Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Oct 2010

Vol. 204 No. 8

National Economy: Statements (Resumed)

I would like to return to the discussion that took place on the Order of Business. It arises with great regularity in the House and is taking on an air of unreality. Both sides of the House must face up to the issue. I refer to our discussion on the need for co-operation and the level of debate across the floor on the economic measures that require to be taken, the budget, etc. With all due respect to the Taoiseach, it does not really represent progress for him to say the Opposition can avail of what is, metaphorically, a suggestion box to be placed outside the door and that if it has any ideas, it can toss them into it for the Government to look at. That is essentially what has been said. If we are to have a debate at a level beyond the somewhat cynical approach suggested by the Taoiseach, we must all participate in a deeper discussion of the options. I am willing to concede the four-year programme mentioned by the Minister and announced by the Government which is intended to be published in November could offer us a very useful opportunity to debate, perhaps in this House, the various options facing the country. We all accept big decisions require to be taken, but we do not accept there is only one set of decisions, or one set of solutions. As one approaches the budget which is only a few weeks away, one can have less confidence in the willingness of the Government, perhaps any Government, to engage in a lengthy debate on the options. Perhaps the time to do this was earlier in the year, but I would like to have that debate tomorrow. However, I am being realistic because when it was suggested last year that the Opposition might bring forward proposals and they did so — just to remind people I will outline some the proposals made by the Labour Party — they were completely ignored. There was no genuine engagement.

With respect, Senator MacSharry was wrong when he said the announcement by the Department of Finance that it was prepared to brief Opposition parties was unique because it briefed the Opposition last year. However, the problem is that the detail available to Opposition parties dried up as we got closer to the budget, perhaps understandably on the part of Department of Finance officials. It is a pity all of this happens so quickly and in such a rush over a period of a few weeks. I hope the four year programme will contain options, as much as purported decisions by the Government which will not it appears be in office for too long beyond the forthcoming budget.

The outgoing Government — that is how I regard it — could serve the country well by setting out the various options in detail and costing them. This would inform a general election campaign and the debate that would require to be held in the course of such a campaign. There would be political pitfalls in this for all sides. However, we have moved beyond the day when we can afford to allow ourselves to be influenced by pure political considerations in terms of what is in the interests of the Labour Party or Fianna Fail as political parties. There are greater issues at stake. Let us have the price tags, for example, on what appear to be the unmentionables, namely, property taxes, water charges and corporation tax. If one even utters the words "corporation tax", people conclude one is seeking to increase it. What I am talking about is facilitating a meaningful public debate on the cost of a range of measures. We could then engage in a fight.

About which tax is the Senator speaking?

I was not talking about a tax.

Senator Alex White to continue, without interruption, please.

The Senator mentioned corporation tax.

Yes. For example, prior to last year's budget, the Labour Party, following a briefing by the Department of Finance, proposed a higher income tax rate for higher earners. The price tag in introducing a third rate of tax of 48% on earnings over €100,000 was €355 million as costed by the Department. Informed by the contents of the report of the Commission on Taxation, we also proposed a reduction in pension relief and the price tag was €330 million. We did not make up that figure, rather it was based on information provided by the Department of Finance for us. We proposed modifications and reductions in investment property relief and the price tag was €430 million. The same applies to property schemes.

Deputy Varadkar, when describing the Labour Party proposals on the revenue side, was, I believe, misled into thinking the Labour Party was proposing an attack on the middle classes to the tune of €2.5 billion. I would like to debate that figure with him. Few people, middle class or otherwise, would be affected by many of these reliefs which, in many cases, ought not to have been introduced in the first instance. They ought to have been curtailed more quickly. According to the Commission on Taxation, there is no genuine compelling economic benefit to be gained from their continuation and they should be removed. A debate on these measures would be helpful. The only measure in the list brought forward on the revenue side last year by the Labour Party that could conceivably be regarded as an attack on the middle classes is a third rate of tax at 48% on income over €100,000.

A real issue of equity arises. I had an interesting discussion last week with a colleague from the opposite side on the general economic environment. I agree with him that until people believe there is equality and fairness in the Government's approach to economic recovery, whether in terms of taxation measures or the configuration of cuts in public expenditure, there will not be the public confidence, involvement or a shoulder to the wheel which the Government rightly, in a rhetorical sense, seeks all the time. That simply will not happen. I agree with what my colleague had to say during that general private discussion. Many people feel the same way. At the time of a general election the reality is that the public will have to be persuaded by way of debate that there are, regrettably, some public services that we simply are not able to afford. We can have the debate on how we have come to be in this situation at another time, but I will be happy to participate in it.

What upsets me a little is that people do not yet seem to understand or to have analysed what has gone wrong. Colleagues opposite have the idea that this has been a golden era and what we are facing is a blip caused by the international recession, but that is completely wide of the mark. We are where we are because Government decisions that ought to have been made were not. In the future there will have to be public discussion of and confidence in measures that will be extremely difficult and affect ordinary voters, citizens and families. People will not buy into these decisions, unless they can see fairness across the board.

