Private Members Debate on Economic Competitiveness - 22nd November 2006

Private Members Motion - Economic Competitiveness - 22nd November 2006
Mr. Norris: I did not anticipate being called so soon. I thought I would have another ten minutes. I compliment my colleague, Senator Quinn, on tabling this important motion on inflation. I am glad I have this time to speak on it because it would be a great pity if a subject as significant as this were not supported by the Members representing the University of Dublin and it was left to all our separated brethren from either the Labour Party or from the other great national institute of education.
I notice an amendment was tabled to the motion. I deplore the habit of tabling these rather flatulent amendments. The motion is perfectly clear. It does not seem to be critical of the Government in any significant way. It simply states the fact that we know there is a difficulty in terms of inflation as it affects the competitiveness of the country and the fact, which is established, that we are running above the EU average and we ask the Minister to do something about it. That seems a perfectly rational position to take and it is not one that could be construed as any kind of carping criticism of the Government. Nonetheless, the Government considers it necessary, as usual, to delete all words in the motion after “Seanad Éireann” and replace the wording with words that simply note the situation with regard to inflation and support the Government’s prudent approach. I take exception to the word “prudent” in terms of the Government.
Before I get into that and before my good friend and colleague, Senator Mansergh, leaves the House, I must take him up on one point.
Mr. Leyden: He is not leaving now.
Mr. Norris: I thought it would be the gentlemanly thing to do to let him know that I was going to embark on a little slight. I listened to him with some amusement and interest but unfortunately I had to leave because I had a guest with me and I was not able to wait for his full contribution. I noted he took on a certain national newspaper, of which I must say I have rather mixed views, as I have of its proprietor, that well known rugby player, Tony O’Reilly, who now effects a title.
When Senator Mansergh spoke about Senator Ross, I did not think that what he said was quite the highest standards of the public school. I thought rather than being the hero of the fifth, the Senator was in danger of turning into the rotter of the remove because poor Senator Ross was not here to defend himself.
Dr. Mansergh: I assumed that given his was the second name on the motion, he might be here to speak on the subject.
Mr. Norris: Even more cruel moves. The Senator is definitely the rotter of the remove.
I do not always agree with my colleague when he writes in the newspaper, especially when he engages on his union bashing exercises, but on the other hand, he writes with extraordinary clarity and accessibility. For people like me, to whom economics is something of a mystery, in fact a greater mystery-----
Mr. Leyden: The Senator is being unfair to Senator Mansergh.
Mr. Norris: -----he makes it accessible to me. Senator Mansergh probably said this with a touch of irony and a little soupçon of wit-----
Dr. Mansergh: When it is Sunday newspaper coverage, it ought to be inflation-proofed and it clearly is not.
Mr. Norris: That is a fair point but I want to take the Senator up on one phrase. He spoke about Senator Ross’s Sunday addresses to the nation from the pulpit of-----
Dr. Mansergh: I spoke about the newspaper’s Sunday addresses.
Mr. Norris: The Senator should not be such a nitpicker. I am waiting for the Chair to say “Senator Norris without interruption.”
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris without interruption.
Mr. Norris: When the good Senator drew a contrast between the public addresses and the privacy of the Seanad, I thought that was a very interesting thought. I must agree with great reluctance that nothing which happens here at this hour will be reflected and this debate should be taken seriously and reflected in the media.
I support the motion. However, I have concerns about the term “prudent” when used in terms of the stewardship of the Government. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, who is a good negotiator. He is able to persuade two apparently irreconcilable sides to find a common meeting ground, not to pursue their aims entirely selfishly and to put a degree of national interest into the equation. However, that prudence is very limited. A series of disastrous situations were entered into by the Government which can only contribute in various ways to the inflationary process.
I will give one example which is close to my heart at present, namely, the situation regarding the Corrib gas field. Our natural resources were handed away by the Government. The Minister of State can shake his head all he likes but they were given away for nothing. We do not even receive a tax yield on it.
Dr. Mansergh: We receive 35% corporation tax.
Mr. Treacy: We receive corporation tax and PRSI.
Mr. Norris: Why did we not have the gumption to exploit these opportunities ourselves?
Affordable housing was vaunted by the Government. It sold out and let property builders and speculators weasel their way around it. It contributes to house inflation which is significant. It is a terrible situation that so few young people are able to buy a house. The Minister of State knows this is true because we know the Government has not lived up to its affordable housing commitments.
Regarding wastage in road contracts, one contractor expended €50,000 on machinery and manpower during the construction of a small section of a road but charged the Government €3 million for it.. It had to do with a steamroller. I put it on the record of the House some time ago. Where was the prudent stewardship there? Where do they look after and guard the interest of the taxpayer?
A number of years ago, I raised the issue of the confusion and mess at the West Link toll bridge on the M50. Everybody, even the Minister of State must agree that was a lousy contract.
Mr. Treacy: It is historical.
Mr. Norris: They always state, “It is historical.” However, it exists and it is a lousy contract. Now we must buy it out.
In terms of prudent stewardship, the Government is skating on very thin ice. Senator Quinn, as a businessman, isolated an important matter in terms of competitiveness. The strength of our economy depends on maintaining competitive status in the world. We have the advantage of a low corporation tax regime for US companies. I hope we manage to retain that in the face of potential European opposition. Whatever our criticisms of aspects of Government policy, all sides unite in defending this regime because it attracts people, as does the literacy and intellectual skills of our educated workforce.
Dr. Mansergh: Of which Senator Norris is such an ornament.
Mr. Norris: Of what am I an ornament?
Dr. Mansergh: Literacy.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Mansergh should allow Senator Norris to complete.
Mr. Norris: Senator Mansergh is so kind but I am afraid I sense a little touch of irony.
This is an important subject. The House is in debt to Senator Quinn for having raised it because he signals a warning that our present remarkable position may not last if we are not prudent and do not ensure we do not price ourselves out of the market. It is a competitive world. Competition comes not from the United States and Europe but from developing areas such as China and other places where wage levels are tiny compared with what we have here. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his indulgence and I compliment Senator Quinn on his important motion.