Vol. 585 No. 4
1 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the details of the work programme of the consumer consultative panel; the efforts that the panel has taken to be inclusive in its consideration of issues of relevance to consumers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14058/04]
The role of the consumer strategy group, which I established this March, is to advise and make recommendations for the development of a national consumer policy strategy which will: provide consumers with the knowledge, information and confidence to be demanding of quality, service and value; ensure consumers are well informed of their rights and have effective and speedy means of redress in the event that those rights are denied; give consumers a powerful voice and effective representation and input in the development of policy proposals at national and local level; ensure the views of consumers are heard and taken into account in national debate on relevant business, trade and social policy issues; and promote among product and service providers best practice in the delivery of quality customer service and value for money and an appreciation of the contribution satisfied consumers make to the growth and development of business.
The composition of the group reflects a wide range of experience and expertise and this should facilitate comprehensive consideration of all relevant matters affecting the interests of consumers. The group is due to produce a final report by the end of 2004, but it may also produce such interim reports to me as it considers appropriate. I see the establishment of this group as a significant initiative designed to improve and promote consumer rights in Ireland. I want to encourage and see develop in Ireland a culture where consumers are confident and insistent in demanding value and quality at all times.
Does the Minister agree, because it will take nine months from establishment of the committee to the production of a report, that action needs to be taken in the interim, particularly with regard to consumer affairs? Does she also agree that the rip-off culture in Ireland is worsening? The Director of Consumer Affairs reported in her annual report of 2003 that the number of complaints has increased by more than 7,000 in a period of one year from the previous level of 35,000. Does the Minister agree that it is time for her to act directly on the recommendations of the director's report?
The director specifically requested action to be taken to update consumer protection, particularly regarding fines for those who fail to comply with consumer legislation. The current fine is €127 and the recommendation is that this should be increased to at least €3,000. Will it take nine months for the Minister to take that action? Will the Minister also agree that the limit in the small claims court, to which the director also referred and which is set at €1,270, should be changed immediately? What steps is she going to take to address the issue of rip-off Ireland and the specific issues brought to her attention by the Director of Consumer Affairs before the group's report is produced?
As the Deputy is aware, the rate of inflation has now fallen to 1.3%, which is welcome. That has happened because consumers have become more active, albeit slowly. They are now more likely to make complaints than they would have been a short time ago. That is also the reason the director receives more queries and complaints. The advertising campaign she organised in the latter half of last year also had the effect of increasing activity in her office and of making people more aware of its importance.
The consolidation of the legislation to update the fines is under way, separate from the establishment of this group. Next weekend, a European Council agenda will raise two significant proposals relating to consumer affairs matters which will have to be incorporated in Irish law. In conjunction with all that, we will ensure there is a substantial increase in the fines. It is a matter for the Attorney General to advise how we proceed on fines and summary convictions. There are limits in that regard.
The small claims court does not come under my responsibility. However, I share the view expressed by the director and others that we need to increase its jurisdiction if possible. When the Government, some time ago, agreed to increase the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, a view was taken that this would encourage awards to go to the new limit which would have the effect of driving up costs. There are downsides as well as upsides with regard to increasing the jurisdiction of the court in so far as financial awards are concerned. We must be careful before we move willy nilly to make a decision in a particular direction. There is some merit in increasing the jurisdiction to some degree as the current limit is extraordinarily small in today's terms.
The Minister, while telling us what will happen, is not telling us when she will introduce the change. When will she, as the Minister responsible, insist that the fines increase from €127 to at least €3,000? It is not good enough to say that the recommendation is to increase the limit in the small claims court. That comes after due consideration by the Director of Consumer Affairs and her 60 members of staff. It is not just a figure plucked from the air but is a real recommendation to the Minister. What is she going to do about it? At the moment she appears to be doing nothing other than talking about it.
Will the Minister investigate the other issue raised in the report of the consumers' association, namely, unexplained price differences? The Minister referred to them recently when she spoke about the difference in prices in some countries as opposed to those in Ireland and said there is an unaccountable difference between them. What is she doing to make the companies involved accountable? I put it to her that if she buys a computer or camera in the United States, she pays a dollar price which is far less than the euro price. What is she going to do about that?
What is the Minister going to do about mobile phone charges? The consumer is being ripped off compared with mobile phone charges in the United States where they are significantly less than here. What is the Minister doing about it or what action will she take?
The difference in costs is often associated with the difference in standards of living and wage costs and, in countries which are less developed, products are generally substantially cheaper. I was in China in March where one can buy an extraordinary range of products for substantially less than one would pay in any country in Europe, that I am aware.
I was talking about America.