When speaking about how we order business in the House, I had in mind that which goes beyond the structured debate we are having today in which the Minister of State — I accept he is only doing what he is required to do and that he does it well — has made a speech and will reply to questions from colleagues. I would prefer if the two or three organisations with big picture proposals, including Social Justice Ireland, could be invited to come to the Seanad Chamber to defend their proposals. We could then pursue and scrutinise them with them, with the benefit of advice and information from the Department of Finance or the Civil Service. This would allow genuine public debate rather than set piece debates. That is what I had in mind in regard to how we could change the way we do business in the House. I urge the Leader to seriously consider how best we might do this.

I look forward to the four-year programme being produced. There is an air of unreality in terms of what some Government Members appear to expect from the Opposition. Without information and the facts, there will not be a genuine debate. I am, however, prepared to have a truce for a short while if we can receive the information we require. We could then have the argument, but this cannot be done the other way round. One might say this could be done in a general election campaign because that is when such things are done. The big issues will be debated in such a campaign. We want a general election but cannot have one because the Government intends to remain in office for as long as it possibly can. Short of having a general election, let us try to facilitate genuine debate. We could start by doing so here.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. There is no harm in indicating that we had an earlier Celtic tiger. In the period 1994-99 we had a genuine Celtic tiger economy, during which Ireland experienced super growth, with an annual average increase of 8% in GNP. This growth was based on exports and competitiveness. During the second Celtic tiger period between 2002 and 2007 the annual growth rate averaged 5.4%. While this figure was somewhat below the previous "tiger" period, it was well ahead of the general European Union growth rate. However, as we now realise, the second Celtic tiger was to a great extent an illusion and a mirage based on unsustainable increases in bank lending. These reached 30% per annum and fuelled personal spending, property development and construction at a time when our export competitiveness steadily eroded. The price being paid for these excesses is clear, namely, a collapse in construction, bank bailouts on a global scale and tough and painful measures to return the public sector deficit to a sustainable level that is acceptable to the European Union.

Premature assessments that the economy has emerged from recession create scepticism and frustration in a large part of the business community, namely, the tourism sector, retail trade and domestically orientated enterprises where business remains tough. Companies are still collapsing at an unprecedented rate and the average waiting period for outstanding credit has extended to approximately 70 days.

Ireland has two economies. The exporting sector is dominated by foreign direct investment and a growing band of indigenous exporters, including high-tech global companies. These are currently the main sources of growth in the economy. I cannot recall how many times I have pointed out that unless we produce products or provide services that people want to buy or attract tourists, the economy will not go anywhere. Without exports, we will not make money. I am proud that Lir Chocolates, which started in Connie's Kitchen, is primarily an exporter and employes 250 people in Navan.

The human impact of the recession is stark. For example, the downward trend in suicide in recent years has gone into reverse. We are all aware of prominent business people who have taken their lives and the indications are that many others have been overwhelmed by the debts they face.

The live register figures published every month are the most frequently referenced measures of unemployment. The figure of 450,000 for August is the most commonly cited figure for unemployment. Last week, the September live register figures showed a decline of 5,400 to 449,000. This fall is believed to reflect the intake of students to third level colleges. The live register, as the note provided each month by the Central Statistics Office makes clear, is not an accurate measure of unemployment. It is worth reading the note in full because it is ignored in public discourse:

The Live Register is not designed to measure unemployment. It includes part-time workers (those who work up to three days a week), seasonal and casual workers entitled to Jobseekers Benefit or Allowance. Unemployment is measured by the Quarterly National Household Survey and the latest seasonally adjusted figure, for January to March 2010, is 277,000 persons unemployed.

The average number of people on the seasonally adjusted live register in the period from January to March last was 433,000 or an overstatement of 156,000 when compared to the figure the CSO considers to be the proper measure of unemployment. It is not politically correct to point this out even though most employers do not regard the live register as an accurate measure of labour availability.

To balance this analysis it is only proper to consider changes in emigration as measuring another part of the human impact of the recession. Emigration in the most recent year — to the end of April 2010 — was 65,000, of which 28,000 were Irish nationals. In recent years, the level of what may be termed "normal voluntary emigration" of Irish nationals has been 13,000 per annum. One can, therefore, reasonably conclude that approximately 15,000 Irish people emigrated in the most recent year as a result of the recession.

Public and media commentary tends to take the most extreme of the unemployment and emigration data to portray the most negative version of economic affairs. When combined with the daily diet of banking bailout news the resulting continuous negativity in public discourse creates a highly discouraging environment for enterprise. I know young, educated Irish people who are happy to escape such an environment to move to more positive growth economies such as Singapore and other countries in Asia.

Despite the current uncertainty and challenges, the price we are paying for borrowing, the ultimate cost of the bank bailouts and the tough budget that lies ahead in December, the economy will experience a real GNP growth of more than 2% next year. According to the Economic and Social Research Institute, annual growth will reach an average of between 3% and 4% in the years from 2011 to 2015. Most significantly, the ESRI expects employment to expand by an average of between 1% and 2% in each of the next five years. I conclude on that optimistic note.

I propose to share time with Senator Pearse Doherty.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, who is a regular visitor to the House. Before Senator Mary White leaves the Chamber, I should point out how impressed I was, as usual, with her balanced and considered contribution, which offered a mixture of realism and hope for the future. This is terribly important at such a critical juncture. Tomorrow morning, I will speak at a breakfast for a group of significant international figures. While I will certainly face the situation as it is, I will also give the optimistic view about the resources of this country, intellectually, in our young people and in the imagination and capacity we have. I will say a little more about this as I go along.

