Alex White (Labour)

To some extent I am sorry the Senator did not have an opportunity to elaborate further because, with all due respect to him, it might have been possible for those of us who were listening carefully to him to get to the bottom of what he was driving at in his cry for help for the construction industry and his apparent criticism of the banks for failing to ride to the rescue of the construction industry. That would appear to be the burden of what he was saying towards the close of his remarks. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to elaborate on the point when we debate the banking scheme, if and when it is brought into this House. The notion that our approach to the crisis should be one that would be predicated upon a Government supporting or even, as Senator Callely appeared to suggest, encouraging the banks to take a lenient attitude towards some of the outrageous practices we have seen in the construction industry, the legacy of which we now need to live with, I would find reprehensible. I wonder if that is what he was advocating.

We might get an opportunity to delve into that matter further and ascertain who these pragmatic players, to whom he urged the Minister of State to talk, are. I always wonder about such phrases and about the identity of these pragmatic people. Let us have this debate in the open. This is not a criticism of the Minister of State or anything like that — I will come to that in a minute. The notion that there should be talks behind closed doors between banks, the Government and the construction industry is precisely the kind of context that in my submission has led us to the kind of situation in which we find ourselves, involving the unreal levels of valuation on property which clearly exist and are likely to lead to a serious crisis not just in the liquidity of the banks and lending institutions but also in the fundamental level of the availability of capital and their capitalisation. That is clearly where the debate needs to go and we will all need to face up to that in this House if and when we get an opportunity to debate it.

I was listening to Senator Callely, as I always listen to my colleagues. One of the things he said leads to points I want to make about where we should go from here. I thought I heard him say that the crisis we are in took everybody by surprise. I do not believe it took everybody by surprise. It may have taken the Senator by surprise — although I doubt it. It cannot have taken the Government by surprise and certainly did not take Members on this side of the House by surprise because there have been repeated warnings, not just by politicians, but also by commentators, economists, journalists and even financial practitioners about what was happening. Even some Senators opposite gave warnings. In particular Senator Mary White a few months ago stated that the dogs in the street — that may not have been her exact phrase — could see what was happening regarding our over-reliance on the construction industry and that the chickens would come home to roost at some point. I know there are "dogs" and "chickens" in that sentence, but I believe Senators know what I mean. It cannot have come as a surprise.

Even Senators on the other side accept we have an enormous increase in unemployment — the largest increase in unemployment for some decades if not ever. I accept it is coming from a higher base of employment. This week's Budget Statement was devoid of any measures, plan or strategy to attack this problem. If someone coming from abroad were to point out that unemployment here had increased and asked whether the budget contained something about it, we would need to reply that it had no strategy to stimulate employment or any bold, innovative or imaginative initiatives — in fact no initiatives of any kind, good bad or indifferent. It was one of the most striking aspects of the budget presented yesterday, which we will get an opportunity to discuss later today.

The Minister of State's speech, too, was devoid of proposals of any kind, new measures or even suggestions of new measures which the Government may intend to introduce to deal with this serious problem. I can only describe what the Minister of State said to the House today as a mildly interesting commentary on the problem but which was devoid of any new solutions, measures or initiatives which the Minister of State may intend to take. It has a ring of familiarity about it in that it looks very like a speech the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coughlan, made in the Dáil on this difficulty, on one occasion if not more. While I have no problem with Ministers sharing their documentation and intelligence when they are running the Government, I would have hoped on this day of days and week of weeks in the economic downturn we are in that the Minister of State would have had something of content to say to Members today, but he did not. His speech even mentioned various projects already in existence and various FÁS measures which were neither specified nor referred to in detail. It also referred to programmes without any suggestion, plan or indication of any intention to introduce anything new or radical to deal with the problem.

The idea of upskilling was mentioned. An economics or secondary school student looking at the economy and drawing up an essay or commentary on it would mention the importance of upskilling. This cannot be overstated. How could one disagree with it? The Minister of State said:

The importance of upskilling in the context of the economy's competitiveness cannot be overstated. The skills of our workforce will need to be able to adapt quickly to meet the challenges posed[.]

That is a self-evidently clear statement. We can all say that or write it down, but we look to the Government to deliver it and come forward with proposals, measures, schemes and initiatives to make those words a reality. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the Minister of State's speech that suggested that might be done.

I emphasise that, because sometimes politicians on the Opposition side can be accused of exaggerating when they make rhetorical flourishes and say the Government is doing nothing. There was nothing new at all in the Minister of State's speech. There are murmurs from the Government side of the House. I challenge anyone on that side to read the Minister of State's speech and find one new thing in it. They can shake their heads all they like, but if they tell me one new thing, I will withdraw my statement. When the new things in the speech are pointed out, I will withdraw my allegation. That is a promise. There was nothing in the speech, however. Why is that the case? Why should the Opposition let the Government away with the implication it is doing something and grabbing hold of the problem when it is not doing so?

The Minister of State referred to persons on the live register and arrangements in local employment services to increase capacity to deal with the expected increase in live register referrals. One would imagine they would have to make such arrangements.

One measure taken in the budget is the cutting of the standard entitlement to 15 months' unemployment benefit to 12 months, where 260 or more PRSI payments have been paid, and to nine months where fewer than 260 contributions are made. That is an initiative that has been taken. Will it be of assistance? Will it attack or alleviate the problem of unemployment? Clearly it will not. Someone facing unemployment is now in the situation where they are affected on the double. They have had the misfortune of losing their employment, have little or no hope of an alternative job, and now cannot rely on the income they thought they were entitled to through welfare provisions provided by the Government and to which they have been contributing over the years.

The budget was devoid of ideas and proposals on jobs. There is no reform of the back to education allowance — the Minister is keen on second-chance education — and we need such reform to boost that area. There is no reform of the back to work enterprise allowance, no new community employment places and no initiatives on job sharing or career breaks. If one wants to encourage people to go back to college or education to increase their skills in the middle of their careers, issues regarding job sharing and career breaks must be looked at.

Practical proposals must be made to go with the rhetorical references in speeches. While I know the Minister of State must say something when he comes to the House, I would have expected something concrete, such as the proposals brought forward by my party in recent weeks. I wonder if my colleagues on the Government side, who are guffawing, have read them. They like to ask where the Opposition's proposals are. I will send the Senators an attachment by e-mail this afternoon where they will find our proposals in black and white and carefully costed and argued. An example would be stimulation by making employment available for those in the construction sector who have lost their jobs quickly and dramatically in recent months. My party has set out and published this clear set of proposals.

If we want a real debate in this House, and the Minister of State could easily and capably participate in a real debate rather than a sham, I am happy to have these proposals tested and scrutinised by him or his colleagues to see if they stand up. No one is a complete repository of expertise. If my party, or Fine Gael, put forward real proposals, they must bear scrutiny, and be examined and criticised by the Government side if that is what they wish to do. Likewise, in a modern democracy and parliament, when we are addressed on the question of the serious and worsening crisis in unemployment, we are entitled to expect more than we received today.