Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share my time with Deputies Connaughton and Feighan.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will take about 20 minutes of the time allocated and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle might advise me when I am nearing the end of my time.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It gives me great pleasure to move the Second Reading of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2010. It is a Private Members' Bill, the intent of which is to reduce Government regulated charges to give businesses, consumers and the economy a much needed boost. We estimate that this Bill, if made law, would save the average household €400 a year and would reduce considerably the cost of doing business for struggling small and medium businesses and industries.

There have been many analyses of the current crisis but the best one was offered by the National Economic and Social Council. According to its analysis this country is facing a five-part crisis: a banking crisis, about which we all know, involving essentially banks that have either become insolvent or are in such a precarious position that they are no longer able to lend; a fiscal crisis whereby we are spending €20 billion more than we are able to collect in tax revenues; a crisis in the real economy which is essentially a crisis of unemployment and competitiveness; a social crisis, which is the impact of the recession on people's lives in that people can no longer pay their mortgages, are facing repossessions and cannot afford health care or health insurance; and also a reputational or ethical crisis, namely, the idea that people in this country have lost faith in our institutions or that there is an international loss of confidence in this State and in its capacity to pay its bills and our private sector's capacity to export and to deliver.

There has been a huge response to the banking crisis, one with which I do not agree but at least there has been a response. There has been a huge response to the crisis in the public finances and while I do not agree with the detail of it, I agree with the action the Government has taken to reduce the deficit, but there has been an inadequate response to the crisis in the real economy, which is a crisis of unemployment and competitiveness. I note the announcement today of 6,500 training schemes, which is welcome, but it is a drop in the ocean in the context of more than 400,000 people signing on the dole.

Fine Gael believes that what is required from Government is a comprehensive response to each of those five sub-crises. To date, the Government has concentrated its efforts on the budget and banking to the exclusion of everything else. While we may differ on the detail of the cuts and the choices made by the Government to reduce public spending by €4 billion last year, we accept the principle and the necessity of it, and that it should have been done early on. We were the first party to express our concern about spiralling public spending as far back as 2002 and the first to call for it to be reduced through measures such as the suspension of the national wage agreement, reductions in public sector numbers, savings in the drugs budget, culling quangos and reforming the rent supplement, among others.

There has been some revisionism in recent weeks, particularly in the context of the Government's fight back where having accepted the blame one week, it has now attempted to spread the blame and is trying to focus attention on Fine Gael's policies on stamp duties or the contents of our 2007 manifesto. However, Members can be sure of one thing, namely, that whatever caused this crisis it was not any policies or proposals put forward either by Fine Gael or the Labour Party. What caused it was the policies implemented by the party opposite, policies that led to reckless lending by the banks, unregulated and untrammelled, reckless increases in spending, unsustainable cuts in taxation and the slow undermining of our national competitiveness from 1999 onwards. In many ways, this Bill is about that; it is about competitiveness and attacking the crisis of unemployment and competitiveness in the real economy. This is the crisis that is doing the most damage to our economy and society in the long term.

Last year the Government introduced two Bills, one entitled "Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No.1) Bill" and the other entitled "Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill", Bills that people like to call "FEMPI" for short. One of these Bills introduced the pension levy and cut fees paid by the Government to professionals for services provided to the State. The other Bill introduced a cut in public sector pay. In addition to that, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, using social welfare legislation, cut child benefit and other social welfare payments. However, instead of the Government reducing its charges, it has increased them. Across the economy private sector businesses and the self-employed have reduced their prices, recognising that incomes have fallen and that they need to reduce their prices to retain their customers. Last year prices across the economy fell by 5% and if one excludes mortgage interest, prices fell by 2.5% - that is the extent to which prices have fallen across the real economy. Yet Government regulated prices increased by 6.7%. The disparity is evident; private sector prices have decreased by 2% to 2.5% and Government prices have increased by 6.7% in a deflationary environment. In real terms, Government prices increased by more than 11% last year, which was probably the biggest increase in Government prices in recent decades.

This trend has continued into 2010. The most recent inflation figures published this month by the CSO show that the price of clothing has fallen by 10.7%, the price of food has fallen by 7.1%. We should count ourselves lucky that the Government does not control the price of food or clothing because they would probably have increased by 11%. The prices that the Government controls have continued to rise. Transport prices have increased by 4.4%, education costs have increased by 8.9% whereas overall prices have continued to fall this year and have fallen by 3.2% in the year to April, according to the CSO.

It is easy to forget the extent to which the Government controls prices in the economy through direct charges, indirect taxes and through its regulators. Among the prices and charges directly set by Government are the television licence fee of €160 a year, the driving licence of €25, the passport fee, if one can get a passport, of €80, the accident and emergency charge of €100, the inpatient charge of €75, the charge to sit the junior certificate or the leaving certificate of approximately €100, the third level registration fee of €1,500 in a country in which supposedly we do not have third level fees, not to mention prescription fees.

Businesses and farmers must also pay Government charges, including charges such as a filing fee of €100 that must be paid by a new company, a company annual returns charge of €40, meat inspection fees of €5, an application for a bus or a truck diving licence of €110 and I could continue. There are the fees charged by the OPW for the Government Publication Service, fees and disposals charged by the OPW, receipts for tests, examinations and analyses by the State Laboratory, valuation tribunal appeal fees, valuation certificates and valuation revision fees. There is even a fee one is required to pay to the film censor. There are data protection fees, immigration registration fees, visa fees and fees that must be paid to the Private Security Authority. Many Members will be familiar with the problem being experienced in the private security industry on foot of the massive fees being imposed on it by the PSA. There are fees for nationality and citizenship certificates and fees for firearms. Many Members will be familiar with the impact that the broadcasting licence fee has had on independent broadcasters in particular this year. There are veterinary inspection fees on live exports, fees for the inspection of dairy premises, fees from the sale of vaccines and livestock farm produce, fees for seed testing certification fees by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are also licensing fees, road transport licence fees, work permit fees charged by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and employment agency licence fees.

