Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill, which I support. Let me bury the myth that Independent Members are against everything, both inside and outside the House. We support sensible Bills and one does find Independent Members supporting sensible solutions to problems, as was the case during the debate on drug-related crime last night and as is the case today in respect of investment funds.

This debate is very important in so far as it impinges on business and investment. We do not seem to have had a proper debate on the direction business is going in Ireland. We are all very excited about and welcome the great wealth and resources that have become available over the past nine or ten years. However, the debate on creating wealth in this society is now over and it should now focus on how our wealth and extra resources can be distributed to those most in need. This is the key issue both in this debate and other broader economic, social and political debates.

It is not acceptable for a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to say we have loads of money and are looking for ideas on how to spend it when there are existing projects that deserve investment and support. I raise this issue because of its relevance to business and investment, which are dealt with in the legislation. There are also ethical questions to be dealt with. The reality is that, despite the great boom and the Celtic tiger, sections of business have become damaged, just like politicians, the church and other parts of society. We must face this reality and deal with it head-on.

The Minister of State said in his speech that the amendments proposed in this Bill are designed to facilitate business development, copperfasten our competitiveness in key sectors where it has been developed and ease the regulatory burden on business while facilitating the giving of full effect to EU directives we must transpose. I welcome this and the fact that the amendments are very strong. I welcome the Minister of State's assertion that we need to retain our attractiveness as a place to do business and as a location for foreign direct investment. We need to debate this because we do not always pay sufficient attention to our indigenous industries, including small ones, in the broader economic debate.

We must face up to the reality that, because of globalisation and the fact the world seems smaller, there will be a shift of investment to locations where wages are low and where wage bills can be cut by 50%. This shift has already started and we must ensure it does not affect our competitiveness.

We must be very careful not to allow business to dominate the economic and political agenda. We will welcome businesses' contribution and support their sensible economic policies but we cannot allow big businesses to set the agenda as they have done in other countries. In Ireland we have the right mix as regards the political system. There are strong public and private sectors working in partnership, rather than seeing each other as enemies within the broader society. I get annoyed when people, particularly in the private sector constantly push their private economic agenda to try to dominate and take over situations in which there is no need for their involvement. For these reasons this debate is very important.

As we talk about business and investments we should bear in mind that there is another Ireland outside the Dublin 4 stereotype of trendy yuppy Ireland. It is important to acknowledge that families still live in poverty, despite the economic boom. I have a number of suggestions as regards helping such families. I should like the emphasis placed on the most disadvantaged areas of this and other cities, which only come to our attention when some major disaster occurs at community level. I am not going to name the communities in my constituency or in other parts of the State again. They have enough on their hands as regards fighting negative publicity without politicians making matters worse. The reality is, however, that sectors of society are totally outside the whole political, social and economic zones and are not being looked after. We must target resources to help these people.

Coming up to the budget and while the Estimates are being prepared a number of sensible proposals might be put forward. Lower income families, for example, should be allowed to meet their essential food needs. A proposal was put forward by the Combat Poverty Agency for €10 million to support alternative sources of healthy food to increase the €20 in social welfare rates being sought and provide daily hot school dinners. When one looks at the detail, the cost of putting a nutritious and well-balanced meal on the table can account for between 40% and 80% of the weekly income of families living on social welfare. I ask the Government to extend the school meals programme to provide daily nutritional basic hot school dinners for an estimated 200,000 children from low income families. I should like to see an increase of the minimum €20 in social welfare rates and up to €12 for children per week, which are recommended by many people. These issues are related to employment, investment and the whole debate on the economy.

For example, parents with two children in receipt of €400 unemployment assistance per week spend a minimum of €170 on basic everyday food items such as cereals, bread, potatoes, fruit and vegetables, dairy products, meat and fish. That to me is good budgeting and I do not know how they do it. We need to face reality and assist people. The radical proposal to establish a €10 million fund over a three-year period to support community initiatives, providing alternative sources of healthy food for low income families, is based on the success of such initiatives in the UK and the emerging success of Irish initiative such as the South Hill food co-operative in Limerick and the Dublin food bank.

