Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I reflect what has been said by the previous speakers. It is important we are having this debate and that Members put what they have to say on the record. I agree with much of what Senator Marc MacSharry said. However, in fairness to Fine Gael, I must say two things. It is not fair to say Fine Gael forecast 4% growth this year. It was very clear in its election manifesto that on the basis of 4% growth, it would do certain things. It was very clear about that at all times. Deputies Richard Bruton and Joan Burton have been extraordinarily responsible in their participation in the debate. I believe strongly, and I say this in a disinterested fashion, that they should be included more closely in Government cogitation and discussion.

This is the challenge for social partnership. The Government should say let us agree on the problem, offer possible solutions and ask if the social partners can deliver, but that is not being done. I was appalled that the plan, launched a couple of weeks ago in Dublin Castle, was not launched also in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government has no problem dealing with the social partners but why exclude the politicians? Was it not a great opportunity for the Government? This is what is emerging as an indication of a lack of leadership.

The Government is entitled to be a bit more confident. I have the benefit of hindsight because I am a sad person and spent a couple of hours last week going through what our commentators said a year ago about the year just gone, and it made very interesting reading. National Irish Bank was talking about another year of strong growth in 2008. IIB's Austin Hughes talked about employment being broadly flat and said there might be a technical recession. Dan McLaughlin of Bank of Ireland talked about 5% and 6% growth. AIB's John Beggs talked about GDP growth recovering to over 4% in 2009 as well as being positive about 2008. Jim Power, who lectures us regularly, said we should have a modest recovery later in 2008 and into 2009.

Why do I say this? It is a good opportunity to ignore these people. They got it completely wrong so let us not be at their mercy. It would a good time to introduce a new section 30 to prevent RTE interviewing too many economists from here on in. They are misleading the public and are getting it wrong. I ask the Minister of State to look at that issue.

I refer to our friends in IBEC who get a huge amount of time. Let me put something clearly on the record. The main financial supporters of IBEC are the five or six large financial institutions. I would like someone to ask IBEC every time its representatives open their mouths what it is doing about its members who caused this major problem for us. They are welcomed as people who can solve our problem without any reference to the fact they caused it in the first place. We should be very clear about that. Bankers, IBEC and economists are not the people who should tell us what to do next.

It is fair to say the people are losing confidence in the Government but it is unfair to say it has got it completely wrong. The Government has not got it any more wrong than the governments of the US, the UK, Germany or France. During the first debate we had on this issue four or five months ago, people said Germany got it right but clearly it did not and it is now in the same position as the rest of us. As the Minister of State probably mentioned, we have a lower debt-gross national product ratio than any of the countries I mentioned. It is impossible to estimate the debt-GNP ratio of the United States. It is off the scale. It is right to say we have 2 million people working and a better infrastructure than on the previous occasion we came through it. We should examine these aspects.

We should not talk down the economy. My only disappointment in the Minister of State is that he talked himself out of a job recently on a radio programme. I cringed when I heard that. The Minister of State is a busy, active, articulate and effective Minister of State — he can add that to his curriculum vitae — and it ill-behoves him to say on a radio programme that we do not need him. It is not the case that we must sack people to give some kind of fodder to the media in terms of politicians' expenses and the numbers of Ministers of State. If the Minister wants to examine the position of Ministers of State he should give me their diaries for the past six months and I will tell him who needs to go. That can be done quickly and easily in terms of their productivity. I have done it all my life in other jobs; I can do it in this one as well. If people are delivering, they are delivering and we should not posture about it.

Public sector unions are closer to the position on the ground. What should we do with the public sector unions? In terms of whether there will be a deal, of course there will be a deal because those people are committed to nothing else except the public service. They want this country to work. They are not in it for the profit. They want to make it work. They also want to protect their members.

We should not do this piecemeal. We should not leave people in a situation where they are dealing with a 1% levy and where they might also have to deal with an extra pension payment, although I accept the ICTU's point in terms of what we should do, and a pay cut. That will demoralise people. We should examine the figures. If €1.8 billion or €2 billion is needed this year, the public sector unions should be asked if they can deliver on that and how they can do it. They should be asked to give it back to us. They should not give us a solution with wage cuts and expect people to buy into that publicly.

I believe in the recovery bond. I have been saying that for a number of months. I discussed it with my colleagues in the ICTU. If every public sector union was given the option of buying into a recovery bond, which would ensure our Government got money cheaper than we could borrow it from Germany or elsewhere, either at 0% or 1% interest or an interest rate related to gross domestic product and with no exit before five years, we would then get people involved who could afford it. There is no difference between public sector and private sector workers in terms of making ends meet.

Last May people were struggling with income in terms of paying their mortgages. The drop in interest rates has brought them back into the game, so to speak. If we cut their salary, whether they are in the public or private sector, they will now be back in the same position again. Salary cuts are not the issue.

I would go around this country as a union leader selling the idea of a recovery bond. It was done previously. Michael Collins did it in 1922. We should collect the money from the people for the people. It would be an investment in the country. We should show some leadership. The Minister should give us an objective and a target and let us deliver. We can do that. That is as much as I can add at this stage but we should give this issue to the people who we need to bring about a solution and let us make this work together.