There is the statutory levy imposed by An Bord Bia and fees charged by Forfás and the NSAI. I could go on forever. A huge number of fees charged by the Government bring in receipts. Of those I mentioned, receipts bring in approximately €414 million a year. On top of that are the prices of petrol, diesel and home heating oil which consist, for the most part, of taxes levied by Government, including excise, VAT and the carbon tax. The Government has raised an extra €5 million so far this year in extra VAT just as a result of the rise in the price of petrol and diesel, which comes on top of what it projects for the budget on that basis. There are all the prices set or influenced by the Government's regulators, including bus, train and taxi fares which are agreed either by the Minister or the NTA, motorway tolls which are, in some cases, set by the NRA, electricity and gas prices set by the Commissioner for Energy Regulation, telephone and postal charges set by ComReg.

I take exception to the decision today of Eircom to introduce a price increase by stealth, in the rounding up of the way it calculates bills. One will be charged for every minute one speaks on the telephone even if it is for only ten seconds of that minute. There are all the airport charges which are agreed by the Commissioner for Energy Regulation. We know the extent to which the increases in airport charges have had an impact on tourism. They have cost us routes to Irish airports and, as a result, are costing us in terms of tourism.

Despite the recent reductions in electricity prices our household electricity prices are still above average in the euro zone and are among the highest for medium sized industries.

We should not forgot local authorities which also impose significant costs on businesses and charges on consumers. These include waste and water charges and on-street parking fees. We know now that from July there will be VAT of between 13.5% and 21.5% imposed on people who use those services. It probably will not be imposed on businesses because they would be able to reclaim it from their VAT returns but it will be imposed on consumers. That will mean the biggest one-year increase in waste and water charges for those who pay them, at a time when prices across the rest of the economy are going down and when, most crucially, incomes are going down. It is as if the Government wants to squeeze people and businesses. On the one hand, it reduces people's income through pay cuts and taxation, on the other it increases its own prices or those it controls. It is essencially a pincer movement against the people, the private sector and the business economy.

I welcome that the Government has established a bord snip, as one might call it, for local authorities and I look forward to seeing its report in the coming weeks. However, it is important that the Government should respond to this quickly, say which recommendations it will implement and which it will not. It is more than a year since the McCarthy report was published, if I remember correctly, and we still do not know from the Government which recommendations it will implement and which it has decided not to, let alone why. The Government should respond quickly to the report on efficiency in local government and make an early commitment to split the savings between the Exchequer, taking perhaps 50% to reduce the deficit and using the other 50% to reduce charges to business and consumers.

As I stated, this Bill does not create a charge on the Exchequer but it requires all Ministers to present to the Dáil within four weeks a plan to reduce by 5% charges set by them. We estimate the cost of doing this to be in the region of €60 to €70 million in a full year. It will be up to Ministers to find the necessary savings from their own Vote but this will not be hard. The McCarthy report contained more than €5 millionsworth of savings. I do not agree with all of them, nor does my party. However, even identifying and implementing just over 1% of the proposed savings would produce the money necessary to implement this measure. For example, implementing the proposals on the rationalisation of State agencies, the abolition of quangos or even the proposals on public procurement would provide the €70 million necessary to reduce Government charges across the board and still leave plenty to be saved.

With regard to the prices set by the Government's regulators, the Bill requires that the Ministers for Transport and Energy, Communications and Natural Resources invoke their powers - which are in existing legislation - to make a policy direction to the regulators, calling on them to publish within three months their proposals to reduce the prices they have set. The regulators should aim to reduce prices and tariffs to the euro zone average. When we framed this Bill, we suggested there be an additional 5% cut across the board in all those prices but that cannot be done because energy prices, in particular, are affected by a number of different factors, for example, the price of a barrel of oil.

However, there is plenty of room for further reductions in regulated prices. The ESB made a profit of €340 million a year, for example. Some of that is being used to reduce electricity prices but more of it should be used now to that end. These are State owned companies and should act in our interest. At a time of falling incomes, when so many people and businesses are under pressure, those profits should be squeezed to reduce the price of electricity for domestic users and businesses. The same applies to Bord Gáis which made a profit of €119 million last year. Again, it does not need to make such big profits this or next year. Eircom, which increased its prices today, made a profit of €141 million last year. I do not know what profits Vodafone or O2 made but I imagine they were significant. They certainly charge more than they do in other countries and I imagine they make more profits here than in other countries. Those companies can well afford to bear the burden of reducing costs in these areas.

The airports, An Post, toll operators and transport companies may find it more difficult to make these savings but they should be able to do so. Everybody in the public sector, Departments and State agencies, people in their household income and everybody in their private businesses have had to find savings, reduce the amount they spend and do things in a different way. Those bodies should not be exempt just because they have a commercial remit or aare defined as State companies. If everybody else has to reduce their charges and prices and find efficiencies they should have to as well.

This is a simple Bill but it is an important one. As a country we must improve our cost competitiveness. We have fallen from a situation in 1997-1998, when my party handed over the management of this country to the party opposite, where we were, by some measures, the first, second or third most competitive country in the world. We have fallen now to 23rd place according to one measurement, 31st according to another. Disappointingly, we continue to slide in the international competitiveness league.

Competitiveness is about a number of different factors. It is about costs - of utilities, services and property. There does not appear to be any co-ordinated Government action plan to restore competitiveness. There are a great number of plans in other areas and much big talk, there are taskforces and various documents but there is no clear plan from the Government as to how we will address the deficits in competitiveness, not only on the cost side but on the infrastructural side and in Government services to business. The Government appears to think the only way to reduce costs is to cut wages but it is wrong. There are other ways to reduce costs and they should be pursued. In particular, businesses need the boost this Bill would give them by reducing the costs imposed on them by Government.

Citizens and consumers need this Bill too. They have had their incomes and benefits cut and their taxes increased. Many have lost their jobs. If the Government can use financial emergency legislation in the public interest to cut pay and benefits, surely it can use the same mechanism to cut Government charges and prices and give consumers and citizens a little relief.

At the beginning of my speech, I spoke about the five part crisis, namely, the banking and budgetary crises, the crisis in the real economy and the reputational and social crises. The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2010 is about the crisis in the real economy, about showing the Government understands the concept of fairness and that it is willing to reduce its own prices and charges, not only the wages and benefits of others. It is about supporting businesses, especially small businesses, by reducing the pressure the Government imposes on businesses through regulation, charges and taxes. At a time when businesses are suffering from banks not extending credit or squeezing working capital, it should be the case that the Government can assist them in some way, particularly by reducing the burden imposed by Government charges. In many ways, small and medium enterprises are the backbone of the economy, employing 900,000 people during the boom, a number which has probably fallen to 750,000 or perhaps lower.

