Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

Like previous speakers, my party and I welcome the Bill. There are many aspects to the Bill and one could refer to a large number of them in the context of the changes to which its enactment will lead.

The first matter to which I wish to refer is the increase in the audit exemption level. This has been a topic of discussion among those in the small industries sector for a couple of years. Everybody thought that it would have happened much sooner than has proved to be the case. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, which has access to greater expertise than that at my disposal, has been discussing this matter, in so far as the competitive aspect is concerned, for a long period

Everyone is aware that the Bill was introduced as a result of what happened in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Once the authorities in the North decided to opt for a much higher exemption level, a great deal of business began to seep across the Border. The Government was aware of this for some time and I cannot understand why action was not taken much sooner.

It is important that Ireland should be able to match the best in the world. As far as its competitiveness is concerned, all is not well. As stated in the House on a number of recent occasions, Ireland dropped from fourth in 2000 to 21st this year in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report. Regardless of the scientific evidence one can produce or the political spin one can put on that, it is not a good position for Ireland to be in. A major slippage has occurred. One cannot state that it is directly linked to the subject matter to which the Bill relates, but it is a symptom of what is happening in this country. The Government and the Administration that succeeds it will be obliged to pay major attention to this issue in the next couple of years.

The National Competitiveness Council stated that Irish prices rose by 22% more than those in other EU countries in the years 1999 to 2003. That is an official statistic. Ireland is 20th in the World Economic Forum's global information technology report, which measures the technological readiness of countries, behind countries such as the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria.

Members are aware that in February 2006, due to the Government's failure to deregulate properly the electricity market, Airtricity announced its departure from the Irish market.

These are not straws in the wind and legislators from all sides of the House must take note. As a result, costs for the small business community continue to rise at an alarming rate. For example, one can make comparisons with the United Kingdom. It is a huge trading partner for Ireland and shares the same language. The two countries have close business connections and have been interlinked for generations. The cost of electricity, insurance, landfill and broadband is 50%, 20%, 350% and 10% higher, respectively, in Ireland than in the United Kingdom. All such costs form part of small enterprise activity. It is evident that when Irish firms compete on the British or other markets, they do so with one hand tied behind their backs.

This raises the question of what can be done in this regard. While I cannot claim to be an expert in this field, I have begun to wonder who will regulate the regulators. For example, the Commission for Energy Regulation was established in a blaze of glory some time ago amid claims that this was the right way to go. However, many voters do not understand how the regulator could allow 20% and 34% increases in the price of electricity and gas, respectively, on the day before world prices of oil began to fall. I cannot understand this and I do not know whether the Minister of State can. Worse, this has a fundamental cost implication for all businesses and for small businesses in particular.

Given my dealings with the small business fraternity over the years, I have noticed that the people who break out in a cold sweat in the middle of the night are those who have their assets on the line. I refer to their houses and the last penny in their pockets. The Minister of State understands this point. Such people have put everything on the line that is considered to be important, such as their house, insurance etc. I have seen business men and women in a terrible state because their expectations regarding a particular investment were contradicted by the marketplace and they were left almost penniless. However, such people are responsible for building up this country and are the source of its prosperity.

As Deputy Martin Brady correctly stated, many people were lucky enough at the heel of the reel to become well known throughout the world for their particular expertise. I refer to the Smurfits of this world. However, in a manner similar to the world of professional golf, for every such success, there is no shortage of dead bodies on the ground. Against that background, it is incumbent on all Governments, present and future, to go out of their way for the men and women who put their neck out to keep the wheels of industry and commerce turning. Most business people I know personally believe that, for some strange reason, no Government understands the phenomenon I have just explained.

It would do no harm to revisit this issue in the fora that have been established. Ultimately, Members should do their best for those who are prepared to put their neck on the line. The nature of the game dictates there will always be failures. While such people may start out with a profit motive — I am not silly enough to believe they do so for charitable purposes — they take terrible chances. Although I might have taken similar chances when I was younger, I would not like to so do now and this is true for many Members. The world of industry is difficult, big and bad and when Members get an opportunity to discuss this issue in the House, they should not forget the central issue involved, namely, the steps such people must take and the environment in which they must operate.