In the United States there are no restrictions in terms of planning or on the size of retail units. Many people would suggest that the failure to restrict the size of units there has led to other social problems. Everything is not always as simple as it appears. What we are trying to do is to encourage competition throughout the economy, whether in transport, aviation or telephony. Whatever area of the economy has inadequate competition generally has higher prices and a poorer quality of service and consumers lose out.
We had a specific purpose in appointing this group. We have never before put a group of people together with the sole focus of examining the issue from the consumer perspective. In the past we had various lobbies involved in discussions on consumer matters and got disparate views from groups that examined some of the issues. I appointed this group precisely because of my concern that we do not have an effective consumer lobby here. Worthy and all as the consumers' association is, at its last annual general meeting, which I attended, there were fewer than 30 people present. I have said this publicly and do not intend any disrespect towards the association. Dermot Jewell is a member of this group also.
Generally, people only complain when they have a complaint specific to their own experience and do not tend to come together as an effective group in society to lobby on behalf of consumers. I hope that some of the efforts of the group I have put in place will help to kick-start a more effective consumer lobby like, for example, that in the Netherlands which is the most effective consumer lobby of any European country.
When will the Minister introduce the new fines?
As quickly as I can get the legislation together. Substantial fines were imposed on some companies recently.
2 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if it is still the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to provide for a new offence of corporate killing as recommended by the Law Reform Commission; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13801/04]
The Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper on corporate killing in October last. The commission recommended that a new offence of corporate killing be established which would be prosecuted on indictment, without exclusion of any entity regardless of whether incorporated. The offence would apply to acts or omissions of a high managerial agent, which would be treated as those of the undertaking. The commission also recommended that the legislation should provide for an unlimited fine to reflect the gravity of the offence or in certain circumstances an individual high managerial agent should also be subject to imprisonment of up to five years.
The commission is currently considering submissions on its consultation paper. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, and I welcomed the recommendations of the commission indicating that we were taking the opportunity, subject to the final views of the Law Reform Commission when its consultation process is complete and to the advice of the Attorney General, to provide for the creation of the new offence in law in the Bill on safety, health and welfare at work which is being drafted.
Consideration was given to the inclusion of a specific provision on corporate killing by the parliamentary counsel and advisory counsel in the Office of the Attorney General. Their conclusion was that it is not appropriate to deal with the general and wider issue of corporate killing in a safety, health and welfare at work Bill.
The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, will address the matter by proposing to Government a section in the forthcoming Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004 on the liability of directors and officers of undertakings to make more explicit an existing provision in the 1989 Act under which directors and managers in companies have in the past been prosecuted for failings in safety and health which resulted in deaths or serious injuries to workers. He intends that this provision will send a clear message to decision makers at board and management levels who carry a special responsibility for safety and health.
The wider issue of corporate killing will be considered by the Government in due course when the final report on the matter is published and when it has the final consideration by the Attorney General.
I am more confused now on this saga. Last October the Law Reform Commission report recommended the creation of a new offence of corporate killing. The Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, welcomed it. At the time the Minister of State said it was his intention to establish in law an offence of statutory corporate killing which would be prosecuted on indictment, in essence, an offence which would be defined in terms of gross negligence, manslaughter. That is what he said he would do in October 2003. We have been promised a health and safety at work Bill virtually every month since. It was to be published last month, but we have not yet seen it. Now we are informed that the offence of corporate manslaughter will not be part of that but some other offence will be created, if I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, that will give some signal to directors that they must be vigilant.
We are talking about cases where people are killed owing to negligence. Let me ask a very direct question. Is it still the Government's intention to introduce an offence of corporate manslaughter? If that is the intention, why is a watered down offence to be included in the imminent health and safety at work Bill?
It is certainly my intention and that of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, to create an offence of corporate manslaughter. The reason it cannot be included in the health and safety at work Bill is that the Attorney General has advised that it has wider implications which go beyond the health and safety of workers. If a company knowingly leaves a product on the market, for example, a pharmaceutical product which has serious effects and which could kill people, that cannot be dealt with in the health and safety at work Bill. We are obliged to take the advice of the Attorney General. Discussions are ongoing with the Attorney General as to how best we could introduce an offence of this kind into legislation, which we all support.
The existing provision in the 1989 Act relates to the responsibility of a board of a company and directors and managers of a company. It is apparently extraordinarily difficult to succeed in convicting people because of the weakness of the current legislation. That will be substantially strengthened to make it easier for somebody to be prosecuted on indictment or convicted following a prosecution on indictment. That is the intention regarding the legislation. The proposed Bill will go to the Government in the next two or three weeks.