I would hate to see the number fall further so there should be a co-ordinated Government approach to help struggling private sector businesses by introducing legislation that will force land and property owners to bring down rents, continuing to invest in infrastructure rather than cutting back, as is intended, and helping to reduce costs, particularly non-labour costs now that labour costs have decreased. This Bill is timely, beneficial, sensible, affordable, relevant and doable. I commend it to the House.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this Bill and congratulate my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, on introducing it. When the layers are stripped from the issue, it is about competition. There was a time in the past ten or 12 years when the powers that be believed that irrespective of what happened to our economy, it would be fine as long as the building boom lasted. Ministers and the ordinary people were blinded by the revenue coming in like it never had before. They never looked under the canvas to find what was happening in the real economy.

In the mid-1990s up to 2001 or 2002, we were very competitive with our industrial exports. We could see that in Dublin and all over the country, as our industrial complexes were doing well and there was a significant amount of exports through Dublin Port and our airports. With the product we were manufacturing, we had the ability to beat all competitors around the world. This is the basis of competition.

I will not spend too much time talking about the economic boom as it is what we do from now on that will count rather than being retrospective. The problem is that it appears for some strange reason there are elements of Government which have taken their eye off the issue we are discussing tonight. To be blunt, our nation must be able to export pigmeat to Japan, for example. We were there years ago and for one reason or another we got kicked out. Essentially, it will be competition and quality that gets us back there. I remember being on a trip to India with the Minister and it was delightful to see how competitive we were in the area of computers. There are engineering projects in China as well.

We must be able to match the best in the world. There are several factors alluded to by Deputy Varadkar that I do not have time to go through. This is not purely about cost. When the bubble burst in this country, there was only one issue that the Government could see fit to revisit. Regardless of which party was in government after the bubble burst, it was necessary to go back to the people at a certain level but this Government went back in a big way. Two Bills were mentioned which implemented a cut in public sector wages and the so-called pension levy. They have cut deeply into wages and take-home pay, dramatically changing the way people think even more than how they invest and spend.

I have no doubt the Minister knows what people want because he is a busy constituency worker. They want to believe that everything within the remit of the State is being done to push prices down and make us more competitive. It now appears that with all the pain that ordinary working men and women have had to take, we are still not as competitive as we should be. Unless we implement some of the measures in this Bill, we will not achieve that target. What is worse is that if we do not try to act in this way, people will stop working with us from a social perspective. The gulf between the people and the Government will widen, and if this is allowed to continue for years, there could be much social unrest in the country.

We know prices fell by 3.5% last year, which is good news. The problem is that swathes of Irish life not only saw constant prices which were not reduced but also price increases. There is a simple case in point that everybody will understand; how is it that the cost of providing ordinary drinking water around the country is so expensive? The price is increasing dramatically, and everybody involved in the system has told me it will only get more costly. I find it hard to understand why the underlying factors in the production of good clean water mean it will be so expensive. Anybody examining the matter might also consider the bin charges, which will see an increase next year. What is behind this?

The ESB opened a new plant recently in Cork, which is to be welcomed. There has been a reduction in gas and electricity prices but it has come from a significant and unsustainable height compared with anywhere else in Europe. Even with lower charges we are ahead of most of the posse in this respect. When the Minister is replying to the debate, he should give some indication of the Government's actions on this issue.

The competitiveness listing for Europe makes for bad reading for Ireland. Depending on which list is used, we are 23rd, 24th or 31st, which is no place for us. We were going around Europe with our chests out until two years ago on the basis that some saw us as the richest nation in the world, but that did not last long. The idea was based on the false foundation of the building bubble.

Agriculture is the area I may know most about and I know the costs involved in the supply of services to that industry. There are costs in meat factories involving inspections etc. When a farmer sells an animal in this country, there are no fewer than eight subscriptions taken from the price of the animal by the time the transaction is complete. I do not have time to go through every one but none is being reduced.

When such pressure has come on wages, I do not understand how this has not been filtered right through the economy. In the private sector, if dentists, doctors or engineers were charging €50 in the past couple of years, I cannot understand why that would not be €45 now. I am referring to nursing home, health and education charges. For example, the cost of school travel has experienced one of the greatest jumps of all time with an increase of almost 100%.

It is against this background that we in this country have some serious thinking to do. I put it to the Minister, Deputy Pat Carey, and the Minister of State that, if they want to bring the people with them, the Government should at least be seen to be doing what is within its remit. It cannot do many things, as those issues would be outside the Government's control no matter who was sitting across the floor, but there should be a downward pressure on the cost to consumers of those services for which it has a remit. This has not occurred to the degree that it should have.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome Deputy Varadkar's Bill. It is timely, as we have been at the end of an Irish version of one of the greatest pyramid schemes seen in any country. I come from a business background and have employed people over the years. We watched as costs rose, including rates, excise duties and the minimum wage. Most businesses were lured into a false sense of security to the effect that they never had it so good. Whenever Government or other charges increased, businesses passed the cost on to their customers, who believed they had enough money to pay. No one searched his or her pockets to discover what was happening because we were told three years ago that we had never had it so good and that we would have a soft landing. The landing has not been so soft and those who have really lost out are the 450,000 people who are out of work, have found themselves in negative equity and must curtail the lifestyles to which they had grown used. They may see no future.

Everyone, not just the Government, must try to get out of this downward spiral. This starts and ends with jobs. We must become competitive and examine what has occurred. In my business, I am considering whether to get rid of a telephone or the Internet, closing down for half a day on a Sunday because the cost of employing someone that day is too exorbitant or having one or one and a half people working instead of three. This is the situation across the country and, unfortunately, is being reflected in terms of real jobs. If a business is to survive, one must try to cut, cut, cut. Even though businesses have done this, most will not survive.

Is it not easier for Government agencies now to help reduce prices in a bid to stimulate the economy? Driving to Dublin by car costs €2.90 on the M4 and going to the airport costs €2. Something could be done, given the rows of traffic pulling in at Kinnegad onto the old back road to save €2.90, and rightly so. We must reduce tolls and fares to stimulate people into using motorways, which are safer.