These are difficult times. I felt a shudder of fear when the Minister recently announced that Anglo Irish Bank could cost €34 billion. This upper figure, which is the more likely cost, is particularly shocking because it appears we will get nothing back from it. Having stated previously in the House that the figure would most likely be €34 billion, it did not come as a complete shock to hear the Minister refer to a cost of €34 billion. I placed it on the record of the House not because of my own innate genius but because I had been contacted by Peter Mathews as a result of earlier comments I made in the House. Mr. Mathews is a very driven man, which can alienate some people, but his figures have been consistently right. I ask the Minister to consider taking advice from a group of people whom he may not find completely sympathetic. I could list individuals such as Peter Mathews, Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev and Professor Brian Lucey from Trinity College. It would be good if the Minister were to take advice from this group on how to get rid of Anglo Irish Bank at the cheapest price possible. That is one suggestion.

I note that the Fitch ratings agency today downgraded Ireland's credit rating again. It has a hell of cheek. I suspect the Minister of State may agree with my view that there should be a radical examination of the role played by all the ratings agencies and they should be replaced by an agreed international, independent, professionally qualified and good ratings agency. That is the least we are entitled to following the kind of nonsense with which we have been faced.

It is daunting that nearly half a million people are unemployed, even though the position appears to be marginally better, if one factors in all the other elements, than it was during the last really difficult recession through which I lived. I have made many comments about this, but I will not repeat them here. The Minister is aware of these comments and may or may not agree with them. However, I have come up with original ideas in respect of the economy. I will not rehearse them, but I will support some proposals brought forward by others, of which I have recently become aware.

Senator O'Toole and I have pointed out that on today's Order Paper there are three items of Government legislation and 16 Private Members' Bills. However, one item is missing. I was listening to a discussion on radio in recent days involving distinguished politicians, thinkers and economists and was immediately struck by one of the suggestions made. Ireland is paying three times the amount in interest that Germany is paying on its bonds. There is approximately €24 billion in the National Pensions Reserve Fund and a technical glitch is stopping us from purchasing our own bonds. Is buying our own bonds not an obvious course of action to pursue? Is it not possible to examine the legal hitch that is preventing action being taken in this regard?

Let us consider the benefits to be gained in pursuing this course. We would be investing in our own country and paying these absurdly high rates of interest to ourselves. The money would not go to the international market but remain at home. I am not claiming credit for this proposal, as it was not my idea. However, when I first heard it being espoused, I thought it was a damn good suggestion. I inquired of colleagues whether there was a legal hitch and was informed that there was such a hitch. We can, however, get rid of it. In the absence of Government legislation, let us take the relevant Private Members' Bill in order that we might obtain the interest to which I refer.

We could raid the National Pensions Reserve Fund. We should take a risk in this regard. I am a pensioner and of the view that either the country will go completely down the drain or we could use the money to which I refer and get it back later. Let us consider the position of small and medium enterprises which are starved of cash. The banks are still not shelling out. There are companies which are going to the wall but which would not be doing so if they had access to what are pitiful sums of money. Let us take a small proportion of the money in the National Pensions Reserve Fund and allocate it to the small and medium enterprises which we know will thrive.

I do not know whether the suggestion I am about to make is original, but it strikes me as being bloody obvious. An estimate has been made of the value of the gas and oil resources that will be taken from the Corrib field during its lifetime and the number those involved arrived at is €500 billion. That is ten times the level of our complete exposure to the banks. However, we have given this money away. That wonderful philanthropist and former Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, gave the resources of the people to Shell. It is time we renegotiated with it.

We should invite those involved in Shell to come on board. We should tell them that the country is in dire straits, that their company is extracting the country's resources which it obtained for nothing and that they have trampled all over the people of the west. I made similar comments at a conference in Athlone, at which representatives from Shell were present. They came to see me very quickly, but I did not withdraw one word of what I had said. I informed them that I would meet them for lunch in Leinster House in order that we might discuss the position. By coincidence, on the train to Athlone I became involved in a discussion with a group of four men, a father and son and two others, who worked in the Corrib field. One of them informed me that there was even more gas to be found. Let us use this resource. Why put people through misery if we can obtain money for this gas?

The Minister of State is a decent and humane man and I am sure feels the same as I do about the most disgusting imposition on people I have ever witnessed, namely, the 50 cent charge on prescriptions. When this new charge was announced, the terminally ill and the homeless were targeted. I hope the Minister of State will use his good offices to try to have this charge withdrawn.

Yesterday I visited a sheltered workshop in Blanchardstown. The people employed there produce needlework etc. They are absolutely fantastic. One woman approached me and said I should not let the Government take their teachers or their funding away. She also informed me that they would not stand for this and stamped her foot. I thought she was a great girl. We must find the money to support people such as those to whom I refer. We must not allow multinational corporations to raid the cupboard completely.

