Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this important issue. I appreciate that the other House dealt with the pre-budget statements yesterday, but very valid debate on economic matters takes place in this particular political arena. I am sure the Minister of State will find some ideas of interest.

I concur with some of the concluding remarks of Senator Butler. His comments on quangos are very much at one with the policy of Fine Gael. Our spokesperson in the Dáil, Deputy Varadkar, has often raised the issue of the costs of this unofficial arm of the Government. In particular, he has put forward a number of ideas on how those costs can be controlled. There has been some degree of response from the Government, but many of these agencies of the State need to be thoroughly examined from the point of view of cost efficiency. We are beginning to pose too many questions of ourselves on what we are doing as politicians, on the role of this House and on the role of the other House. Much of the work being done by these so-called quangos should be the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas and its committees. We have the expertise, the personnel, the staff and the resources and we could take back much of that kind of work.

I also agree with the Senator's point on pensions, pension schemes and the tax given away to encourage people to enter them. I am no expert on pensions, much to my own financial distress, but I often wonder why pensions are sold to every Tom, Dick and Harry in this country. A 19 or 20 year old in this country who has not started on some pension scheme is made to feel an irresponsible, second class citizen. Looking at it from an actuarial point of view, and at the number of people who benefit from the pension schemes rather than the pension funds, we find an interesting balance. We should reflect on what Senator Butler said. If we put the onus on ourselves and on the State to come up with some type of pension scheme which matures when the person reaches 65 or 66, just like the current social welfare pension, then we should build up that basic pension scheme. It may not sound too politically or economically adventurous, but it may well be every bit as sensible as allowing hundreds of millions of euro in tax relief for investment in pension funds that are spent overseas and that do not create one job in this country. The pension industry must be examined in great detail. It will not be finalised before the budget in a few weeks, because it needs much reflection.

We all recognise the grave scale of the economic crisis in this country. I feel the public is very much tuned into the current economic crisis. With great maturity and insight this week, workers sent a strong message that they did not want to be led up the strike route.

There is something of a lesson for us in that regard. The public and the so-called ordinary people — that is not a term I wish to use — recognise the scale of the crisis in the country and seek leadership and action. It it up to the Government and, in a sense, all political parties to show such decisive political leadership now and they should be prepared to make the hard choices and decisions. From an economic perspective, the country is still in a relatively strong position. There are many people at work, we have many assets, there is a very educated workforce and we have the capacity for future growth. It is a question of taking tough measures in the coming months and years to get the show back on the road.

I refer to some sectors in which there are glaring problems at present. The crisis is of significant proportions and demands a response from the Government. The motor industry is an outstanding subject for debate and concern. We have seen the figures for the first months of this year and literally no new cars are being sold. Government revenue by way of VRT and other taxes has almost disappeared. That industry must be boosted by some Government intervention. The scrappage scheme has been mentioned. It was introduced in the early or mid-1990s and worked very successfully for some years. It may well need to be revisited.

Will the Minister of State, Deputy Devins, pass on a suggestion, which I made previously, to the appropriate Department, whether it be the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment? I suspect there are thousands of second-hand cars in the country which are blocking every forecourt along our highways and byways. These could be exported to counties which have similar left-hand drive regulations. Recently, I examined the list of such countries which included Australia, New Zealand, India and Malaysia. Many other countries spring to mind. During the 1980s many cars from Japan were successfully imported here. Let us consider India, where the growth in car purchases has been phenomenal. A new middle class is emerging there and they all wish to buy cars. The Indian car industry is unable to provide enough cars for the population there. We should investigate the possibility of a major export of second-hand cars to countries with the same left-hand drive or countries in which drivers drive on the same side of the road. That should be examined.

Much work has been done by my party, especially the spokesperson on communications, energy and natural resources, Deputy Simon Coveney, in the area of green energy. I welcome the policies introduced by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, a fortnight ago. I have heard from the agriculture sector that these measures do not go far enough but that they are a step in the right direction. The measures include allowing people to generate their own power, obliging the networks to purchase such power and so on. More of such thinking and action is required.

On the Order of Business this morning I mentioned the crisis in the farming industry and especially in the dairy industry. Farming may no longer have the same political resonance it had 25 or 30 years ago but tens of thousands of people work on the land and indirectly in the agriculture industry. It must be protected. The dairy industry is in a great crisis at present. Farmers cannot afford to produce milk at 21 cent or 22 cent per litre. They may leave the land and jobs will be lost. It is a native industry which has been in place through every economic crisis. We must protect it by way of European support and national support. I hope we can investigate that possibility as a matter of urgency.

On the question of social welfare, we must ensure measures are taken in the April budget to allow, where possible, social welfare schemes to keep people at work, to help people to return to work and to help people retrain. We are all aware that small businesses are under considerable pressure at present. There may be some sense in allowing PRSI holidays for small employers and those in genuine financial difficulty. We are told the cost to the taxpayer of a person losing his or her job is €20,000 per annum, comprised of taxes forgone and social welfare paid. If some jobs and small industries could be helped and retained through allowing some flexibility on social insurance contributions, then not only in the long-run but in the short run it could be very advantageous and I hope the Minister of State will consider the matter.

An issue of concern to me throughout the years in respect of social welfare regulations has been the family income supplement scheme. The scheme is designed to help people in work but on low incomes to top up their incomes. The scheme is very welcome and was introduced by the Government led by Dr. Garret FitzGerald more than 20 years ago. However, there is an anomaly. The family income supplement which keeps people in work is only available to people who are employed. It is not available to self-employed persons. Today, thousands of self-employed persons are working at a financial loss. Such people are trying to keep their businesses open and keep the five, six or ten employees in work. In some cases they earn no income themselves. I appeal to the Minister of State to consider amending the rules of the family income supplement scheme to allow self-employed persons to be considered. The scheme is means tested and I am satisfied in that regard, but it should be extended to self-employed persons and provide some window of hope and opportunity to self-employed people who are working for no income. It could help to keep them working and to keep their businesses open.

These are simply minor suggestions. There are no silver bullets contained in my few words. However, we must have flexible thinking in responding to the crisis. There is no overall answer. I hope there is a sense of realism and common sense among the public and the electorate and a belief that we, the political classes, will respond with courage and bravery. The days of fooling people and pretending that the problem will simply disappear are gone. We must take difficult measures by way of public sector reform, taxation modifications and cuts in expenditure to bring the country back to normal.

I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure that whatever measures are taken in terms of increasing taxes, we should remember the lesson of the 1980s, that is, it is not possible to solve all problems through tax increases. We almost shut down Ireland Ltd. in the 1970s and 1980s through high rates of personal taxation. It did not work then and it will not work now. I appeal to the Minister of State not to go down that route.