The Government does not have much say in bank charges, but the banks have been bailed out and have curtailed credit to businesses. When businesses do not get credit, their overdrafts are reduced, which leads to a mad scenario. If I put my Government cheque into a bank, it will take five working days to clear. If it does not clear, I will be charged €10.15 for being over the limit. The knock-on effect of this is costing businesses thousands of euro. Government charges cost one small business located not far from me €2,000. When these cheques are not honoured, there is a knock-on effect further down the line.

I have raised this issue for at least one and a half years, but the Minister for Finance does not believe any serious problem has come to light. Wake up and see what is happening. When these businesses close, people will be unemployed. We will not be able to afford that. To make businesses competitive, the Government must cut its charges. Businesses have already done so and Departments must follow suit.

In some ways, the property tax is a way for local authorities to gain revenue. I have been approached by people from the UK who have houses there and are trying to keep their family homes in the west or elsewhere in Ireland open. Charging them €200 was lousy. They kept the country going. Seven or eight people from the UK told me of how they were trying to maintain houses, some of which were only sheds, and that they were being charged €200. Even when they enter the country they are being hit. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair could have opened more routes, but no. The Dublin Airport Authority and most other airport authorities are charging exorbitant landing fees.

Business must be done. People are selling two for the price of one and giving considerable discounts. The Government must examine how to provide further discounts. My colleague, Deputy Connaughton, highlighted the matter of school transport. Two years ago, transport for a junior cycle student cost €99 per year. The charge has increased by 203% to €300 and there is talk of it rising to €500. This will put people back on the road and undermine the future of school transport. Local authorities have tried to reduce their rates, but only after 12 or 15 years of adding 3%, 4% and 5%. Businesses could not afford the rates. We see what is happening in terms of petrol and excise. There was a tax rebate in respect of school transport, but we needed to get rid of it under European legislation. Operators were promised an amendment to the legislation or that some provision would be made to repay them. One and a half years later and they were virtually given the two fingers. They will pass on the cost to ordinary children and hard-pressed parents.

In terms of the way in which the Government has done business, I welcome the decision by councils in recent days to the effect that, where rental allowance subsidy is concerned, they might have been paying too much. Across the board, they have reduced the subsidy by 15%. This is a good idea. The Government controls the power, so it must start examining how it does business. Utilities are too expensive and rates and bank charges must be examined.

Last week, I visited England. I hope we are not following the UK model, which seems to be the case. On the high street in Cricklewood, various shops had closed. They employed people and provided services. The same is occurring in Ireland, as is evident if one drives through any small town or village. The way in which we have done business is over. The person who worked 100 or 80 hours per week is no longer there because he or she cannot afford these charges. Many businesses are being affected. When they close in ones, twos and threes, jobs are not lost in the thousands. Rather, they are lost in twos and threes in every town and village. We must be competitive and reduce our charges.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I share my time with the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Bill before the House today appears to have a laudable purpose, namely, to reduce the burden of cost on consumers and industry. I wonder if there is any Deputy in this House who is not in favour of that as a general principle. However, the reality of the matter is far more complex than allowed for in the proposals presented. The Bill simply bears no relation to budgetary or economic realities, and I am opposing the Bill on this basis.

The background to today's debate is the profoundly difficult budgetary situation in which we find ourselves. These circumstances require an ongoing, credible plan of fiscal consolidation so that the amount of money spent by the State is more in line with the amount of revenues being brought in to the Exchequer. Difficult expenditure adjustments have been necessary as part of this process, and it is undoubtedly the case that further savings measures will have to be identified. The level and nature of charges applied in the Government sector is one element of this overall picture, and it is folly to state that fees and charges can be universally cut without any implications for maintaining front line public services or for protecting services to the most vulnerable. If services are to be protected, then cutting public fees and charges across the board would invariably lead to eitheran increase in direct taxation, orreductions in expenditure over and above the level of consolidation already identified.

The Government has its own plan to improve the quality and efficiency of State services, including in the regulation sector. We have put in place well-developed mechanisms to protect the most vulnerable households from any undue burden from taxes, fees or charges from the State sector. We have a plan to turn this economy around, to put our public finances back on a stable footing, and to get our banks lending again to businesses in the interests of job creation and economic growth. Those are the only real and lasting approaches to helping our citizens and our businesses.

This Bill would completely undermine the long-established and carefully developed systems of independent regulation in this country. The overall objective of economic regulation, in markets where there were traditionally natural monopolies, is to create the conditions for competition to emerge to help drive down prices. We see today that competition is now emerging in the gas and electricity markets and consumers now have a choice of service providers. Competition, more than anything else, will drive down costs for businesses and for the general public alike.

Under legislation passed by these Houses, the costs of regulators are funded from industry levies rather than central taxation. The Government is aware of the need to ensure that these levies do not present a disproportionate burden on the industry sectors that they regulate. There are already a number of legislative controls in place on the setting of levies and the Government has moved to strengthen these.

In line with the programme for Government, the performance of regulators in key economic areas such as communication, energy and transport has been carefully reviewed. The Government has already moved to strengthen the mechanisms for assessing the performance of regulators and to monitor their delivery on the strategic objectives and priorities set for them. Specifically, the Government's statement on economic regulation in October 2009 laid down the following principles. First, in the context of future revisions to the legislation governing regulators, Departments will be asked to put in place arrangements for increased scrutiny of expenditure plans and the setting of industry levies, including approval of these by relevant Ministers, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance. Second, the views of the National Consumer Agency and any industry and consumer panels or advisory councils will be sought in examining the regulator's draft estimate of income and expenditure for each financial year. This will include any levies it is intended to prescribe and any observations should be communicated to relevant Ministers before these are approved. Third, the potential for the joint collection of levies across regulators will also be pursued in line with the recommendations of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes.

More generally, the question of whether the activities of individual regulators represent value for money compared to their international counterparts must be kept under review in the context of the functions which they actually perform and their impact on the wider economy. It is important to note that regulators' functions can vary widely across jurisdictions. However, in the light of current economic circumstances, it is imperative that efficiencies are realised. The issue of effectiveness and value for money will also be considered in the context of the amalgamations set out in the statement, as well as the improved performance evaluation framework. These principles have been put in place to ensure the smoother and more efficient functioning of the regulators in all areas, consistent with the current regulatory framework.