I wish to highlight a couple of positive developments. Like Senator John McCain during the US presidential election, I recently had a "Joe the plumber" moment. I may have related this story on a previous occasion in the House, but I do not recall whether that is the case. Some months ago, following a Seanad sitting, I flew to Cork and travelled to Clonakilty to meet some transition year students and view their projects. The one which gave me hope was the brainchild of a group of 15 or 16 year olds. The rich effluent which flows from our farmlands creates a bloom of sea lettuce which is a form of seaweed and which, when washed ashore, creates a stink and acts as a disincentive to tourism. The girls in question collected samples, analysed them chemically and discovered that it was possible to compress this bloom and produce briquettes which have the same heat equivalent as turf and which burn for twice as long. Such ingenuity must be encouraged.

In recent days I spoke at the launch in Malahide Castle of a wonderful invention, the brainchild of a woman, Ms Sheila Byrne, whose daughter is dyslexic. When she was helping her daughter to read, she noticed that the girl's eye was moving erratically between lines of text. In exasperation, she cut a piece of cardboard from a Corn Flakes packet, removed a strip from it and placed the device over the text. As a result, her daughter was only obliged to focus on one line at a time. This made matters much easier and the girl made great progress. Ms Byrne has developed the product — Readassist — which she designed in co-operation with the Fingal Enterprise Board and Spear Technology, a commercial company, and is now being marketed. It is a fantastic product and involves an idea as simple as that which led to the development of the safety pin. It will have not only an Irish but also a worldwide application. The product is beginning to be manufactured here and will be exported.

I have provided but a glimpse of the ideas, ingenuity and originality still prevalent in the country. I will be repeating to the people from Shell, with whom I am meeting tomorrow, what I have said today. I appeal to the Minister of State to come up with some radical solutions. The current Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, tore up the agreement his country had with Shell and we should do the same. If Shell gets a sniff of what else might be brought ashore from the waters off the west coast, it will not turn down our demand to renegotiate in respect of the natural resources which belong to the people.

I thank Senator Norris for sharing time. I thoroughly enjoyed his contribution and agree wholeheartedly with what he said about a renegotiation in respect of our natural resources. I also agree with his comments on the 50 cent charge on medical prescriptions.

We have discussed on many occasions the Government's failure in respect of the bank guarantee and the collapse of the banking sector. Last week we were informed that the final cost of the Government's actions might be anything up to €50 billion. If we add the various costs relating to the banking collapse and the Government's response to it, including NAMA etc., the final bill for taxpayers could be in the region of €100 billion. Leaving that fact aside, we know where we now stand. We also know who got us into this mess, who is robbing the taxpayer and that they have no mandate for doing so. Those to whom I refer are, of course, in government.

I wish to focus on the direction we are to take. The Minister for Finance has repeatedly stated fiscal retrenchment through immediate and deep public spending cuts to reduce the fiscal deficit will help to restore the confidence of financial markets in the economy. He has also stated that if we keep interest rates low, we will secure economic recovery. The Government has declared that this is the only possible credible course of action. The difficulty is that the current Administration dismisses anyone who considers that fiscal deflation on the scale outlined, particularly at this delicate stage, as completely unwise. The political and media consensus dictates that the deficit is the only issue that matters in the context of economic policies, that the measures to be set out in the budget in order to reduce this deficit are unavoidable and that there is no alternative to the budget plan and timetable set out. That is where matters stand.

Sinn Féin offers a different view. It is the only party in the Dáil which has not subscribed to the need to cut spending in order to reduce the deficit. Those in government might try to pigeonhole Sinn Féin, but the reality is that there is an alternative. We are not opposed to deficit reduction but believe the 2014 deadline is unrealistic, particularly when one takes the Government's bank bailout plan into account. We are against spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Our approach to the economic crisis is as follows.

We need to design a realistic deficit reduction strategy based on overhauling the tax system, eliminating wasteful public spending and investing in jobs. That will in turn increase revenue coming into the State and lessen the burden on the social welfare bill. We believe a stimulus will reduce the deficit and the Government's spending cuts plan is not merely unfair but also fails to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. The public finance facts support us in this and the recent Exchequer figures show that income tax revenues are down by 6% on the same period last year and 4.4% on the Government's estimate for the period.

There is something wrong with the Government strategy, which is dangerous in its prescription for the future. The Government and Minister for Finance believe they can slash public spending, bring low earners into the tax bracket and cut benefits, taking billions of euro from the economy and people's pockets, but that none of it will have any impact on unemployment and growth. It is the stuff of fantasy. Not only have we been thrust into a position where we have massive structural deficits caused by an unchecked property crisis but drastic spending cuts are throttling the domestic economy.

We need a number of set principles which can lead us to economic recovery. There are four of these. Public spending cuts and tax increases on low income earners are not part of the solution but part of the problem. The economy should be grown to shrink the deficit, as repairing the public finances is dependent on repairing the economy and reversing the rise in unemployment. Through investment we can repair the major infrastructural, social and enterprise deficiencies in the economy. Increasing taxation will yield higher Exchequer savings than spending cuts, although these must have an impact primarily on high income earner groups.

Sinn Féin has put forward proposals and there has been much discussion about how the Seanad should be used, consensus and all the rest. I will take one of our alternatives as an example. I will not speak about a wealth tax that countries in Europe have introduced, with the French version much higher than what we propose. That would take in in the region of €1 billion. Considering the discretionary tax reliefs, we are the first party to come up with standardised discretionary tax reliefs, which makes the system fairer. Everybody would get the same relief, regardless of income. I listened last night to the comments of Senator Marc MacSharry, finance spokesperson for the Government in the Seanad, saying he agreed that the issue was a "no-brainer". The idea was coming from Fr. Healy in that case but if it came from Sinn Féin, it would probably have been dismissed like the rest of the party's ideas.

