Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate. I welcome Senator Harris back to the House following his recent illness. I genuinely welcome him back to the state of independence which he had enjoyed up to 12 months ago. That was an outstanding contribution by him; it was fearless, brave and informative. However, regarding his comments concerning the Opposition parties, in particular Fine Gael, I am disappointed he did not notice the contribution by our spokesperson, Deputy Richard Bruton, last week in his document, Recovery through Reform — A Budget Perspective, in which he majored strongly on the question of the public service. The Senator would have noted from that document that Fine Gael put forward a set of proposals, including a proposed redundancy programme across the public service to reduce its ever growing numbers, for whom the taxpayers have to pay. The question of public service reform is an issue we will have to revisit. The colour of the Fine Gael money is on the table. We proposed a cutback of at least 5,000 jobs in the public service.

What was introduced yesterday was a tough budget. People were expecting a tough one and, from a political perspective, there was a willingness from the body politic to take on board the difficult measures required to turn around the economic ship of State. However, we were hoping those measures would focus on what is very much the kernel of the problem and solution, namely, putting people back to work. When we had the all-night debate on the banks a fortnight ago, on that same day the most dramatic figure on the economy was released — the unemployment figure — which showed a 50% increase in unemployment over the past 12 months. That is the most dramatic economic indicator we have seen, not only in the past 12 months but probably in the past two or three decades. Any debate on the budget or the economy must focus on the question of job creation. It is only through creating jobs, putting people back to work and allowing them to contribute to rather than take from society that we will turn around the economic indicators which have become so disappointing in recent years, if we are blunt about it.

We must concede that there is no magic solution in terms of the meeting the required economic criteria. I have said in this House during the past 12 months that in the period from autumn 2006 to the general election date in May 2007, the main Government party succeeded admirably in selling message that Fianna Fáil had a magic formula for economic growth and development and that it was only through that party being in power that our economy could thrive and succeed. We now know to our cost that there is no magic bullet or magic Fianna Fáil formula and we have to start looking for new answers, hopefully, from new people in the not too distant future.

I wish to refer to a number of the budgetary measures introduced yesterday. The one that has grabbed the public attention most dramatically is the 1% income levy. It is a crude and regressive measure from a taxation perspective and is not entirely based on ability to pay. It is quite unlike Fianna Fáil. The Minister of State present had a long tradition not only of public service but of having an interest in the history of the Fianna Fáil Party. Probably for the first time in the history of the State, on the basis of the so-called cute politics, of which perhaps the Opposition is sometimes jealous of Fianna Fáil, it has got it spectacularly wrong. It is introducing a taxation measure — it can call it a levy but it is a tax — which will be paid by virtually every citizen of this State, regardless of his or her ability to pay. That is very unlike Fianna Fáil. It is almost as unlike Fianna Fáil as the removal from the elderly of the medical cards it granted amid a fanfare of trumpets some years ago.

I take on board the criticism levelled by Senator Harris regarding the granting of medical cards to all those over the age of 70. When that measure was introduced it probably required much more thought and regulation from the perspective of what it cost the State by way of the additional premium general practitioners received. I am no expert on the measure but I am told that a GP receives a higher fee for a medical card patient under the over 70s scheme than he or she receives from a medical card holder in his or her 40s, 50s or 60s. That should never have been the case. We have given people this benefit and it is difficult to take it away from them. It will cause a great deal of political difficulty. That is the Minister of State's problem. Nevertheless, people are genuinely worried that their medical card and access to reasonably free health care have been removed. The practicalities of this measure are that when the process is completed, the majority of people over 70 years of age will retain their medical card.

However, severe and unnecessary worry has been caused to many people during the past 24 hours. Urgent clarification is needed. Apparently a letter will be issued to every medical card holder over the age of 70. I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure the language used in those letters will be couched not in cold, vague Civil Service speak but in user-friendly informative terms in order that they will aid and support rather than frighten people. I concede that the majority of people over 70 will eventually retain their medical card but we want to ensure they are not frightened in the interim period.