The proposed Bill takes no account whatsoever of the existing legal and administrative framework. The Bill looks like it was written for another age - the age of a command and control economy when Ministers could issue diktats to monopoly providers. Those days are thankfully long gone. EU directives and a modern, dynamic system of public administration mean that large parts of our economy are subject to regulatory frameworks, with in-built mechanisms for driving efficiency and for ensuring that consumers get the best value.

The Government is firmly committed to increasing competition as the best means of exerting downward pressure on electricity prices and is committed to ensuring diversity of energy supplies, with a particular focus on renewable energy, to reduce our exposure to volatile external fuel prices. The Government supports continued significant investment in Ireland's electricity and gas networks to underpin security and reliability of supply. Our policy is now delivering real and measurable benefits to energy consumers through increased competition and lower energy prices. All consumers now have the option of switching to alternative suppliers, offering significant discounts on regulated electricity and gas tariffs. The all-island wholesale single electricity market has been hailed as a flagship for regional markets throughout the EU. Its transparent pricing mechanisms encourage investment and ensure that falling fuel prices are passed on to consumers.

Competition is also developing in the Irish gas market. There are now eight licensed suppliers operating in the upper end of the market. The recent publication of EU price comparisons by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland demonstrates that Irish electricity and gas prices are continuing to move close to and in some cases below EU averages. Prices in Ireland are falling, while they are increasing in many member states. The clear objective of energy policy and regulation in Ireland is to deliver competitive, secure and sustainable energy supplies. In this context, the Fine Gael proposal for a ministerial direction to the regulator on energy prices is unnecessary and has the potential to undermine competition, market stability and much needed investment in the electricity market.

In short, we cannot take a narrow, piecemeal approach in these matters or try to impose short-term price reductions which are unsustainable and damaging to competition in the longer term. There is no quick fix in these matters which the regulators, or anyone else, can propose. The proposed Bill would lead to ad hoc interventions in regulated areas and in the long run would undermine the regulators' key role in ensuring the lowest prices possible consistent with stable, secure and competitive energy markets.

The Government is well aware of the need to protect vulnerable households from suffering any undue burden from public fees and charges. In fact, there are widespread exemptions, subsidies and reliefs stitched right into the range of public service charging mechanisms. There are also targeted reliefs and benefits in a number of areas, including the fuel allowance, free telephone allowance and free television licence for social welfare recipients. There are about 1.3 million holders of medical cards who are protected from the burden of fees and charges in the health area.

The simple fact is that it makes no sense to look at the issue of public fees and charges in isolation from the other elements of the budgetary and economic strategy, or to present them in a populist or facile fashion. What is required is a balanced, rational and strategic approach to managing our economy, in a way that deals with the full spectrum of budgetary and economic issues. This is precisely the sort of approach that the Government has now put in place.

Central to our economic recovery plan is the major process of fiscal consolidation to restore the public finances to a sustainable position over the medium term. This process of expenditure consolidation was initiated in the 2008 budget, when an efficiency review of all administrative spending across the whole public service was announced. This included possible inefficiencies due to the multiplicity of boards and agencies, the need for better sharing of certain services, and efficiencies in management, travel and consumables in general.

The next major step was taken in July 2008, when a range of efficiency and savings measures were put into effect by the Minister for Finance, including those identified as a result of the efficiency review process. These savings included a 3% reduction in payroll costs for all Departments, State agencies and local authorities - other than front line health and education services - and a 50% reduction in expenditure on consultancies, advertising and public relations by Departments and agencies.

In the 2009 budget,the Minister for Finance announced a programme of rationalising State bodies and agencies. The Minister also announced the establishment of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmesin November 2008, with a remit to identify potential savings in all areas of Government expenditure, including through reducing the number of staff working in the public service.

By the start of 2009, international forecasts for the global economy had been revised sharply downwards, reflecting the effects of worldwide upheavals in the financial markets. Against this backdrop, we set out a revised multi-annual fiscal consolidation plan in January 2009, with the objective of bringing the overall deficit back within the 3% ceiling in a credible manner. That multi-annual plan remains, broadly speaking, in effect today, and our subsequent policy actions have been designed to implement and to underpin that consolidation drive.

Accordingly, further programme and payroll savings of approximately €3.5 billion were announced in the first half of 2009. The main element of the February package of measures was the introduction of the public service pension-related pay deduction. This deduction was also applied to the various regulators mentioned this evening. Additional capital and efficiency measures were also announced at that time, including a 25% reduction in the rates of the domestic travel and subsistence allowances and an 8% reduction in fees paid for professional services, many of which were referred to this evening. The supplementary budget in April 2009 continued the process begun by these earlier savings measures, consolidating the expenditure reductions through a range of programme savings. Most recently, the budget for 2010 delivered expenditure reductions of an additional €4 billion, achieved through a combination of payroll, social welfare and other programme adjustments, reflecting the sharp fall in the price levels across the economy over the course of the year.

All of these measures, difficult though many of them have been for everybody, are designed to restore our credibility and to sustain confidence among households, the domestic business sector and the international investment community. So far, we have been successful in this endeavour. The budget for 2011is the vital next step in this plan and again the Government stands ready to do what is necessary to protect our economy and our future prosperity.

We will not achieve that task on the basis of distractions and ill-thought-out proposals of the sort embodied in the Bill. On this basis the Government opposes the Bill and I call on the House to do likewise.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address some of the issues raised by the Bill. I must start by stating it is a very flawed Bill, notwithstanding the attempt it is making to piggy-back on some of the measures already adopted by the Government in dealing with other sectors through the legislation that had to be passed over the past 12 to 18 months. As my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, stated it is flawed because it simplistically attempts to impose the same approach on sectors where it is entirely inappropriate. In the time available to me, I want to take some examples from my area of responsibility in transport to show how simplistic the analysis is that underpins the Bill and what the real implications would be if we were foolish enough to accept it.

I will begin by examining bus and train fares. I do not think it is a secret from anybody in the House that CIE faces very severe financial constraints; it is in a very severe financial position which is not sustainable. Despite the fact that it has a huge level of Exchequer support, in the region of almost €300 million for the provision of public service obligations, PSOs, the group had an overall deficit last year of €77.7 million. That deficit is as a result of falling passenger numbers, caused by the economic downturn, the constraints put on the Exchequer subvention in recent years and the fact that fares have been frozen since the end of 2008. All of these have contributed to that deficit. The CIE group of companies must reduce the deficit and is doing so by producing a range of cost reductions and increasing efficiencies, and in some cases it has had to put in place service reductions.