I do not understand why it is impossible for the Commission for Energy Regulation to revisit its decision — I will refer to other decisions — once it became plain that the world price of oil was falling substantially and is likely to remain in this state for a number of months or perhaps a couple of years. A mechanism should be put in place that would allow the process to be wound back. I presume there will be no change in respect of the oil and gas cost increases, which poses a difficulty for small industry. Possibly, the next increase, whenever it takes place, will be held for a longer period than normal. However, this will do no good for small business people or industrialists who will be saddled with an unwarranted level of cost increase until the next decision is made.

Many people will ask serious questions for the remainder of the year regarding the regulator's rationale. Initially, no one took much notice because of developments on the world oil market. When the regulator took his decision, everyone accepted there was a reason for doing so at the time. At present, however, there is general acceptance that the basis for making that decision no longer exists. Nevertheless, it appears the Commission for Energy Regulation does not intend to do anything in this regard and will permit the current status to continue. This is a false premise because oil is no longer as costly as when the decision was made. When Members discuss the lack of competitiveness, this is a central issue that must be addressed this year and I hope someone will do so. Earlier, I questioned who would regulate the regulators. I hope this will be possible under this legislation.

I wish to raise another aspect of this legislation about which I cannot claim to have great personal knowledge. I will approach it from a different perspective. I refer to the proposed dematerialisation of the security certification. I understand this to mean that those records that were paper-based will be computerised. I see Deputy Fleming is present and I assume he will speak shortly. He and I served on the Committee of Public Accounts for a number of years. Indeed, he still serves on it and has always been an important member. I did not spend a single day at that committee without hearing of major problems emanating from the computerisation of existing records. This is true of all Government agencies that I encountered while serving on the Committee of Public Accounts. All cases created havoc and trouble, as well as costing the taxpayer much money. For several months, a stock answer at the committee went along the lines that the reason for a particular event was that computerisation was taking place, a new system was being introduced, no one was responsible, the hardware vendor had left — as had the person who bought it — and the system did not work. Before we knew where we were, the thing was in a hames, to put it bluntly. I will outline what I want to know. There were problems with electronic voting, of course. We have an awfully bad record in this country of doing this particular job. I hope we can do it better in this instance.

We are in very good company. We are in the company of the best brains — the whizz kids of the world. I refer to people in this country who deal with securities, for example. We are lucky to have financial services etc., here. I pay tribute to that sector of the community. I have always believed in it. I remember being in the House when it was introduced and, in fairness to Mr. Haughey, it was a step in the right direction. We have shown that Ireland can become a centre of excellence. It has become a centre of excellence in this regard and continues to be so. A great deal of the work that is done in this sector relates to this legislation.

I hope the changeover to the new recording system has been well thought-out. It has been used in many other countries for a long time. I hope there will not be any mix-ups this time. Such difficulties would be embarrassing and would suggest to people throughout the world that we were incompetent.

I would like to highlight a technical matter. I hope the Minister will refer to it when he is summing up. Does this measure have data protection implications? I assume a raft of legislation kicks in when records are computerised. I am sure national law is relevant in this regard, although I am not sure about international law. I remind the House that every time a proposal of this nature is introduced, we should know what we are doing, we should implement it properly and efficiently and we should ensure there is no egg on anybody's face by the time the process has been completed.

I want to talk about the functions of the Director of Consumer Affairs. I understand this is a technical matter. There is no director in place at present. This legislation provides for someone to hold that position until the National Consumer Agency has been established on a statutory basis. I have often wondered why the agency has not been put on a statutory footing long before now. I cannot understand that.

I do not intend to repeat the comments of some of my colleagues about the groceries order etc. People tried to convince me and my colleagues on all sides of the House that there would be a visible decrease in supermarket prices the day after the groceries order was abolished. That did not happen. I never thought it would happen. The concept of abolishing the order was right — I had no trouble with it. However, we have not replaced it with anything, as far as I can tell. It seems two vital sectors of society are being affected by the discounting which is taking place all the time. The abolition of the groceries order was supposed to be the best thing to happen consumers in the last ten years. However, all the figures show there has been a continual increase in the price of one's shopping basket. If one speaks to people with limited means, they will say how expensive their shopping is every Friday.

I do not have time to speak in detail about the manner in which consumers and primary producers are being squeezed. Inordinate pressure is being put on people at both ends of the spectrum. The real money is being made by middle men and retailers. I appreciate that retailers have their own trouble. Primary producers, such as farmers, are the last people to make money and consumers are the second last people to make money. The people in the middle are making money hand over fist. If the Minister responsible for this issue can bring some balance to it, it will be a good day.

See this speech in context