I welcome the Minister's assertion that a new offence of corporate manslaughter will be created. However I must be cynical about timing. We have been promised this since the publication of the Law Reform Commission's report. We were promised it would be incorporated in the health and safety at work Bill. Now, many months later, after the promised publication date, we are informed that it will not form part of that legislation. The mere fact that there will be a strengthening of the previous Act to deal with the issue of negligence causing death indicates that the implementation of the Law Reform Commission's report is very much long-fingered. Specifically when will we see the other legislation to incorporate the crime of corporate manslaughter? Is it the Minister's intention that will happen this year?
The answer to the Deputy's question must await the conclusion of discussions that are ongoing with the Attorney General as to which is the most appropriate legislation to make provision for this offence. If it is not the health and safety at work Bill it will have to be special legislation, and it is my intention to introduce such legislation as quickly as possible.
Will it be this year?
I do not believe it will be possible to introduce it this year. We are half-way through the year and I have not had a chance to discuss this matter with the Attorney General. The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has been handling this Bill on a daily basis. I made an effort to speak to the Attorney General today, but he is overseas. I apologise for that. I intend to speak to him in the next few days regarding how we should proceed with this matter. I am disappointed that we cannot do this through the legislation as proposed.
3 Mr. Morgan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of employment task forces her Department or the agencies responsible to it have been involved in since July 1997; if a cost-benefit evaluation of these task forces has been undertaken by her Department; and the number of jobs created as a result of these task forces in each case compared with the job losses in each case in which a task force was established in response to major company closures or job losses. [13963/04]
Since July 1997, State agencies under the auspices of my Department have been involved in 22 employment task forces. While no cost-benefit evaluation of these task forces has been undertaken the operational experience would strongly suggest that they were effective in providing a co-ordinated response to major company closures.
Large-scale job losses in an area are always a matter of concern given the impact on individual workers and their families as well as on the broader community. Nevertheless, we must set individual employment losses against continued employment expansion in the overall economy. The focus of the agencies is on finding alternative employment for the workers involved. This process has been facilitated by the success of the broader economy with over 270,000 jobs having been created over the past five years and the unemployment rate among the lowest in the European Union and significantly lower than that in France, Germany, Finland or Sweden. This has been helped in no small part by the Government's economic policies and my Department's support for enterprise through its agencies.
Employment growth and contraction are essential elements of the market economy in which Ireland has performed so well over the past decade. Developing a competitive economy, resilient to the toughest competitive pressures, is the optimal approach to sustainable employment growth. The Government is committed to delivering on the competitiveness agenda. For example, it will assess our competitive status every six months to ensure that all appropriate steps are being taken to maintain and improve on our recent achievements. In addition, I expect the enterprise strategy group under the chairmanship of Mr. Eoin O'Driscoll to report shortly on enterprise policy requirements for the decade ahead which will sustain and develop industry and our competitiveness.
My question had three elements to it. The first related to the number of task forces and the Minister answered that. The second related to cost-benefit analyses, but the Minister did not answer that. The third related to the number of jobs created and that was not answered. In the Minister's reply there was an assertion which was made last year that the task forces were effective in providing a co-ordinated response to major company closures. Is that assertion correct, given that without a cost-benefit analysis we do not know how much each job cost or what was the benefit from them? The Minister also stated that we are trying to develop a competitive economy. How can she say what we are doing is competitive when we have no idea of the costs involved?
We know, for example, that the cost of an IDA Ireland job is in excess of €13,000, the cost of an Enterprise Ireland job is €9,000 and enterprise board jobs cost €4,500. We have no idea how much these task force jobs cost nor how many jobs are created by them. Are any task forces still in operation? Are they answerable to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or anybody else? For how much longer are they likely to operate?
The Deputy misunderstands what the task forces are supposed to do. They are established following major closures to assist workers, in particular, to access training or find alternative employment. Huge logistical issues arise for workers and their families after a major closure. The view of the trade union movement and all those who have participated is that the task forces have been extraordinarily successful. Many of the forces have had a wider remit to make recommendations. For example, the Donegal task force was asked to suggest what needs to happen to encourage investment in that county. The recommendations related to all aspects of government, such as infrastructure and education, as well as issues relating to my Department.
Some of the task forces are still in place. They were not established as alternative State job creation agencies. Over 400,000 additional people are in work, compared to 1997. Almost 45,000 more people have joined the workforce in the past year. The economy is continuing to generate new, high-quality, alternative jobs. In common with the most successful economies in the world, we go through times when jobs are lost and others are created because some companies cannot survive, restructure or scale back their operations. Task forces have an important role to play in respect of such logistical issues.