As recommended in the Deloitte report, Dublin Bus is engaged in reshaping its network to improve services and provide better value for the customer and the taxpayer. Bus Éireann is similarly seeking to provide a comprehensive range of services in a more streamlined and efficient manner. Equally, Iarnród Éireann is committed to maintaining the quality of the commuter and mainline services, despite the resource constraints it faces.

It is not possible to add a requirement to CIE to reduce fares. That would severely compromise the already reduced revenue base. Prior to a 9% increase in fares in 2003 CIE fares had declined by approximately 20% in real terms over the previous ten years. Referring back to my previous role as Minister with responsibility for energy, one of the major reasons we had such increases in electricity prices up to two years or 18 months ago was because for the previous ten or 15 years prices had not been allowed to increase in line with inflation.

CIE fares had declined by approximately 20% in real terms over the ten years up to 2003. From then until the end of 2008, annual increases were improved due to increased operating costs. However, no increase was approved in 2009 or 2010. The fare increases granted previously were to try to sustain the financial health of the CIE companies. I want the CIE companies, and I have made it clear to them, to minimise the impact on their finances of the current recession so they can intensify their efforts to increase the modal share of public transport and to respond when passenger demand increases in line with economic recovery. Jeopardising CIE finances through imposing fare reductions does not serve the promotion of public transport.

In the past year we have seen significant changes in the institutional and legislative arrangements with the establishment of the National Transport Authority and the passing of the Public Transport Regulation Act. Direct award public service contracts are now in place and they represent the new way of doing business between the funding authority, the NTA, and the CIE group of companies. They provide a more formal basis for the allocation and monitoring of Exchequer support for the loss-making and socially and economically necessary PSOs. These changes will help to ensure the taxpayer and the consumer get the best possible value from our public transport services.

Delivering a quality driving test service is critical to the promotion of safe road use among learners and newly qualified drivers. The fee for a standard car test is €75. That fee is below the economic cost of providing the test. The Road Safety Authority plans to deliver 145,000 driving tests in 2010 and a higher number if demand increases. The RSA has significantly reduced input costs this year and it has maintained wait times under the national average target of ten weeks. Reducing the test fee by 5% would reduce RSA income by €525,000 but it would cause a significant deterioration in the average waiting times nationally and the authority would not be able to maintain testing at all of the current test centres. The only alternative would be for the Exchequer to make up the lost income and the Exchequer is not in a position to do so. What the Fine Gael Bill proposes is transferring some of the cost of the test from the user, the person who has to do the test, onto the shoulders of the taxpayer and I do not think the taxpayer will thank them for that.

In regard to the driver theory test, again it is delivered by a private company, which successfully tendered for it. The fee for the theory test is very competitive and is currently self-funding. Any reduction in the fee will require the Exchequer to subsidise the service and make payments to the private company to compensate for lost income due to the reduced test fees. Cost reductions and efficiencies have already been secured and the recent tendering process has validated those costs. Reducing fees will inevitably lead to the closure of smaller theory test centres, increase the waiting times again and result in a requirement for some element of Exchequer funding. The current fee is €34.60 and the RSA plans to deliver 120,000 theory tests this year. A 5% reduction in test fees would require an additional Exchequer subsidy of €213,600 if service reductions are to be avoided. Fine Gael wants to transfer some of the cost of the theory test from the beneficiary to the taxpayer generally, something for which it would not thank it.

As regards the National Car Test service, NCT, the RSA recently tendered and awarded the contract to a private company for a ten year period, commencing on 4 January 2010. The new contract provided for an enhanced service with additional test items, new test centres and other enhancements over the life of the contract. The RSA managed to secure those enhancements while not increasing the fee to the public and it will be in a position to hold the current test fee for at least three years. The current test fee is €50 and the RSA plans to test up to 1 million vehicles this year. Reducing this fee by 5% would produce a shortfall of €2.5 million and the contractor concerned would have to be funded by the Exchequer to cover the shortfall. The bottom line is that a contractor has been awarded the contract following a European Union tendering process and best value has been demonstrably achieved. In those kind of circumstances there is no basis in which to demand a reduction in fees unless the taxpayer will make up the shortfall. There is no reason the taxpayer should do so.

The Bill also seeks to cover motorway tolls. There are eight toll schemes on the national road infrastructure in Ireland. There will be nine when the M3 opens on Friday and ten when the Limerick tunnel opens later this summer. The majority of toll schemes are operated by public private partnership companies under concession contracts, such as the M1 Drogheda bypass, the M4 Kilcock-Kinnegad motorway, the M6 Galway-Ballinasloe motorway, the M8 Rathcormac-Fermoy motorway, the M25 Waterford city bypass and the M7 and M8 motorway which covers Portlaoise, Cullahill and Castletown. The M3 Clonee-Kells motorway will also be included in this category when it opens on Friday.

The public private partnership contracts were awarded on the basis of an agreed tolling arrangement and the terms, including those related to toll charges, cannot readily be changed. To do so would be an inappropriate interference with contractually binding agreements entered into with private investors. The contract provides that public private partnerships tolls are linked to inflation under the various by-laws relating to motorway tolls. Those by-laws provide for an upward-only review of the tolls. If the NRA was to seek a reduction-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that not the problem? They are linked to inflation and not deflation.

Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the NRA was to seek a reduction in the tolls then the operator would seek compensation from the State for the shortfall. Guess who would pay for it? The taxpayer. The NRA operates the other two national road toll facilities, namely, the Dublin Port tunnel and the M50, and the revenues accrue directly to it. It is responsible for setting the toll rates charged for using these facilities and it can adjust the rates annually in line with the rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index.

In the case of the M50, the average annual inflation rate for 2008 of 4.1% would have given rise to an increase in toll rates of 10 cent. The NRA decided not to increase the toll on all vehicle categories at that time. For 2010 all toll rates, except the car toll, have been reduced by 10% in line with deflation. The car toll has been maintained at €2 for the third consecutive year. In effect, this means that the car toll is in line with inflation when measured over the period 2008-09. All net revenue generated from tolling on the M50 is used by the NRA to cover the buy-out clause of the Westlink and the M50 upgrade. Any revenue loss arising from a reduction in these tolls would have to be made up by the taxpayer generally rather than directly by the users. I do not think the taxpayer would favour that.

