Alex White (Labour)

As is the convention, the Cathaoirleach beat me to congratulating Senator Ó Brolcháin on his election to Seanad Éireann and to wish him every good fortune on a personal level in his time here. I do not want to take from my congratulation of him but listening to his most interesting contribution, none of which I could disagree with, it struck me - as some of Senator Ó Brolcháin's colleagues in the Lower House have discovered, perhaps somewhat painfully - that one cannot carve up the Government programme and identify and seek to defend solely one particular area of Government policy, whether green energy or green jobs, and I accept how extremely important is that policy objective.

The motion and counter-motion tabled today speak about last week's budget and the measures taken in it. Neither of the two parties in Government can walk away from any action of the Government. It is all very well for Senator Ó Brolcháin or Deputy Gogarty in the Lower House to seek to deal with one aspect of the budget that gives them cheer and ignore all of the other aspects of the budget that are causing real hardship and pain for so many people at this time. That is what the Fine Gael motion identifies and I congratulate Fine Gael for tabling it. It is not characterised by political posturing, as was suggested by one of our colleagues in recent minutes. I do not accept the Opposition is engaged in political posturing by attacking the budget or by producing comprehensive documents.

I speak for the Labour Party and in the week prior to the budget, as challenged by many colleagues on the other side of the House, we published proposals which formed part of the public debate. These were in the document Jobs & Recovery, which not only dealt with the question of the deficit and how it needed to be addressed but, against the better instincts of many on the Opposition, accepted and agreed to a set of parameters put forward by the Government. The outcome of our proposals would have yielded in excess of €4 billion in savings.

I am always interested in the language used in these debates. I understood Senator MacSharry to have stated these things have to be done and social welfare has to be reduced, which by extension he also means that pay of public servants on €30,000 a year has to be reduced by 5%. I fundamentally disagree with him. It is not the same thing to state that €4 billion has to be found and then state that one has to cut the pay of people on €30,000 a year or social welfare. One does not follow from the other. In fairness to Senator MacSharry, he acknowledged that the debate is about how this is done. They were the parameters of the debate in the week or two prior to the budget. I repeat that I and my party do not accept that we have to reduce social welfare by 4% or that we have to reduce the pay of people on €30,000 a year by 5%.

I am not happy to state, as Senator MacSharry stated in response to people who might criticise it, that I am sorry about it. It is not enough for politicians simply to state they are sorry or express their personal upset about it, and I do not deny people are upset. Of course people are upset and find themselves in a difficult situation. However, that is what politics is about and it is simply not good enough to turn around and state that it has to be done. I do not accept the particular decisions made by the Government on pay and social welfare had to be made, not only with regard to negotiating a €1.3 billion cut in the public pay bill but also on non-pay savings. The Labour Party document included proposals on non-pay savings of €900 million, in case anybody thinks we were afraid or wanted to walk away from that aspect of the budget.

Every day, reports emerge from what occurred two weeks ago in the public service pay talks. At the weekend, more information came out on what was available to be agreed and that has not been denied by the Government or anybody on its behalf. It seemed that an extremely radical set of proposals was available to be agreed. I am still scratching my head about why precisely the Government pulled the possibility of that agreement at the 11th hour. That story has not been told sufficiently clearly. We are told that the figures did not add up; that it was because of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers; that there was a revolt in Cabinet and all types of things, but further clarity is essential for us to establish what occurred.

Senator Twomey stated the Government should go back into talks with the trade unions but the Minister of State knows that in any talks or negotiations there has to be a level of trust. There are no talks without trust. There is no point in Senator Quinn or anybody else telling the Government to get into talks and agree something. There is a dynamic that characterises a period of negotiation and people should negotiate in good faith with a view to making an agreement. However, one cannot order people to agree something; that is not agreement, it is anathema to agreement.

When people speak about what happened in 1987 we should remember it was done on the basis of agreement with the trade unions and the so-called "social partners". To denigrate the notion of agreement now, as appeared to be done by some speakers in this debate, is quite damaging. Either we want to have an agreement for recovery in this country and bring people with us or we do not. One party cannot state that everyone must agree on its terms because that is not agreement, it is a recipe for disaster and of course people will leave the negotiating table if they feel trust has broken down. I do not know how the Government will persuade the trade union movement to come back into talks. I do not know whether it thinks it should do so or is interested in doing so. I hope it is but I genuinely do not know how it will persuade people who were let down so comprehensively at the last minute to return to the negotiating table.

I was interested to hear Senator Quinn speak about The Economist and the fact that it had lauded the Irish budget as demonstrating to the rest of Europe what austerity was about. Obviously, some people's test of the success of a budget is how austere it is, but it is certainly not my test. Of course the deficit has to be dealt with but the notion that one can decide how successful a budget is on the basis of how austere it is is a very deeply conservative approach and one that has won much praise, mainly from the British Tory party. I heard Norman Lamont on BBC Radio 4 getting very excited about the Irish budget. Perhaps that is why my party leader was motivated to describe one of the parties on the other side of the House as the Celtic Tories; the loudest cheer and praise for the budget came from the right wing of the British Conservative Party.

How will we return to a level of progress in this country? I respectfully state that a Budget Statement is an important opportunity for a Government not only to do the immediate job required on the public finances, and we accept that has to be done, but also to present to the public and all sectors of the electorate, not only one or other that is favoured, the possibility of a better way and to present a vision for a better economy and a better Ireland. Regrettably, that has not been done in this budget. Any initiatives that might give people hope or a sense of a positive future are lamentably absent.

I find it amazing that the Government bothered to use the word "stimulus" to describe the reductions in VAT, excise and VRT. Something far more radical and bolder is required than anything the Government has put forward. I welcome the investment of €136 million in job support and training, but it is negligible when taken in the context of our overall problem. We need something far bolder. The amendment claims the Government has been bold, effective and decisive. I believe it is none of those things.

When making social welfare cuts, we hear the argument that prices have come down. Many people who are depending on social welfare were not on social welfare a year ago. Their incomes have essentially collapsed. People who have were working but are now unemployed are facing a situation where their household income has collapsed. Telling them that prices have gone down in the past 18 months is cold comfort.

During these Private Members' debates, I sit down and read the motions, which often irritates the other side. For the Government to claim that it has "identified the right priorities and taken the right actions" and to ask us to support its amendment to the perfectly reasonable motion put forward by the Fine Gael Party is simply not taking us seriously. There will be no serious progress on turning our economy around until there is a change of Government in this country.