We have not done a cost benefit analysis of the task forces. The actual direct cost of the forces was negligible because they are generally composed of individuals who participated on a voluntary basis, staff from enterprise development agencies or representatives of local authority management. None of the individuals were paid for their work on the task forces. The only expenses that were incurred related to consultancy, for example, or the hiring of premises. I can give the Deputy figures about the actual costs. We did not do a cost benefit analysis, which is a different issue.
I thank the Tánaiste for her offer to submit the relevant figures to me. I would appreciate it if I could see them. Does the Tánaiste intend to establish more task forces? I note that no task forces have been established in recent times. For how long does she envisage that the task forces that are still in operation will continue? Will they continue indefinitely? Are they likely to be wound up?
Task forces are wound down when they have passed their sell-by date and achieved the task that was given to them. I cannot remember when we last established what I would call a task force because we have not had a major closure in recent times.
We have had a few.
We have to keep an open mind about the most suitable mechanisms to put in place when large numbers of people in a particular area, especially a peripheral location where easily accessible alternative jobs are not available, find themselves out of work. When large numbers of people are made redundant, we usually bring together State agencies such as FÁS to interact with the company and the workers to try to establish alternative employment or training. Such measures have been particularly successful. I have on many occasions met individuals who used to work as operatives on factory floors and were then trained in computer skills. In many instances, they are now working in better jobs and are earning substantially more money. We have had terrific success in obtaining alternative employment for many people.
4 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason only 38% of small businesses believe social partnership benefits them while 24% believe it is not beneficial and 38% have no opinion; and if she will make a statement on the widespread dissatisfaction with the process. [13964/04]
The fact that 24% of small and medium sized enterprises believe that social partnership is not beneficial, whereas 38% believe that it benefits them, does not suggest "widespread dissatisfaction with the process".
Social partnership has made a significant contribution to the economy in the past 17 years. The social partnership agreements since 1987 have facilitated and encouraged Ireland's economic development and brought benefits to employers, employees and the country. Unemployment now stands at 4.4%, compared to 17% in 1987 when social partnership began. The debt-GDP ratio has fallen from 125% in 1987 to 32.8% at the end of 2003. The rate of inflation was an average of 12% in the ten years to 1987, but it was measured by the CPI in March of this year at 1.3%. The real earnings of workers increased by 40.3% during the period of social partnership. Some 700,000 additional people are working in Ireland today, compared to 1987.
I believe in social partnership, which grew from a consensus among the key economic and social actors in the economy that a single group could not satisfactorily address the challenges facing Ireland in the mid-1980s. Social partnership has a track record in delivering social and economic benefits for all. It has served the country well.
I thank the Tánaiste for her response. Does she accept that we have a duty to listen to those involved in small businesses? I refer in particular to the 24% of people involved in such businesses who feel left out. Will the Tánaiste acknowledge the major contribution made by such people to society and the economic development of the State? Such people often feel that the employment contributions of their businesses are forgotten by those who are more interested in huge companies and large international corporations.
As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that small businesses get the maximum possible support. It is likely that major problems will emerge as large corporations move to low-cost countries where labour costs are half ours. Does the Tánaiste agree that small businesses, particularly indigenous industries which have more loyalty to the State and are more anchored to Irish society, can play a major part in the strategic and economic development of the country?
Is the Tánaiste aware that some small businesses contribute some of their profits to voluntary and community organisations, as well as paying their regular taxes? Such companies' progressive acts of generosity are often not recognised. We have a duty to listen to the dissatisfaction of such companies with the process. We should face the reality that just 38% of those involved in small businesses are happy with social partnership.
The Tánaiste mentioned that unemployment has dropped to 4.4% nationally. Unemployment is running at 14% in some communities, however, such as parts of the north side of Dublin. If we are serious about investment in this area, we have to face up to the reality that some communities are being left behind despite the country's economic wealth. Other groups who feel left out of the partnership process include groups working to combat unemployment, poverty and the problems of persons with disabilities. Such groups have major concerns. They feel that although 70% of the people seem to be moving on, a constant 30% of the people are not sharing the wealth as much as they deserve. I would like the Tánaiste to address my questions.
The Deputy may be surprised to learn that I agree with most of what he said. When I initially read Question No. 4, I had to recheck the name of the Deputy who submitted it as I was surprised that it had been tabled by Deputy Finian McGrath.
Deputy McGrath should join the Progressive Democrats.
I am sure Deputy McGrath is aware that the main reason ISME was dissatisfied with social partnership was that it was opposed to benchmarking. Small business is the backbone of the economy. Most businesses are small and most people who work in the private sector are employed by small businesses. Equally, businesses established by foreign direct investment are extraordinarily important because they account for 70% of our exports and an even higher percentage of our corporate taxes. It is not a question of "one or the other". Many large businesses have helped to generate smaller supply businesses.