The Dublin Port tunnel is used primarily for traffic demand management purposes and not to raise revenue. The tunnel relieves surface road congestion in Dublin city by diverting heavy goods vehicles from Dublin Port directly onto the motorway. This has positive knock-on effects for bus users, pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the city quays, including better quality air and safer travel. It is, therefore, not appropriate that this toll be adjusted in line with inflation but that it is determined on the basis of ensuring it continues to function effectively in terms of traffic management.

In January 2010 the NRA made significant reductions in port tunnel charges in order to alleviate congestion in the city because the tunnel could safely accommodate extra exiting capacity as a result of the progress on the M1 and M50 roadworks and the opening of the new Macken Street bridge. Peak rates reduced from €12 to €10 and a new off-peak rate of €3 was introduced.

As regards airport charges, the Bill would require me to invoke powers under section 10 of the Aviation Regulation Act to direct the Commission for Aviation Regulation, CAR, to publish a proposal to reduce charges. In fact, I have no such power. Section 10 of the Aviation Regulation Act allows the Minister for Transport to issue general policy directions to CAR. There is no provision for the issue of specific directions in regard to charges. In this context it is the responsibility of CAR, under the Act, to balance a range of different considerations, including traffic forecasts and projected operating costs, together with investment costs, before arriving at its decision on charges at Dublin Airport. It would not be appropriate to interfere in that legislative arrangement.

CAR made its determination for 2010-14 as recently as 2009. In making this determination it reviewed all relevant factors, including the projected operating costs, the commercial revenues, traffic figures and financial commitments relating to the major investment programme at Dublin Airport. CAR's analysis did, therefore, take into account the projected cost environment in the economy and it has set very stringent operating cost targets for the DAA in the 2010-14 regulatory period.

Overall, the Bill seeks to be populist but in reality it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the realties of transport charges. It ignores some of the basic facts, such as its claims that the CIE companies are heavily loss making and are engaged in major efficiency programmes to rectify this and that driving test fees do not reflect the full cost of providing the service, despite the efficiencies which have been achieved, and the fact that the theory test and the NCT have been awarded by competitive tendering and the fact that CAR already determines airport charges by a rigorous process.

In short, the approach embodied in the Bill is, in so far as transport charges are concerned, grossly over simplistic and would be greatly detrimental to services and, therefore, to the consumer. The Bill tries to perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing as a free lunch. One would have thought that even Fine Gael would know that is not true. It should also know that we have a very sophisticated electorate which is not easily fooled by populist rhetoric. If Fine Gael believes it can fool the electorate with Bills such as this it will learn to its cost that it cannot.

In the transport area the effect of what Fine Gael proposes is very simple.

Instead of ensuring those who use the services pay the full economic cost, they want to transfer the cost to taxpayers even though many will not be using the services. I do not think the taxpayers of this country will thank them for that.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the agreement of the House, I will share time with Deputy Morgan and the final ten minutes of this slot will be taken tomorrow night by the Labour Party spokesperson on enterprise, Deputy Penrose.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to outline the Labour Party's analysis of this Bill. I studied it with great interest and welcome its engagement with the real economy. I am afraid, however, that the Government's response consists of a rather dry rebuttal. I will begin by addressing the assumptions on which the Bill appears to be built.

When the costs are aggregated, the net loss to Government revenue arrives at a certain figure and it is reasonable to investigate how that gap can be filled. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill suggests that the shortfall can be met through the proposals of the so-called McCarthy report, such as the elimination of quangos and wastage. This is perhaps the weakest element of the proposed Bill. The lack of specificity leaves it open to the suggestion that the services that might be lost and the employment necessary to sustain such services would be significant. An alternative would be to seek to recover from general taxation such funds as would fill the gap in revenue. This, however, would contradict one of the central deflationary assumptions of the Bill.

I will be positive by suggesting an analysis of the economy which is radically different to that put forward by both major parties. We are not in dispute about certain facts, perhaps the most frightening of which are the 430,000 people who are unemployed. I agree with Deputy Varadkar when he suggests that we should consider the report of the National Economic and Social Council on the different crises that we face, namely, a banking crisis, a fiscal crisis, a real economy crisis and a social crisis. I propose to speak about the social crisis because the weakness in the Government's response to this Bill is its continued clinging to a residual theory of the real economy. It described yet again the adjustment to the outrageous collapse in the banking system but it cannot deny the obvious gap between income and expenditure which is the basis of the fiscal crisis and it falls down entirely in its analysis of the implications for unemployment.

If one wanted to approach the matter differently I would suggest beginning with the social crisis to which the National Economic and Social Council refers and the consequences for unemployment. In trying to reconstruct citizenship in an atmosphere of lost trust and institutional bankruptcy, we would be better off speaking about a social floor. If, for example, we want a productive economy in an inclusive society, we could define a social floor below which citizens can not be allowed to fall. We could then consider discretionary consumption above the social floor and the different ways this could be structured. In the absence of a social floor and the necessary social protection legislation to sustain it, we will not address the unemployment problem or exclusion.

The National Economic and Social Council report discusses the social consequences of unemployment. If the economy is deflated in such a way that the unemployment figure is increased we will lose taxation, increase the cost of social welfare provision and, most importantly, erode solidarity and social cohesion by contributing to social misery. This debate has revealed some interesting facts about the two major parties in regard to the role of the State. On behalf of the Labour Party, I assert that the State has a role to play in social protection and establishing a social floor which would make inclusion possible.

Beyond this, however, we should also investigate the role of regulators. Deputy Varadkar usefully draws attention to the role of the regulator in his Bill. In a speech to the UCD law society former EU Commissioner, David Byrne, spoke about the relationship between the Minister and the regulator. I believe it is unconstitutional for a Minister to the divest him or herself of responsibility to the Dáil. No Minister can give away functions for which he or she has constitutional responsibility. When one transfers powers to a regulator one is expected to do so in a way that makes it perfectly clear where policy begins and administration ends. One of the problems with the regulatory framework which the Government is so anxious to defend is the lack of clarity on the boundary between policy and administration. This problem arises, for example, between the Minister for Health and Children and the HSE. I do not believe that Minister was entitled either under the Constitution or by law to divest her responsibilities to the HSE, particularly in respect of accountability to this House. A close reading of Mr. Byrne's paper would support my assertion.

