Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution on the amendment. It is unfortunate the motion tabled by Fine Gael, all of which was positive and pinpointed some of the key areas that must be addressed, should be met with a rebuttal without any real engagement in the Chamber on the issues raised in the motion.

In an article in a recent publication, Ireland's Economic Success: Reasons and Prospects,by Paul Sweeney, the Taoiseach states that the Celtic tiger was in gestation for quite some time prior to its emergence. The fact is that it was in gestation and it did emerge prior to Deputy Bertie Ahern becoming Taoiseach. In 1997, when the Fine Gael-Labour Government left office, it had the first budget surplus in the history of the State, inflation was very much under control, Government borrowing was in line with the requirements of our membership of the European Monetary Union and growth rates and export performance were very impressive. It was in those difficult times during the gestation period of the Celtic tiger that difficult political decisions were made. The difficulty now is that a complacency and a smugness has set in about the success of the Celtic tiger and we get carried away in the belief that this Government created it. We do not look forward; we look back.

The Minister of State said it is important to put the current lower economic growth into context and revert back to the growth rates we have had in the past ten years. We revert back to the Government expenditure and fiscal policy of the past ten years but that is not what we are talking about today. We are talking about adopting an economic policy which will sustain growth into the future. The Minister of State said:

Current spending will rise by approximately 8% this year while revenues will grow by only 3.5%. Despite this, only a modest deficit is in prospect.

We are aware of the figures. That is a shocking admission and the complacency of the conclusion highlights the problem we face because there has been a complete reversal in the state of the Government's finances. For the first time we have a rising national debt and despite all the painful decisions and processes of the 1980s and 1990s, we are not concerned about that. There is a smugness about the success of the past ten years and a lack of realisation that action is required.

Senators Twomey and Donohoe touched on many of the issues that speak to the motion but I want to raise the issue concerning the social partnership agreements and the manner in which the State's public policy input takes place without regard to the Oireachtas. In the context of the Lisbon treaty and previous treaties which had to be adopted by referendum, the continual claim is that there is a democratic deficit in Europe. In that regard it is clear that the democratic deficit is in Ireland, something that was recognised during the Nice treaty debate, and measures were put in place for the scrutiny of EU legislation by the Oireachtas. That commitment was not fulfilled but that is a separate issue.

We also have a democratic deficit domestically where we adopt legislation in the Oireachtas and delegate to Ministers an extensive area to legislate without the Oireachtas taking responsibility for adopting legislation setting out the policies and principles by which any statutory instrument by a Minister should be adopted.

The third area I believe there is a democratic deficit is in the manner in which the social partnership agreements are conducted by the Government. Given the extensive nature of those agreements that do not concern simply pay and employment conditions but go into wider fields of taxation, social policy and general economic policy, it is imperative, if that process is to have legitimacy, that there is engagement by the Oireachtas. More particularly, apart from the issue of legitimacy there is the issue of effectiveness and if the Government enters into that process without setting out any objectives in terms of what it hopes to achieve in the social partnership agreements, that is a fatal flaw in its approach. It is incumbent on the Government to set out its objectives for the Oireachtas but the only reason I can surmise that is not done is that if those objectives are set out, the Government can be judged on its success or failure in those negotiations.

In the past the Government has entered into commitments that were a serious constraint on Government policy. We saw that in the area of testing for driving licences where, by reason of the nature of the agreement, the Government considered it was not possible to outsource that testing process. Those are important issues and if there was a greater input by the Oireachtas, they could be teased out more effectively and the public policy input into the social partnership agreements would be more transparent and effective.

Deputy Enda Kenny suggested in a recent Dáil statement that the situation could be addressed by each new round of partnership being proceeded by a motion outlining the key challenges to be addressed and making the processes of partnership more transparent and subject to engagement with the appropriate Oireachtas committee. That is the mechanism by which this issue could be addressed.

Setting out those objectives by the Government is of particular importance. We are aware now that we are in a very difficult economic situation. That has been confirmed by the European Commission report on the Irish economy and the Government's stability programme. Government finances have gone from a €2.3 billion surplus in 2006 to a projected deficit of €4.9 billion this year. Our competitiveness has fallen in the rankings, as has our share of export markets.

In 1950, Seán Lemass opposed the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority on the basis that the Minister for Industry and Commerce under that Bill was endeavouring to pass over his functions in respect of industrial development from his Department to this new body. We have come a long way since then but we should not abdicate our responsibility for industrial development and outsource it. Perhaps the Minister of State would address that issue.