Social partnership includes representatives of the tourism and construction industries. The Small Firms Association has 8,000 members and the chambers of commerce have 11,000 members. I do not agree with the claim that the voice of small business is not represented. I would welcome the participation of ISME in the social partnership process. We came close to achieving its inclusion some years ago, but it did not transpire because ISME was not prepared to participate if it could not be involved in pay negotiations. I look forward to the day when it can participate.
Everything we have done — reducing the burden of tax, minimising the amount of regulation, developing our infrastructure, decentralisation and making things happen in the regions — has been done with a view to helping small businesses.
They will all happen one day.
Yes. If Deputy Howlin and I meet for a drink 20 years from now — I doubt if any of us will want to be here then because we will have passed our sell-by dates — we will reflect on all the wonderful things that happened in Ireland in recent years. We will say what great things happened and point at what has taken place in Wexford, Clare, Louth and everywhere else. Deputy McGrath might complain if some of his constituents leave Clontarf, but generally it will be good for the country.
The Deputy can be assured that small business is close to my heart. As someone who started a small political business I know what it is like to compete with the multinationals.
The Deputy was in a niche market.
5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the figures for the level of industrial employment at the latest date for which figures are available; the way in which this compares with the equivalent date in each of the previous five years; the steps that are being taken to counter the decline in industrial employment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13835/04]
Rather than go through the figures for average annual level of industrial employment for each year between 1998 and 2002, I will give the Deputy the figures I know he will want to comment on. In 1998, the figure was 257,900, and the latest provisional figure at December 2003 was 244,100. That is a job reduction of 13,000 or so. In each of those years from 1998, the figure was falling by about 2,000 or so.
If I had the figures I would not have asked the question.
Industrial employment is a key element of our economy and will continue as such well into the future. Nevertheless, we have to set the decline in industrial employment against continued employment expansion in the broader economy. In the time period to which the Deputy's question relates, between 1998 and 2003, more than 270,000 jobs have been created and Irish unemployment is among the lowest in the European Union and significantly lower than that in France, Germany, Finland or Sweden. This has been helped in no small part by the Government's economic policies.
While industrial employment has reduced in recent years, employment in international and financial services has displayed remarkable resilience despite international difficulties. Among firms within these sectors supported by the development agencies, employment has grown consistently from 39,800 in 1998 to more than 67,000 in 2003. Employment in these sectors remained relatively stable last year, which is quite an achievement given what happened in the global economy.
The development agencies are targeting more resources to underpin the competitiveness of companies by encouraging them to move into higher order functions such as research and development, pumping more effort into innovation and developing more complex or customer driven services. Increasing enterprise competitiveness in high-margin activities will give companies the sustainable competitive advantage required to survive in the evolving aggressive cost driven, global business world.
In this regard I have asked the enterprise strategy group to recommend and prioritise new strategies and policies to ensure that the prosperity we enjoyed in the past decade will continue into the future. The group is examining the issues that I and my Government colleagues will need to take to strengthen our enterprise environment, promote an innovation and knowledge driven economy and help sustain those industries already providing employment here. The group is working towards submitting a report to me by the end of this month.
I tabled this question to discover the Tánaiste's attitude to the decline now evident over a number of years in industrial employment. It is a very important issue, and I am taken aback by the apparent complacency the Tánaiste has shown. Does the Tánaiste accept that the proportion of people in industrial employment here will continue to decline? Does that ring alarm bells with her? Will she accept that industrial employment is a bedrock that spins off service jobs, and that if we continue to erode our industrial employment base, this will have critical impact across the entire economy? Will she accept that as The Irish Times indicated in an analysis done at the end of last year, one of the consequences is a reduction in the average earnings per hour towards the end of last year? The analysis showed that average earnings per hour fell by 0.7% over the final quarter of last year, and average weekly earnings fell by 0.2% over the same period.
Many of the service jobs now being vaunted are in the lower wage category. It reminds me of a comment made in the United States to the effect that thousands of additional jobs had been created, and the respondent agreed, saying he had three of them — "because I need three to survive".
Deputy Howlin asked if the decline will continue. Unfortunately, I believe it will. This matter took up a great deal of attention at our recent informal EU Council meeting, and a paper from the European Commission will be discussed next week at our Council meeting in Brussels on relocation or de-industrialisation. The matter is a concern of every European country. Some 70% of EU employment is in services, which also account for 70% of the EU GDP, a figure which will probably grow over time. The reason Deputy Howlin supplied his own answer is that many of the industrial jobs are in basic manufacturing, and there are many areas of the world, such as China, Morocco, Brazil and Mexico, where wage costs are very significantly lower than in Europe and in the United States. This is also an issue in the United States in the context of the election. All developed economies are experiencing a decline in industrial employment, and companies are now acting on a global basis, and restructuring very rapidly. They are moving jobs very quickly to places where not only wages but cost bases are substantially lower.