We need to increase taxation but there is an alternative to the slash and burn policies. Senator Norris spoke about the 50 cent prescription charges on the homeless when we could standardise reliefs for high-income earners and introduce a third rate of tax for those earning above €100,000 per year. We could also introduce a wealth tax for those with assets, excluding the family home and farm, above €1 million. We should take in new money instead of cutting young people's social welfare payments, charging people without homes for medication and slashing and burning right across the economy.

That is the deflationary strategy that has been implemented for the past two years and it is time to be brave and indicate that the Government got it wrong. We cannot borrow any more because the markets do not trust the country. Our Exchequer figures have decreased because we have deflated the economy and if we pursue the course of action that other parties have signed up to of taking at least €3 billion from the economy for the next four years, it will completely deflate the economy. We need a stimulus package.

The debate occurs across the world as to whether stimulus or austerity works. Unfortunately, in this Parliament Sinn Féin is the only party arguing for stimulus. We need to consider other avenues as this is about the future of our country and the hardship people face. The Government should forget that the ideas come from another party in opposition but take them on merit. Why would any of the proposals put forward by my party and me, which are costed by the Department of Finance, not work? We should have that debate.

I am glad to come after Senators Doherty and White, as they have made a constructive contribution by laying out their party philosophies on how to emerge from this economic crisis. That is to be applauded but the Senator will be unsurprised to know I do not agree with his comments.

My comments are not a direct criticism of the Senator's proposals, although they have shortcomings, but we should consider the strategy followed by this and other Governments over the years. When this country reduced taxation rates, the intake to the coffers doubled.

The tax intake doubled from the property boom.

The Senator should not shake his head. I am talking about well before that, going back to the 1980s. We need a constructive debate in this respect. In dealing with the economic crisis, there is a fundamental difference between those who follow stimulus and those who make cuts to deal with the deficit. The right approach is somewhere between the two, as there must be a level of austerity in decreasing the deficit. It is a major problem from which we cannot escape. We must equally consider that if we cut back, we may suffocate the economy. It is a major dilemma and somewhere between the two approaches lies the answer.

We should consider the experience when we cut taxes, as there were benefits in that the tax intake doubled. We must not ignore the fact but analyse it. We must be fair to people and keep an enterprise culture going in the country. If there is one thing we learned since the last recession in the 1980s it was that tax rates do need to come down. We should not impose taxation on work — we should avoid that at all costs. The experience of the past 20 years has shown us that.

The low taxation economy and enterprise culture also gave us what was effectively full employment. That is completely forgotten about now but I ask Senators to think about it. The Government may have taken other measures that were not correct in economic policy but what I have mentioned is fundamental to an economy.

Effectively full employment and a high tax take meant we could enhance public services. We are in a dreadful position now but our income up to now has brought us what will be a complete motorway infrastructure in the country and proper wages for nurses and people like them who were not being paid appropriately. The money was also invested in school buildings and better resources for disadvantaged people. That is what a Government should be doing.

We should not lose sight of such achievements despite the current awful position, which came about as a result of some banking policies. I take issue with Senator Doherty's philosophy because we cannot ignore that we live in the global economy. We cannot ignore the markets as we are completely at the mercy of them on a weekly basis. We can see how important the message we send to the markets is, as the traders on international markets can sink the country. The Government must deal with such issues constantly, which is not really appreciated. We are a proud sovereign nation but if bond holders choose to sink the country, it will be done.

Two years ago the bank guarantee was put in place and the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance were in the firing line when they had to make a decision. All of us have the benefit of hindsight to decide if we should have done this or that. On the night in question, the Government had to make a decision to prevent the country from being traded down. Since then, few have realised this country has stayed the right side of the brink. If we had followed the Labour Party's policy, we would have certainly gone over that brink resulting in the International Monetary Fund intervening.

I support Senator Alex White's calls for a constructive debate on the economy, not one in which Members just knock each other's ideas. A stimulus package, for example, is a good proposal for debate. While I also have concerns about the effects cutting back too much in the forthcoming budget would have on economic growth, I would also be concerned about a government not tackling a soaring deficit. If we do not stick to the short timescale of the four-year economic plan, we will have problems with raising capital in the markets. The European Union, in turn, would also not lend us the moneys required and, therefore, our corporate tax rate would be in trouble.

Most other political parties agree keeping our low corporate tax rate is of vital importance. We cannot take off in a fit of pique to go it alone by defaulting on the markets. We are in this together with our European partners in the euro zone. I do not want to sound alarmist but we need to have a reality check about how close the International Monetary Fund is to taking charge of the economy.

I am tired of listening to people claim the Government does not have a right to govern or that it is on borrowed time. A government has a five-year term. The election was held in 2007, meaning the next should be in 2012. I accept there has been an economic decline since 2007 but nobody knew then what we do now. The Government is not robust enough in fighting its corner. It has every right to govern for the remainder of its term while it enjoys a majority in Dáil Éireann. The Government should be more vigorous in pointing out it was chosen by the people.

