate. When it was announced that we would allow the pace to change, there was no difficulty in the financial markets. Interest rates for Government bonds did not increase and people did not tell us that they would not lend to the Government. The situation was not as calamitous as it was made out to be in the first instance. Is it not disingenuous to suggest that the unions have forced the Government to take this action if the adjustments' pace is at the core of the argument?

The Minister stated that we will have a permanently smaller public service. I can understand why the Minister did this, as he wants to reduce the overall costs. However, it is a negative way of viewing the issue. It is possible to grow the public sector and sell its services in other countries. For example, the ESB sells some of its services abroad. Viewing the matter more creatively is possible. For a number of years, public service employment was the particular engine of growth for female employment. The engine of growth for male employment, construction, has been broken and thrown into reverse.

See this speech in context