The contribution from the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Calleary, revealed Fianna Fáil's extraordinary mixture of ideologies. He claimed, for example, that competition will automatically sort everything out and then referred to telecommunications and infrastructure. What we have done in the area of telecommunications has been a nightmare. A State company that was quite capable of expanding our infrastructure to bring us into the modern age was used to make a speculative run at the markets and four or five owners later our infrastructural deficit is disastrous.

I cannot agree with Deputy Varadkar's proposed reductions in respect of the licence fee, which sustains public service broadcasting. The right of citizens to participate in the common discourse and have access to education, information and entertainment should be sustained rather than abandoned to the commercial market. We have already paid a heavy price in this regard.

As I do the sums on the savings of €5 here and €10 there, I am reminded of the oldest principle in taxation, that the administration of gathering such adjustments should not exceed the yield itself.

I am afraid the Bill does not stand the test in this regard. It would create a large gap and the unemployment and services consequences of filling this gap remain unspecified. For this reason, on behalf of the Labour Party, I must refrain from supporting the Bill as it stands.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Michael D. Higgins and the Labour Party for sharing time. It is unfortunate that the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, left the Chamber. Having had occasion to serve on the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment with the then Deputy, I found him to be an eminently sensible person who was focused on trying to find solutions to our problems. He stated, however, that the Government has "put in place well-developed mechanisms to protect the most vulnerable households from any undue burden from taxes, fees or charges from the State sector." What is it about Government Buildings that transforms an otherwise sensible person into someone who would make such a statement? When one considers the devastation visited on people on low incomes and welfare, it is clear this statement emanates from cloud cuckoo land.

The Green Party, when in Opposition, consisted of reasonably sensible people with a social conscience interested in trying to organise a decent society. This, at any rate, is what its members proclaimed at the time and I, like a number of other voters, believed them. What emerged when the Green Party entered Government Buildings? I will not go there but will instead deal with the Fine Gael Party's Bill.

While this legislation is not perfect, I support in principle what it seeks to achieve, namely, a reduction in the cost of doing business and the removal of the burden of the State from the backs of businesses and ordinary householders. I support this concept in general and do not propose to elaborate on the specifics of the Bill. The more appropriate course of action is to discuss the Government's reaction to the legislation.

The Minister for Transport made excuses for the difference in contractual provisions on toll charges as between public private partnerships and the National Roads Authority. The Government made a hames of the contracts with PPP companies when it agreed them. No one on this side of the House inserted a clause stipulating that only inflation could dictate changes in the level of toll charges and deflation would not be considered. Despite the fact that he and his colleagues were responsible for these contracts, the Minister proclaimed this evening that the Government was powerless to do anything about them as to do so would leave the poor taxpayer having to pick up the tab. Taxpayers would not have to pick up the tab if the Minister and his colleagues had considered the issue at the time.

We also heard Government party Members refer to competitiveness. This returns me to the issue of tolls. Thankfully, as a result of the Celtic tiger, the sweat of many working people and the substantial contribution of entrepreneurs to the Exchequer, we have a number of new motorways. Rather than encouraging greater use of the motorway network, we are fleecing drivers who choose to use it. Motorways are designed to get one from point A to point B as quickly and safely as possible. One of the most competitive attributes a business can acquire is an ability to shift its people and products quickly from point A to point B. The system does not work in this way because we are ripping off businesses at every opportunity.

On energy costs, I return to the interesting contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary:

The overall objective of economic regulation, in markets where there were traditionally natural monopolies, is to create the conditions for competition to emerge to help drive down prices. We see today that competition is now emerging in the gas and electricity markets and consumers now have a choice of service providers.

Consumers may have a choice of providers but the ESB is not allowed to reduce its charges. Although the company may be allowed to reduce prices at the start of 2011, it is prevented from doing so now under a directive the Government issued to the Commission for Energy Regulation. As a result, we enjoy - dare I use that word - what are among the highest energy costs in Europe. This is the direct result of a Government policy which seeks to create competition through the establishment of an artificial market. As everyone knows, competition must be real because artificial competition will be found out, as was the case with the recent property bubble. The Government has been completely wrong-footed in this regard.

Despite a reduction of 10.4% in ESB charges in slightly more than one year, electricity prices remain exorbitant by any standard.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They declined because gas prices fell.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Businesses cannot operate without energy. In some cases, the more energy a business uses, the more productive it is. The Government, however, is hammering business. While I fully support measures to incentivise green energy to meet our carbon commitments, this must not be done in a token, artificial manner to raise funds, as was evident in the most recent budget. Green Party members clapped themselves on the back as if they had done something wonderful when, in reality, they ripped off the poor old motorist, householder and consumer.

The Government does not listen to real people such as small business owners. I will give an example of what it is doing wrong. Among the issues discussed by the Minister for Transport were train journeys. I used to travel frequently by train between Dundalk and Dublin but have not used the train service in more than two years because Iarnród Éireann introduced car parking charges of €2 for each use of the carpark. If one parks at a railway station and is caught overnight in Dublin or elsewhere, one will find one's car clamped on one's return. As someone with a background in business, I would have taken a completely different decision from that foisted on train passengers. I would have tried to make travelling by train attractive by spending a few thousand quid to erect a shelter from the railway station to the centre of the carpark. This would have provided commuters with some shelter on wet mornings and allowed them to reach the station without getting soaked. Iarnród Éireann has taken the wrong approach.

On the issue of signage, if someone wants to erect a sign either advertising his or her business or giving directions, he or she must pay the local authority a €650 fee per sign per annum. I am lucky because I live in the Cooley Mountains and constituents in bother who do not know my number find it difficult to find me because they must traverse several boreens and twists and turns to reach me or my business. It is ridiculous that companies in rural areas that need to erect a sign for directional purposes to allow suppliers or customers find the business without first calling into every house along the way must pay this licence fee.

The Government informs us it is addressing competitiveness. Competitiveness is being used by the Government as an excuse to reduce the minimum wage and get stuck into the very people the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, said it was supporting. It is utter nonsense to claim the Government is supporting people on the margins. It is time the Government started to listen to someone on this side. Adopting the principle behind this Fine Gael Party Bill would not be a bad start.