That is why we are putting such huge emphasis on alternative forms of employment. I accept that not everyone will be a scientist or a highly-skilled employee, but there will be many jobs in services and in higher value-added activity as far as manufacturing is concerned. The hope is that employment opportunities will be generated for everyone who is available to work in Ireland. That means we must move everyone up to the next level.
Notwithstanding what I have said, I have seen fantastic examples of Irish companies in textiles, engineering and in basic activities which against the odds, because of imaginative in-house policies, are doing extraordinarily well, and increasing employment.
6 Mr. Stagg asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the costs incurred by the State, at the latest date for which figures are available, arising from the various inquiries instigated by or on behalf of her Department; the element of these costs that have been recovered from any of the other parties involved; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13841/04]
51 Ms Shortall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position in regard to each of the inquiries being carried out by or on behalf of her Department; the projected date for the conclusion of each such investigation; the inquiries in respect of which reports have been referred to the DPP; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13840/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 51 together.
Sixteen investigations into company law matters have been initiated by me since I first came into office as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In three cases, the High Court appointed, on an application by me, inspectors under section 8 of the Companies Act 1990. The Inspectors appointed to Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited presented their report to the High Court on 10 June 2002. The report was subsequently published and has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Section 8 inquiries into the affairs of National Irish Bank Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited are continuing. I understand the final report of the inspectors is expected to be presented to the High Court on or before 31 July 2004.
One investigation under section 14 of the Companies Act 1990 was completed in 1998. The report on this has been passed to the DPP. Eleven investigations were initiated by me under section 19 of the Companies Act 1990. Six of these have been concluded. Of the six investigations completed, two of the reports were passed to the DPP. A number of summary prosecutions have since been successfully concluded in one case. One report provided an input into the successful application to the High Court for the appointment of inspectors under section 8 while the fourth report was passed to the relevant High Court inspectors. One report was completed in September 2002 and a further report was completed in March 2003. Both reports have been referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
Three investigations under section 19 are ongoing. The authorised officer has recently indicated to me that he is now unlikely to meet his previous estimate of mid 2004 for completion of his reports of these investigations. I am not in a position at this stage to say when the authorised officer is likely to have completed his work.
Two investigations were held up in legal appeals. These inquiries are now the responsibility of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. One investigation was undertaken under section 59 of the Insurance Act 1989. The report on this has been referred to the DPP.
The costs incurred since 1997 on company investigations initiated by or on behalf of my Department currently amount to approximately €10.3 million. This amount does not include the salary costs of civil service staff working on a number of these investigations or the legal costs which are primarily being borne by the Vote of the Chief State Solicitor. Most of this €10.3 million derives from the costs to date of the High Court inspectors appointed under section 8; €5.3 million in the case of National Irish Bank and €3.5 million in the case of Ansbacher.
The question of recovering costs from the section 8 investigations does not arise until such time as the inspectors complete their investigations. In the case of the Ansbacher inquiry, the High Court proceedings taken by the State to recover the costs of the inquiry were settled out of court for the sum of €1.25 million in favour of the State. Section 19, as originally enacted, did not provide for the recoupment of costs. This has now changed with the enactment of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.
My party tabled a question similar to this more than two months ago and received an answer that was virtually identical, except for the completion of the investigations under section 19. The three investigations under section 19 which were expected to be completed by mid-2004 are still ongoing.
Does the Tánaiste agree there is a legitimate public expectation that the investigations will come to some conclusions and that there will be accountability on foot of them? Does she agree that there is a lack of confidence in the outcome of these investigations and that the only people being enriched from the process are the lawyers? When will these matters come to a conclusion? Why has nothing happened in the past two months other than the extension of the timeframe for the investigations under section 19? Was the commitment given by the Minister for Finance at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis on 6 March 2004 to bring in specific measures to reduce the costs of these inquiries all guff? Are there specific proposals? Will the Tánaiste propose specific measure that will retain public confidence in the supervision of company policy and law and a mechanism that will hold people to account?
It would be unfair to say that nothing has happened. A new independent office, the Director of Corporate Enforcement, is fully resourced with key professionals from the law and accounting, and members of the Garda Síochána. One of the significant complaints from corporate Ireland is the vigorous manner in which company law is being enforced. In fact some Deputies have spoken to me privately about it because of the change from the previous laissez-faire attitude to an aggressive one. The director has had a significant number of successful prosecutions, but that does not seem to get the attention one would have expected.