As we debate this Bill, it is important we start to implement the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion. I appeal to the Minister to look seriously at increasing the income of social welfare recipients, maximising the benefits for children in poverty, rewarding participation in the labour market, fostering equality in the tax system and protecting the living standards of the most vulnerable. This would be sensible economic planning and investment. I assume that if the tax-welfare budget package of €2.36 billion is similar to 2006, almost half of it will be devoted to welfare improvements, some 23% will go to supports for children and the remainder will be allocated to tax reductions.

My proposals seek to minimise the impact of this expenditure on labour activation and educational attainment. There is an opportunity to end poverty, social exclusion and use the next couple of weeks in the run-up to the budget to do something in this regard. While we talk about welfare increases and personal rates, it should be possible to increase the lowest rates by €20, the means-tested State pension and related payments by €18 and the contributory State pension by €15 per week. As regards the qualified adult allowance, I propose we increase the lower rates by €16 and the contributory pension rate by €13 per week. Increasing social welfare rates is the key mechanism for reducing poverty in Ireland. Cash transfers are currently 20% less effective in reducing poverty than the EU average.

Section 4 of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill provides for the laying of orders and regulations before both Houses of the Oireachtas and empowers either House to annul the order or regulation within 21 days. Section 5 provides for the authority to meet the expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of the Act. When one digs deeper into the legislation one finds that section 6 amends section 32 of the Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Act by increasing the audit exemption thresholds for turnover and balance sheet totals, up to the maximum levels permitted by the EU. The new thresholds will be €7.3 million for turnover and €3.65 million for balance sheet. This will apply to a company in respect of a financial year that commences not earlier than two months after the commencement of this provision. Section 7 amends section 239 of the Companies Act 1990, by providing regulations for the introduction of mandatory dematerialisation in electronic form. I am urging that the legislation be seriously looked at while we are being very supportive of it.

The purpose of Part 3 is to pass provisions which need to be enacted in primary law to ensure the smooth and effective transposition of the EU transparency directive on the harmonisation of requirements to disclose information about issuers, where securities are admitted to trading and a regulated market. The directive replaces and updates existing EU legislation in this area and is designed to enhance transparency on EU capital markets by requiring regulated market issuers to produce periodical financial reports on shareholdings in such companies that disclose major holdings. The directive also deals with the mechanisms through which this information will be disseminated and stored. It is due for transposition by January 2007. The provisions of Part 3 mirror similar provisions included in the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 in connection with the transposition of the market abuse and prospectus directives last year. Section 10 allows the Minister to make regulations under this Act for the purpose of implementing the directive and related permission level instruments, as appropriate.

As regards investment, employment and sensible planning, we must also provide for the employment of people with disabilities, an area that is often left out of such Bills. It has become noticeable over the last three years that the rate of unemployment among people with disabilities is extremely high, and this is not acceptable. There are many people with disabilities, middle-aged and elderly included, who are very able and talented and who have a massive contribution to make to society. This must be faced in the debate as we talk about investments.

At this morning's meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, there was a very interesting discussion about the sectoral plan that deals with the employment of people with disabilities. This is very important and should be linked into this debate as well. I note the National Consumer Agency currently works to address the needs of vulnerable consumers, including those with disabilities and where appropriate will work in partnership with and support initiatives being taken by organisations in this area. Other features raised in the sectoral plan discussions included embedding the mainstream context costs across a range of services provided by the Department and its agencies, compliance with Part 3 of the Disability Act 2005 regarding the provision of accessible services to people with disabilities and the protocol for interdepartmental working. All of this work is to be fully embedded within the Department's business planning guidelines in the context of further developing and expanding this process. Disability will also be taken into account in the Department's review of the business planning process to be undertaken later in 2006. While all these initiatives are very welcome, there is a number of serious concerns I wish to raise. The timeframes for the roll-out of various elements of the vocational, training and employment strategy seem to be very tight and slippage in one will tend to have a knock-on effect, thus delaying the entire implementation process. It will be crucial to structure the work programme in order to avoid this. For example, the Departments of Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, have committed to establishing a working group to report to Ministers by the end of 2006 regarding the scope and arrangements for the phased transfer of appropriate employment services from the health sector to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. People using these services and their ancillary supports will comprise a substantial proportion of the proposed target group. A delay in this transfer could delay everything.