The Government will last its full five-year term. I accept it is not popular but then those that cut back services and introduce austerity measures never are. When one is doing the right thing, it is not necessarily appreciated. I understand people's fears and anger about where we are at. This must be harnessed, however, in a constructive way.

Regarding the four-year budgetary plan, the Government has the right to make up an economic plan to run until 2012. If it is going the right way, it will be evident by the next election. It is also important that all other political parties which aspire to be in government make a constructive contribution towards the budgetary plans. It is preferable that others will have bought into these solutions.

The notion that this is a limping caretaker Government is nonsense. It is time people appreciated the Government has a responsibility to bring down the deficit, which is far more important for the economy than the banking situation. The Government must make difficult choices at this point, for which it will not be popular. Senator Norris spoke of the worst cutbacks such as homeless people being charged 50 cent for medical card prescription drugs. While it may seem obscene, unfortunately these difficult measures will have to be taken.

I want the Croke Park deal to be re-examined. How the public service works is vital, particularly when we look at how much the bill for public sector wages and social welfare payments takes from the tax intake. We must think about how all of us can make savings by working differently.

It is also the Government's responsibility to use the resources it has for the benefit of those who cannot provide for or support themselves. How many are in receipt of an annual public pension above €100,000? While it may not save much money and primary legislation may need to be amended, no public service pension should come to over €100,000. We simply cannot afford this. I accept such recipients have given service to the State and have contractual expectations. However, all our expectations have changed. Why should public servants be any different? An annual pension of €100,000 is plenty.

It is an extremely difficult time. Everyone harping on about having another election, however, is not going to help. A cohesive and coherent response to these economic difficulties is required. Another reason not to rush into another election is that the two parties, Fine Gael and the Labour Party, likely to form the next Government are not agreed on as fundamental a matter as solving the banking crisis. That should be a concern for the people.

In March 2006 Michael Dell summed up the relationship between Ireland and his company:

I do not think it is coincidence that Ireland and Dell share the same character and connection. Every success we have achieved around the world has been due to the old Irish recipe of big dreams, hard work and strong relationships.

Unfortunately, three years later Michael Dell terminated that relationship and took 2,000 Irish-based jobs to other countries. He did so due to several facts, most of which were actually within our control. I advise Senator Alex White that extreme caution should be used when beginning any discussion about our corporation tax rate. Just having such a debate would send alarm bells ringing in corporate boardrooms across the world. Other countries and some Swiss cantons are offering 0% corporation tax for international start-up companies. In an environment in which every country is clamouring for foreign direct investment, having such a debate is unwise.

Michael Dell was correct that we are a people with big dreams and a talent for innovation and hard work. We still have those people, who given support and encouragement would lead us out of the dark place in which we find ourselves and restore our national pride. These people are the Irish business owners up and down the country who provide employment for up to 800,000 people and they could provide significantly more if they were listened to and supported by the Government.

The biggest failing of the Government's focus on jobs is that it does not address the tough decisions and actions which need to be taken to get jobs back into the wider economy. While a number of actions would require investment on the part of the Government, a number of them would not. The businesses that employ 800,000 people are getting hammered in the recession from high Government charges, a completely outdated commercial rating system, no credit from banks and suffocating red tape.

None of the recent announcements, made with much fanfare by the Government, will do anything to aid these businesses. If we are to create the number of jobs required in the economy to fight off the recession we need to address the real problems in the economy. The Government announced another strategy last week with the claim of creating an extra 300,000 jobs before 2015. However, it contained no new policy or budgets and was simply a rehash of existing policy from tourism bodies, the revised national development plan and the smart economy policy, with a new jobs target stuck on top. The Government plan also proposed to create a new agency to co-ordinate all the existing State agencies.

It is interesting to note that at the very first opportunity which presented itself to this new agency and to other agencies like the IDA and Enterprise Ireland in Brussels the week before last to showcase Irish artisan food producers, we were the only country out of 27 EU countries with an empty table. We had a plastic Irish flag and an empty bottle of stout sitting on the table. That was our response as a Government to the jobs crisis. The sad part of all this is that rather than setting up a new agency perhaps the Government should listen to our existing agencies, one in particular, namely, Forfás. It has already provided the Government with a blueprint for recovery within the indigenous Irish business sector. Most of the structural problems for Irish businesses and the actions needed to overcome them were outlined two weeks ago in a Forfás report, which the Government happened to slip out late on a Friday evening with little or no fanfare.

The recommendations in the Forfás report focus on reducing Government-controlled costs in the economy, which is key. It also recommends investing in key economic arteries such as broadband, opening more of the economy to competition and cutting duplicated red tape on small business. Many of these policy actions have been key parts of Fine Gael's job message over the past years. The Government said it is seeking consensus and the sharing of ideas and approaches. If it is, it is only fair that I outline Fine Gael's job message.

Our NewERA strategy was recently described on the "Late Late Show" by economist David McWilliams as making absolute sense. If his opinion was worthwhile seeking late at night before the banking guarantee, I am sure it still holds some weight. Under NewERA we would use the National Pension Reserve Fund, private pension funds and sales of non-strategic State assets to accelerate investment in high speed broadband, clean energy and water, all of which are things we need to make Ireland a better place to do business in and to create jobs.