In response to the question on the inquiries that Mr. Gerard Ryan is completing in my Department, I had hoped they would be completed. I had a meeting with the officer and the legal adviser recently and I am due to have another meeting shortly. I hope the inquiries will be completed by the end of the summer. Much of the work in which he has been involved involves passing on a great deal of documentation to both the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals. Worthy information has come to light which is more within the remit of those bodies than it is a matter for the officer in charge of company law investigations.
What remains in my watch is what Mr. Gerard Ryan does. From here on, all the other inquiries are the responsibility of the independent Director of Corporate Enforcement. I am happy to say that he is doing an outstanding job in enforcing company law. That was the purpose of the legislation. We did not wait for the outcome of the particular inquiries.
From the information available, I expect that the High Court inspectors in the NIB case will report to the High Court by July of this year. If adverse conclusions about any individual are being drawn, they are required to make those individuals aware of the adverse conclusion, under natural justice, to give them an opportunity to respond. They did that some considerable time ago and are now in a position to finalise the report and present it to the High Court by July.
I welcome the establishment of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and will watch how it develops. What concerns me is bringing the inquiries already in train to a conclusion in a way that ensures there is public confidence that we have not only a legal framework but also a mechanism for enforcement. On the ancillary matter of costs, the subject of comments by the Minister for Finance, is there any progress in Government on that matter or was it simply a kite?
In recent weeks the Cabinet has had a number of discussions on the costs of tribunals but, generally, all inquiries are very expensive where the legal process is involved. It does not come cheap. The views expressed by the Minister for Finance, which I share, is that we must find a better, more effective and speedier way of bringing matters to a conclusion.
When will we see it?
I understand he is about to bring a proposal to the Cabinet. Certainly we have discussed the matter on at least three occasions in the past six weeks or so. I understand the Minister for Finance is working with the Attorney General on the matter and that the proposals are imminent.
7 Mr. Stagg asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when she expects to receive phase two of the report from economic consultants (details supplied) Export Licensing for Military and Dual-Use Goods; if it is intended to publish the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13842/04]
A report on Ireland's export controls was submitted to me by Forfás on 30 April. The report contains a number of legislative and non-legislative recommendations aimed at improving Ireland's export control system. The report has been received by my Department and I will publish it shortly.
The Tánaiste has announced that she intends to publish legislation on the matter. She established the Fitzpatrick review. I presume that is the report she is expecting. I understand that a previous report commissioned by the Minister warned that UK-based arms brokers may decide to locate in the Republic to facilitate the arms trade. A number of newspaper articles indicate that this country is being used for the brokerage and sale of arms.
When will legislation be introduced to address the use of the country as a brokerage for the arms trade? Has the Minister specific proposals on foot of the initial consultant's report? What is the timeframe for the Fitzpatrick report?
We have just received the Fitzpatrick report, which is phase two of the process and looked at best international experience and what happens in four different countries. I intend to publish the report, but it is a logistical issue. The report recommends that we need new dedicated primary legislation on arms control if we want to come up to best practice internationally. The report suggests that we need to strengthen the legal base for establishing and enforcing the controls in Ireland. It also suggests that we must fill the gaps in the Irish system, including meeting existing EU commitments on the control of brokering activities. We are not in compliance with EU commitments in that regard. I hope to publish the report in the next few days and I will see to it that the spokespersons get a copy in the first instance.
The official involved with the legislation is very involved with World Trade Organisation talks process with the Presidency, but as soon as the Presidency is over we will begin drafting the relevant legislation.
Is there a commitment to introduce the primary legislation? Since the prime officials are otherwise engaged, will the Minister give an indicative timeframe for the legislation because it is of great concern to a number of people? What are the specific terms of reference of the phase two consultancy examination?
Phase two is the Fitzpatrick report and the consultants were asked to talk to interested parties and to engage in a public consultation process. They met 40 different groups. They were asked to examine what happens internationally and make recommendations for change. That is what they have done. Should the Deputy wish, I will give him my briefing note. The consultants suggest that new legislation is required. While I have not brought this formally to the Government, I do not anticipate any difficulty. They suggest that responsibility be left with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and that a new licensing process, a reporting regime and an enforcement regime is necessary. It is quite detailed.
To be helpful, I will give the Deputy a copy of the summary I have at my disposal. I do not know how detailed or complex the legislation will be but, obviously, we will do this as quickly as possible because we have international commitments to meet and it is a sensitive and important area.
