Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the economy as the Government prepares to introduce a difficult budget. I acknowledge the fear and concern that exists around the country about what will be in the budget. People need a long-term roadmap which would allow them to make decisions about the level of spending that is sustainable for them on an individual basis. That certainty would release some of the additional spending which is critical to our recovery.

I cannot let the previous speaker or the right honourable Member from Dublin South, Deputy Shane Ross, emerge unscathed given the comments that they made. Deputy Shane Ross lamented that the Government failed to take on board his suggestions on the pensions industry. It is not that long ago that he was a cheerleader for disgraced bankers, whom he lauded as role models for business in this country. I commend the Minister for Social Protection on her initiative and hope it is acted on in the context of the budget. Sometimes the shrill announcements from high on the Opposition benches disappoint me considerably because the Members opposite know better. It is not always easy to appeal to the populace if one takes a rational approach in politics.

Deputy Micheál Martin did not offer a single positive suggestion on how the Government might frame the budget. The banking guarantee was marketed to the last Dáil as a means of addressing liquidity. The problem transpired to be insolvency but the guarantee would not have been extended to all the institutions if the Government had done its homework. That is why we are facing our current difficulties.

I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, that the level of private and public debt is unsustainable. We need a deal and every effort is being made by the Government through the diplomatic corps and at a political level to secure that deal. The critical timeframe for the promissory note and the Anglo Irish Bank debt is the first quarter of next year but shortly thereafter we also need a deal on assistance towards the cost incurred by the State. Our banks may not be functioning well but they have been recapitalised. We need some acknowledgement of the hit we took for the eurozone team. I hope the Government is conscious of that timeframe.

I confess to oscillating on occasion between despair and optimism in terms of where we are going. This is understandable, given the roller coaster we have been on in recent years. My colleague, Deputy Harrington, referred to the fact that some 250,000 jobs in the private sector were lost between 2008 and 2011. All of the associated human carnage inflicted on families the length and breadth of the country constitutes a severe body blow, but allied to this is the debt associated with bank recapitalisation and we have some notion of the extent of the challenge confronting us. This challenge is unprecedented, even in the context of the challenges faced by those who founded the State. The economic challenge facing us is unprecedented in our history.

There are indications that we are turning the corner. In 2011 some 16,000 additional people were working in the private sector. In the context of public services, it is important to remember that the engine that drives the economy is the private sector. It pays to enable the State to deliver public services. We need to get the economy working in order that private sector companies can respond, create jobs and wealth and pay taxes, which taxes may be invested prudently in public services such as education, health and social welfare, etc., which are critical to a normal functioning democracy.

There are signals that we are recovering. In 2011 some 6,000 foreign direct investment jobs were announced by IDA Ireland for the first half of 2012. Such announcements are an indication that we are recovering internationally and that we are regaining the confidence of outside investors. However, because of the nature of the economy, we need the international market to pick up also. This is an exporting economy and we need export markets. Therefore, the health of the eurozone in recovery is critical.

I see a critical road block for Government investment in job creation in the construction sector owing to the dormant status of the industry. Most people associate the construction industry with housebuilding, but that is in the past. The industry will never recover its position. However, Governments also provide for critical investment in industrial infrastructure such as advance factories. In key areas of the country such as Limerick, Waterford, Galway and Cork city there is very little, if any, industrial infrastructure available for showcasing to attract foreign direct investment. It is in this area that NAMA needs to recapitalise the construction industry. It needs to provide working capital to enable this to happen and allow the industry to get on with providing the necessary infrastructure in order that IDA Ireland can market these locations as being suitable for inward investment. Amber, if not red, lights should be flashing in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Finance in this regard in the context of NAMA and job creation. We are sleepwalking into a difficulty that needs to be addressed urgently.

With regard to the reform agenda, I am not happy with the pace of reform. We had a welcome announcement last week in the context of reform of local government. However, reform needs to be embraced by all Departments. One area in which reform is crucial to the recovery of the country is the education system. We need to be much more ambitious with regard to the subject choices we offer in schools, primary schools and teaching of languages and post-primary schools and the teaching of the sciences. We need to look at the roll-out of educational infrastructure, particularly in provincial areas in which we have a number of schools building little empires, when instead the Department should be driving a programme of amalgamations, providing for greater subject choice and much improved school infrastructure. It should be more proactive in this regard.

I wish to address an issue that is causing significant difficulty in provincial Ireland, namely, social welfare fraud. An employer came to my constituency office last Friday and related a story to me which does not involve an isolated case. I do not want to use it to undermine the bona fides of unemployed persons, for whom the current rates of payment offer no bed of roses and who want to get back into the workforce as quickly as possible. However, we must tackle this problem in order to be able to make adequate provisions. In this context, I have questions about the current rates of payment for the unemployed. Take, for example, a married couple with two dependent children who receive €370 a week in jobseeker's allowance. There is no comfort in this. However, the State's capacity to improve these rates is being undermined by individuals such as the person involved in the circumstances related to me in my office. An employer offered a job to a young man who worked with him for one week from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. The employer paid him on the Friday evening and explained that because he had a contract to complete, he would like him to work on the Saturday. He responded by saying he would not come in on the Saturday and that because the working hours did not suit him, he would not continue in the job. He left and signed on the following Tuesday. Unless we get serious about eliminating such attitudes, we will not be in a position to address the needs of bona fide individuals who are stuck on an inadequate rate of unemployment assistance. I make a comparison with the married couple with two dependent children who probably have a number of household commitments to meet such as a mortgage, loans, etc. This couple receives €370. A retired couple receives €440 by way of the State non-contributory pension. It is critical to our recovery that we address social welfare fraud and I urge the Minister for Social Protection to take a much more aggressive approach in dealing with it.

I will conclude with a comment on the back to education allowance. The principle of progression stymies many who see a pathway back to work. I have come across a case in my constituency office on which I am arguing with Department of Social Protection. It involves a nurse who has no computer skills but who can obtain a job as a GP practice nurse if she can improve her skills. However, because the FETAC level 5 course she proposes to undertake to improve her skills is not considered to provide for progression in terms of her nursing career qualifications, she is being told she cannot do it and must go back on jobseeker's allowance. As a consequence, she will not get back into the workforce. We need to see the back to education allowance as a pathway back to work and if an application to participate in training makes sense, it should be approved. The payment is the same whether the person is in receipt of a social welfare payment and at least the person concerned would be improving his or her skills. I appeal to the Minister to take this point on board.

See this speech in context