Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I support the motion moved by Senator Quinn and my political colleagues. This discussion is very worthwhile and if we are all available, we should have a number of economic debates in advance of the budget where broad economic issues can be debated in detail. I hope Ministers would listen and even be willing to learn.

Inflation, which is the topic before us, is not simply some vague economic term. We are all aware of the significant impact of inflation, from which this country has suffered down through the years. We welcome the fact that inflation is at a relatively low level. However, inflation, regardless of whether it is 3%, 4%, 5% or slightly more than 2%, still continues to be an attack on wages, living standards and economic progress. Classical economists will say that some level of inflation is needed, possibly 1% or 1.5% in an economy performing properly. However, once inflation goes beyond these levels, it is an economic problem with which we must deal.

I read the speech of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, which I understand contains one or two references to 1997. The term "since 1997" appears in almost every Government speech at the moment. We have heard of George Orwell's novel 1984 but a new novel entitled 1997 could be written. The successful attack on inflation did not begin in 1997 or even 1987. Even Senator Mansergh, who was working with the Opposition Leader at the time, will concede that the major economic success story of the second coalition Government of Garret FitzGerald between 1982 and 1987 was dealing very successfully with the horrific inflation of the early 1980s, which was present for various reasons. There was political acceptance that the inflation rates of 20% and 21% could not continue. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is shaking his head, he knows that by 1987, there was success in dealing with inflation which laid the foundations that allowed the Government to be able at least to continue with this policy.

We must ask how we ensure that inflation is kept under control and minimised to the highest degree. If one looks at the issues from a layman's perspective, one can see that there are three or four areas where we must battle costs or inflation, whatever one wishes to call it. From both cost and environmental perspectives, there is a serious energy crisis facing the country which needs urgent attention. We had a very interesting discussion in the House with the European Union Ambassador to the United States, John Bruton, two or three weeks ago and this was one of the topics in which he majored. We have frequently spoken about renewable energy and taking charge of our energy costs but have not truly acted upon them. An energy crisis is certainly facing this country and is almost certainly facing the EU. There is a considerable body of evidence to show that we can make significant progress on renewable energy.

I hope the next Government, regardless of its political hue, will at least respond to the energy issue by having a dedicated Minister with responsibility for energy. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, his responsibilities go beyond energy and encompass other fields, including marine affairs and communications. One of the major issues facing the next Government is the energy crisis. I hope a renewable energy solution will be found but it will require a full-time Minister for energy. If we examine and invest in renewable energy, we can at least ensure that energy costs into the future will be contained. If we rely on oil and imported energy, we will be victims of the significant increases that lie ahead. I recollect some of the issues we debated in the House two or three weeks ago. The future energy demands of Asia, including those of China and India, mean that unless we have a European solution to European energy needs which is based on renewable energy, we will be in considerable trouble.

Although I did not hear the entire debate, I am sure a number of speakers referred to insurance costs. Progress has been made in this regard, mainly owing to the establishment of the personal accident insurance scheme by the Minister for Health and Children and former Tánaiste, Deputy Harney. More progress is needed in that area because our insurance costs compared with other European countries are still relatively high. We must not view the battle as being over but rather as having been well fought in recent years with more progress to be made.

We need to examine the level of administration and form filling required because we are becoming something of a red tape republic. A great deal of red tape and bureaucracy is involved in applying for the simplest grant, completing a tax form, submitting an application to a health board or processing a form at local government level. Every form required to be completed involves a cost. Such red tape not only slows down the process, it also creates a momentum for further pay for further waste, and not only in environmental terms. It slows down the processing of every scheme.

Those of us who were members of local authorities will recall assisting people to complete simple forms to apply for a disabled person's grant or a water scheme. The grant awarded under such schemes is a percentage of the cost of the project. By the time the forms under such schemes are processed, so much time has elapsed owing to the bureaucracy involved that costs have increased and additional grant aid must be paid. The high level of administration in Departments and local authorities in particular must be tackled as it is excessive and is causing problems.

From a business and household perspective, the level of telephone charges is far from satisfactory. I welcome that there is competition in this market, notwithstanding the difficulties with the Smart Telecom debacle some weeks ago. We have become too accepting of astronomical telephone charges, in particular mobile phone charges. In comparison with our European neighbours, we are being ripped off. These charges add to the cost of business, to the cost of living for the private householder and to the rate of inflation. As a result of our economic success, people have more money in their pockets than five, ten, 15 or 20 years ago. They pay these high telephone bills, not with great satisfaction but without the level of complaint that should exist. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the regulator must examine the cost of telephone charges. The cost of people talking to each other by telephone is much too high.

We have welcomed the steady fall in mortgage interest rates in the past ten to 15 years. While there has been a slight reversal in that trend, which is worrying to a degree but one hopes the rates will come under control again, we need to ensure there will be additional competition in the mortgage market. Although competition in the telecoms sector has not worked as successfully as we would have wished, competition is still a good barrier against inflation. Commissioner McCreevy has spoken about mortgage competition and opening up the mortgage market, an area on which we must reflect. In the areas of energy, insurance, administration, telephone charges and mortgages there is room for major improvement which would be beneficial.

I wish to make a comment that strays slightly from the motion. When we discuss issues related to inflation, we speak of the economy, society and the progress we have made, which we welcome. We examine economic figures, GDP, GNP and economic growth, which has been significant and marvellous for the country. However, we may need to have a new debate on redefining what we mean by wealth and the wealth of society. Major problems exist, whether they be in hospital wards or school yards. We have failed to address major quality of life issues, to which we have shut our eyes. While the economy may be booming, and we all welcome that, and while we may be a wealthy country in money terms, there are issues on which we need to reflect if we want to have a wealthy society as opposed to a well-off economy. This may be a matter for another day but it is something we cannot ignore.

I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on it. We cannot ignore the inflation warnings and figures because inflation is an attack on our standard of living and economic progress.