We would be well advised to follow the lead of the Finnish Government when, some weeks ago, it took the very progressive step of becoming the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every single citizen. Under NewERA from Fine Gael this could happen. We could rebuild our broadband, energy and water infrastructure. Our plan can build these new projects, create over 100,000 jobs in the short term and develop a better economy, all paid for off the Government balance sheet.

Fine Gael would also reform the tax system to ease the tax burden on employment. This would take the form of a decrease in tax on employment to support jobs. Employers' PRSI is the most direct tax on employment. The changes we suggest would result in a reduction of €887 million in employment taxes and costs for the 175,000 Irish businesses registered for employers' PRSI. These changes would have the effect of reducing average pay costs by2.5%, resulting in 30,000 extra jobs by 2015 according to the ESRI's rule of thumb.

The Government's recent target for job growth in tourism was immediately under pressure as it refused to scrap the nonsensical passenger tax. I am certain in the long run this tax will prove to cost more in lost revenue than it will collect. The tourism sector is still in for a tough year unless the Government introduces friendly policies to get more people to visit Ireland. In this context, the passenger tax makes no fiscal sense whatsoever. The CEO of every major airline operating in this country, not just Michael O'Leary, has called for the tax to be scrapped. During the crisis in tourism the Government set up a tourism renewal group to report to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Deputy Hanafin. It reported last year and one recommendation it made was the scrapping of the €10 travel tax.

Let us do two things. We should scrap the tax for a year and call the bluff of Michael O'Leary and other CEOs. Michael O'Leary says that without the tax he could increase passenger numbers by millions and create 6,000 jobs in the process. Let us give him that chance. Let us call his bluff and give him two years without a passenger tax, and if by then he has not delivered on his promises we should perhaps consider reinstating it. However, we should at least give Michael O'Leary and others such as bed and breakfasts and hotels the injection and opportunity they need to pick themselves up off the ground once again.

Despite what our banks might say in public, they have simply shut up shop and are hoarding capital. Every single cent of what we have invested in our banking system is sitting in bank coffers and not one cent of it has made its way into the real Irish economy. Last week I met a businessman based in Galway who has been operating in China for the past 20 years, forging very strong links with the Chinese Government and industrialists. He said he has four ideas at the moment that he is convinced, with his experience, would create up to 2,000 jobs in this country. He has approached three different banks, none of which is willing to offer him the support he needs.

The ECB has confirmed to us in the past few weeks that we are not lending. Truly viable SMEs are under severe pressure as credit lines dry up. Fine Gael supports a Government partial loan guarantee scheme for SMEs that is based on the principle of risk sharing between the State and banks. If that option was open to the businessman in Galway to whom I referred I assure the House he would have availed of it and, with his experience and expertise, would have gone on to create the jobs which he mentioned. In addition to restoring some credit lines, the scheme would be necessary to start the rebuilding of relationships between small business and banks and to encourage better business analysis skills among banking employees because that relationship has broken down completely. There is now no communication between the banking sector and small businesses in Ireland.

Fine Gael will also publish an action plan for implementing the recommendations of the Government's National Competitiveness Council and the Competition Authority. Of the 168 specific recommendations made by the Competition Authority since 2002 only 71, or just under half, have been implemented. Tough decisions are now needed by Government to open the economy to greater competition in order to drive down costs in the economy, especially in the area of legal fees.

Some three years on from the publication of the Government's business regulation forum report, only 4%of the targeted red tape reduction on business has been achieved. The forum estimated that Government regulations alone are costing businesses up to €500 million each year which could be completely avoided. In today's fiercely competitive business environment that €500 million is the difference between a lot of businesses surviving or going under. To date, only €20 million in savings out of a possible €500 million have been achieved. The overhauling of business regulations and cutting out unnecessary red tape must be a policy priority for any Government as we work to make the Irish business environment competitive again. For most politicians in this House, our ongoing assessment of how businesses are doing is based not only on the experience of our own businesses but also on the coming into contact with other businesspeople throughout the country. I can tell the Minister of State, from my interaction throughout the summer, that businesses in County Galway are suffering like they have never suffered before. One of the biggest challenges they face is the payment of commercial rates which are now hopelessly out of date and bear no relationship whatsoever to their earning capacity. During the summer I spoke to numerous Galway business owners who are faced with the stark choice of either paying their 2010 rates bill and closing the door on their business or seeking a reduction in their bill and surviving. In 2001, when the new rates Valuation Act was passed, a commitment was made by the then Government that in every one of the 88 rating areas there would be a complete revision carried out by the Valuation Office. On that basis, many businesses held out hope that at long last the revaluation and revision would offer them the lifeline that they needed. Almost ten years later, of the 88 rating areas, only three have seen a revision and there has been an average reduction of 30% in rates. For many businesses, that reduction of 30%, if applied across the entire 88 rating areas, would mean, I am certain, the difference between survival and going under.

I recall the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, speaking in the House on the night the bank guarantee was introduced. At the time I remarked to him that he was fortunate to be in the position he was in and still make that point and claim. This crisis, the darkness in which we find ourselves, offers a fantastic opportunity to do things and innovate and reform like we have never done before. Therefore, can we, please, let this crisis mark the beginning of a new and genuine approach to supporting our job creators?