Research has repeatedly identified benefit traps as being a major impediment to people with disabilities taking up employment. I consider the proposal to collaborate with other key Departments and agencies to promote the removal of these benefit trap disincentives as being much too weak. This is further borne out by the fact that the only interdepartmental working arrangements proposed are those between the Departments of Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This is only a continuation of what is already in place.

I raise these issues because they are important to investment funds and general employment in the economy. When one looks at the details of employment rights and industrial affairs, including the labour inspectorate, one feels this will impact substantially on people with disabilities, most particularly if the training and employment strategy is successful in keeping more such persons in employment. This can be used wisely. There are many businesses in the IT and financial sectors that could employ more people with disabilities. They will make a massive contribution to society. People often talk of social inclusion — let us do something about it when we are planning for the State and the economy. This issue is part of today's debate.

While I welcome the proposed initiatives regarding entrepreneurship, this should have included a policy of promoting the excellent training programmes and other supports provided to community and voluntary organisations by the county enterprise boards. Deputy Fleming also referred to the community and voluntary sector.

Section 13 amends the Central Bank Act 1942 to include the transparency directive in the list of directives for which the bank has enforcement responsibility. This deals with confidentiality of information obtained by the competent authority and effectively prohibits its disclosure. It is an important section. Section 14 allows Ministers to cite, by provisional order, the markets in addition to regulated markets to which transparency laws shall apply. It is important that the requirements under the transparency directive should be capable of being applied to markets outside the directive's scope, such as, for example, the Irish enterprise exchange market or any new market that may be established in the future.

The Minister of State mentioned that Dublin is now recognised for securitisation and is ranked alongside London and Frankfurt. When one looks at the sums involved, which currently stand at approximately €80 billion, one will see this is crucial to the domestic economy. As society develops, we must not leave any sector behind. In this top class economy there is no excuse for leaving people behind.

In the course of my contribution I have mentioned the economy, enterprise, trade, employment, investment and the wider debate of how resources will be distributed. I also mentioned the specific targeting and inclusion of people with disabilities. I was elected on this mandate in Dublin North-Central. We must ensure these people are included and are part of the broader society.

St. Michael's House on the north side of the Dublin is an excellent service provider for people with disabilities. It currently has 296 people on its residential waiting list. Some 74% of these people are living on the north side of Dublin. St. Michael's House is looking for 70 new places per year to resolve this. That does not seem to be asking too much in this wealthy country and would be a wise investment for this or any other Government to make. St. Michael's House also has a deficit of €1.5 million and is under pressure to correct this. I urge the Minister of State to use his influence with his senior colleagues in Cabinet to help provide services for people with disabilities. The St. Michael's House project deserves our support. Senior Ministers have spoken about stamp duty and have said they do not know what to do with certain revenue. They need their heads examined. They should look at the real world where people are seeking help and support. They could also provide the resources to employ 59 additional jobs to assist this huge service provider in Dublin.

It is important to talk about investment for the future. I thank the nuns in Baldoyle who have made a major contribution to St. Michael's House in the past week or so; they sold property and land worth €30 million to the St. Michael's organisation for €100. I commend them on and thank them for this. There are times when church organisations are hammered in this House by certain individuals for things they did in the past and while it is right that they should be challenged, we must also acknowledge the contribution of religious organisations. St. Michael's House takes people with disabilities out of institutions. This is a good investment for the future, which creates a modern and respectful life for people with disabilities. I strongly support the legislation.

See this speech in context