Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

Most of the work undertaken in the first year in government was rowing back and undoing some of the promises made during the election campaign. It is welcome that they are now getting down to business and we are seeing the colour of their money. They promised to protect social welfare, small schools and health services. When it comes to the first budget and the Finance Bill, which is implementing those measures, that is not the case. Some 441,000 people are on the live register and 100,000 families are in difficulties with mortgages, with 46,000 residential mortgage accounts in arrears of more than 180 days or more. It is of concern that the Finance Bill and the budget were based on a projection of 1.3% growth, when most forecasts are of 0.5% growth. Unemployment has not been addressed and the trend is worrying. Some 42% of claimants are long-term unemployed, an increase from 36% at the end of 2010. The number of people under 25 on the live register has fallen, mostly because they are heading out of the country, while the number of those over 25 with roots in the country is increasing. I sincerely hope the promise in the jobs initiative and the plan announced last week, to reach 100,000 jobs, will be met because this economy needs it. The economic and fiscal outlook published with the budget projected employment would grow by 62,000 between 2011 and 2015. Now, in the week of the Finance Bill, we go back to the famous figure of 100,000, which the Minister for Finance admitted at the time was a nice round figure pulled out of thin air to make the policy document look good. I hope that is not what we are seeing now because it is not what we need.

The budget is predicated on economic growth of 1.3% whereas many people now project growth of 0.5%. The Taoiseach has not justified the basis for this. When most of the economic think tanks and advisers say it will be different, the Taoiseach is resolutely sticking to his figure. I hope this figure is the case but he seems to be on thin ice. The budget and the Finance Bill, which is implementing it, represents a regressive budget from a Government made up of two parties that promised the most vulnerable would be protected and promised that the budget would be fair because adjustments would be targeted at those who could most afford it. Some of the case studies take into account what the Finance Bill means, in conjunction with the Social Welfare Act, and show the opposite to be the case. I remember a television interview after the budget was introduced and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, was wounded by a question on how he, with the wage of a Minister of State, was affected more than those on social welfare. He could not indicate anything but the VAT increase and that is what the figures show.

A family on social welfare, with two parents and three kids, have had the fuel allowance reduced by €190, rent costs €570 more, the back-to-school allowance was reduced by €160 and child benefit was reduced by €228. This amounts to a loss of €1,078 for the family. A similar family but with double incomes on €150,000 lost €30 less, taking into account the household charge, VAT, carbon taxes, motor taxes and college fees. That is what the Government backbenches are standing over.

In many communities, we see cuts to DEIS schools and community employment schemes, where the materials grant is being cut. This makes it difficult for the schemes, which do work in local communities and provide an outlet for many people with valuable skills to work every day. The labour market activation fund was presented as a major initiative in the budget to address unemployment. Some €20 million was allocated to it in the Finance Bill for an unemployment register of 440,000 people, amounting to €50 per unemployed person. Before the jobs initiative was announced, Government Deputies were saying the additional €50 for every unemployed person was the key measure for the unemployed. I cannot recommend this Finance Bill to the House because of what is contained in it. It does not match what the Deputies opposite went to the country with one year ago.

See this speech in context