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. It is always a pleasure to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, who was a very distinguished Member of this House. He is playing a role in what is perhaps the most focused Department of all, not only because of the time of year but also because of the times in which we live. I could not help but reflect on the opening lines of A Tale Of Two Cities by Charles Dickens which, if memory serves me right, read: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. Perhaps, in a way, that sums up where we are.

I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the state of the economy and offer some hope to the people that the answer and solution to the crisis we face as a country can be found in these Houses. I remember speaking some time back about the economy with a good friend of long standing, Deputy Gilmore, with whom I served for many years at the Council of Europe. During the discussion he stated the answer needed to be found in these Houses; otherwise democracy itself would come into question. I have never been one to bandy slogans about or scare the living daylights out of people by suggesting our democracy is in any way at risk. However, it has often been stated democracy is a fragile flower which needs to be constantly encouraged and nurtured. Therefore, the debate taking place on the state of the economy and the contribution that all those elected to represent the people in both Houses can make through an injection of new ideas and adding a new dimension to existing policies is to be welcomed.

Ultimately, we are political in the Houses and the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, got it right last evening on "Tonight with Vincent Browne" which, by the way, I suggest is required viewing for those up late enough at night to get an insight into Vincent's own particular interests——

His flavour of things.

——and the quality of debate. The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, has appeared on the programme on many occasions and I am sure he would agree with me. We need more programmes of this nature, as they open up and stimulate debate.

He can be entertaining also.

Last evening the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, nailed a particular canard among the chattering classes, as they are generally referred to and which include the Dublin media and the Dublin 4 set, an abstract concept, that the problems of the country would be more effectively solved by having a national Government. Usually, a comparison is drawn with the position in wartime Britain. While we are in a war, I hardly think the comparison holds up. As the Minister pointed out very gently, despite the best efforts of Mr. Browne to stop him from expressing his opinions — of course, everybody knows how Vincent operates on television——

——a national government would not be in the best interests of the people because not only would we have consensus but we would also have no opposition. The Minister trailed off, but he went on to infer that the next step in going down the road towards having a national government which would stifle and probably eliminate Opposition voices was a dictatorship.

From that point of view, the debate under way on how we should fix the economy is to be welcomed.

I particularly applaud the initiative of the Taoiseach who in recent days has made it clear that he would welcome a significant input from those who oppose the Government in both Houses and has designated a senior civil servant to act as a liaison officer. This suggestion has been rubbished, which is rather interesting because, if memory serves me right, it has always been the case, certainly in the most recent past prior to general elections, that the Government of the day has invited the Opposition to the Department of Finance to look at the books. In fact, it was based on that initiative — I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, will correct me if I am wrong — that prior to the 2007 general election the main Opposition parties were provided with this facility and it was on the basis of the information provided by the Department at the time that they created and presented their manifestoes.

As I stated on the Order of Business, we have indulged in a form of historical political revisionism from 2007 when of the three major parties vying for government, the Fianna Fáil Party was the most prudent in what it offered to the electorate. Unlike other parties, it did not propose to engage in extra spending. I do not particularly blame them because at the time the economy was considered to be robust and vibrant. It is rather sad in one sense, that somehow — it is a political charge that has been thrown around like snuff at a wake — the Government has been held to be mainly, solely and exclusively responsible for the state in which we find ourselves.

Earlier this week I was looking at the unemployment figures. Interestingly, in 1997 approximately 1 million people were employed in this country. By the latter part of 2007 the figure stood at 2.25 million which, by any standard, is a phenomenal increase in a short space of time considering our history. Of course, those on the live register are suffering grievously. I was among the unemployed and do not particularly need to be reminded of what it is like to be out of work, not have a focus in life and not have the dignity that work brings to the human soul. Like every politician in the House of whatever hue and colour on both sides, I understand this and I am striving to try to correct it.

What is interesting is that the unemployment figure began to rise in the first quarter of 2008. Strangely, it coincided with the emergence of the international banking crisis which has subsequently led to a downturn in consumer confidence throughout the developed world which has resulted in fewer people spending money and led to a significant downturn in exports. It is phenomenal that in this country the savings ratio has gone through the roof. This is an open economy and it has often been stated we have to export 80% or 85% of what we produce. However, time and again, not only in the economic and political areas, we compare ourselves with the United Kingdom, as if somehow this republic of 4 million people can in any way be compared economically with a country with a population of more than 60 million. There is a strong and vibrant domestic market in the United Kingdom which has its own currency and can dictate how much money is put into the economy. It is now called quantitative easing. When I was a child, it was called printing money. We cannot compare what is going on in England. If one produces a product in the UK, one has a market of 60 million people initially who will buy it. If one produces a product in this country, one has an all-island market of a little over 5 million. Therefore, we must export. That is the key to our future prospects — the surge in exports coupled with the policies the Government is pursuing.

I applaud the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who is coming under enormous pressure and unfair criticism for having been lied to for the past two years and about whom people are saying he did not tell the truth. The people on whom he was relying were not telling the truth.

We are where we are, which is an awful phrase to use. I commend the Government on the policies it has undertaken. I hope this current debate that is engaging all the political brains of this country will result in a positive outcome that will benefit the people who need it most.

Top
Share