Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I accept the point made by Senator Ross that the issues we should be addressing are probably not dealt with in either the motion or the amendment to it. The Government can take a great deal of pride in the sustained economic activity and the potential for future growth that has been outlined in the ESRI report, but the economy needs to be debated in more realistic terms than we have heard thus far in this debate.

The role of an Opposition is important in a democracy. It must hold the Government to account. The Opposition should highlight where policy failures have occurred and where resources have not been properly applied. It should highlight also where errors of judgment have been made in terms of the application of policy, and the failure to follow through on promises of policy. In the event of the Government of the day not performing its functions properly, the Opposition can present alternative policies. I do not see any sign of those alternative policies in the motion, nor do I see a logical critique of the current state of the economy. Several areas are mentioned in the motion, many of which are not connected at all and all of which are written in a way to portray the economy and, therefore, the Government's management of it in the most negative terms possible. I consider that a dereliction of the role of Opposition.

I would like to hear any alternative policies devised by the Opposition, an explanation of why things are the way they are now and why they should be done any differently. The truth is that in the general election, that analysis was not offered to voters. The projections that were given by all political parties were too high. When one comes down to the type of analysis we should have, no hard or fast policy choices have been offered by Opposition parties in terms of public sector reform and of how resources should be used for the provision of public services. We have plenty of mechanisms for doing so in this House, as we discuss the budget and the Finance Bill. If one believes in the concept of public service reform, which is becoming politically popular again and which we all would agree is necessary, we need to talk about the imbalance between administration and front-line services. We need to talk also about the numbers employed in the public service and then we need to address the costs involved in the provision of those services. I have heard none of that analysis from the Opposition and that is a dereliction of duty.

Ireland is one of the most open economies in the world. In the past 15 years we have benefited enormously from that fact. As an Opposition spokesperson I once raised a note of concern that it was dangerous to be the most open economy in the world and events of the past two years have justified that. An open economy is totally subject to global pressures. The Irish economy began to develop in the mid-1990s when oil cost $10 a barrel and now the economy has to sustain levels of economic activity and growth when that same barrel of oil costs $126. In terms of economic analysis, we have to stress the difference between then and now as regards how we are likely to progress.

Today's ESRI report is an optimistic document but it is grounded in reality. It is couched as well in caveats. It mentions the fact that because we are an open economy we are dependent on when recovery takes place within the United States economy. There are many factors that will determine when that occurs. I believe the change of presidential office holder in the US in November will engender a sense of confidence that will help things recover there, which will subsequently help our economy.

We are also in thrall to decisions that need to be made by the European Central Bank in terms of interest rates. At a time when there have been eight reductions in the past two months alone in the US from the Federal Reserve, there has been none by the European Central Bank, although there was a good case for two such reductions. As and when such interest rate reductions are made in the European Central Bank, they too will have a bounce effect for the Irish economy. We should not be totally bleak about where we stand.

That said, a political analysis and a political criticism could be applied about the failure to anticipate how fast and how deep the economic adjustment could be. I consider that valid. As an Opposition spokesperson I made those same political criticisms. The change of Government and my party's participation has changed some of that emphasis. Again, the ESRI report is predicated on changes in policy that affect environmental policy but that also have economic consequences. That analysis will help us in the years to come. Fine Gael seems to believe that the 10% fall in average house prices is a bad thing. The reliance of 14% of gross domestic product on the construction industry was a bad thing, and there was a need for some economic adjustment. However, that does not necessarily mean that those who have engaged in the construction sector need to transfer from it or lose their jobs entirely. There are opportunities for the construction industry in retrofitting houses to introduce the energy standards that it did not introduce in the first instance. That is an economic activity that has been forgone in the past that should be grabbed in the future and that will deliver economic as well as environmental benefits.

Even though it is difficult for us to be certain of what will happen in the world economy and although we face environmental challenges, there is a series of opportunities for Ireland which will be helped along by the economic growth we have experienced. We are not the economy we were before the mid-1990s. We are now a more diverse economy with different types of economic activity. We are less dependent on individual trading relationships with other countries and we trade with more countries. On those grounds, we have reasons to be optimistic for the future.

I wish to focus on one element of the Fine Gael motion this evening on the OECD report. I consider it an element of negative Opposition for the sake of it, which does not suit the political party concerned. While the OECD report points out many systemic problems that exist in the provision of public services, it stresses that that is due to a culture in this country regarding how decisions are made and implemented. I do not necessarily refer to the political culture but to the administrative culture we have allowed to develop that needs to be tackled in a more holistic way. The fact that an honest in-depth report has pointed that out should be seen as an opportunity for us. In many regards the OECD looks at the economy as one that is strongly performing and with innate strength that has the potential to become stronger in the future over and above many other members of the organisation. When analysing the contents of that report that is the type of message we, as politicians and representatives of political parties, should take from it. Unfortunately, the Opposition parties are choosing not to do that.