8 Ms Lynch asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when she intends to make an order under the Consumer Affairs Act to require doctors, dentists and allied health professionals to publicly display their prices; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13831/04]
The Prices Acts require that prices being displayed by order must be shown as a charge. Making an order for a profession where the cost of a procedure may legitimately vary for objective reasons — for example, in dentistry, a crown on a front tooth may cost considerably less than one on a large back tooth — will require careful drafting. We are currently involved in a consultative process with the Office of the Attorney General. I hope to have the necessary regulations drafted by the autumn.
This is an issue on which I do not see why there should be a delay. The Tánaiste announced in January that she would order dentists and doctors to display their prices, or at least that is what the headlines in the national newspapers in January said she would do. Yet there is now a complication. No more than any other service, why should there be a difficulty requiring these professions to have an indicative list of their prices?
Is the Tánaiste aware that there is a growing practice of dental tourism whereby people go abroad to have dental work done? Even in Northern Ireland, dental procedures, in some instances, are a fraction of the cost charged in the Republic. Does the Tánaiste agree that, particularly in the area of dentistry, real competition is required and that it will necessitate transparency in terms of understanding prices? If she agrees there is no transparency in that market at present, what specifically will she do?
I gave a commitment following the recommendation of the Director of Consumer Affairs, Carmel Foley, that we would do so. My Department has consulted the dental association and the medical organisation, which is normal in such circumstances and a good thing. We are now in the process of drafting the legislation. Price lists would probably have to state "crowns from" rather than "crowns at". We need to compare like with like.
I agree with the Deputy that there is much dental tourism. On an Aer Lingus flight last week I read an advertisement for Budapest which stated, "Have a holiday and have your teeth done for one third of the price." I am not certain going to the dentist is compatible with a holiday. An Irish mobile telephone number was given. I understand that many people are going to Budapest, Northern Ireland and Cape Town. If that puts pressure and brings in more competition, that is great. However, we must inform people so that they have a chance to at least shop around and know what they might be expected to pay. Crowns vary in price from €150 to €700 and fillings vary from €60 to €200.
Will the Tánaiste not consider an inquiry into why prices are so high in the South? That is the nub of the issue. It might be nice to go to Budapest or South Africa, but why are prices on one side of the Border significantly cheaper than the other? It is a cost issue. Obviously, there are significant profits to be made in the South which are not being made in the North. That is the nub of the issue into which there should be an inquiry.
There are huge variations even in the South. If one talks to dentists, they will tell one that the job they do is far superior to any job done elsewhere. There are huge differences in prices in the Irish market. If we give people the information, at least it will allow them to compare prices.
There is a phrase "talk is cheap". We agree we need transparency and a more competitive market in regard to professional services, but what will the Tánaiste do about it? Her announcement in January that she would make an order requiring dentists to display their prices was welcome but five months later, that order has not been signed. There is a tardiness there which must be addressed. When will this order be signed?
I have instructed my officials to draft the order. The policy decision has been made. I understand the reason for the delay is that it is more complex than anticipated. My officials are in discussions and negotiations with the Office of the Attorney General because clearly we must have an order which stands up legally. One of the difficulties they brought to my attention is that it is not as easy as comparing the price of drink. A pint is a pint, whether it is a pint of Bass, Guinness or whatever.
That can vary too, as can the quality.
The prices, and maybe the quality, can vary but a pint is a pint of the product.
That is a woman who does not drink pints.
We will probably draft an order stating "crowns from" and so on. I understand that will be the legal way around it. It will be done as quickly as possible.
9 Ms Lynch asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if her attention has been drawn to reports that a number of pubs in Dublin significantly raised prices in the period around Ireland’s triple crown match in Lansdowne Road; the action she intends to take to prevent such exploitation of consumers; if, in view of reports of some pubs systematically increasing prices for special occasions, she will consider the imposition of a maximum prices order; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13813/04]
I am pleased the Director of Consumer Affairs has highlighted the fact that certain pubs in Dublin increased their prices for a recent international rugby match. While there was no breach of consumer protection legislation as the pubs in question displayed the increased prices they were charging, nonetheless the director's survey has highlighted the need for better consumer vigilance. The best way of ensuring that markets for goods or services are delivering value for money to consumers is through increased competition and greater consumer awareness. That is the objective towards which all our policy interventions in the field of competition and consumer policy are directed.
By and large, I agree with the Tánaiste that information provided to the consumer is the best mechanism to ensure competition, but does she accept that there are occasions when a more direct intervention is required? If there is a clear example of exploitation of a special occasion and of a captive market in a confined geographical area, is there not a case, in those exceptional circumstances, for a maximum prices order? Will she open her mind to that prospect if there is a continuation of clear exploitation of a captive market on a special occasion?
The answer is "no" because maximum orders tend to encourage everybody to go to the maximum. During the weekend concerned, hotels and flights were more expensive. Earlier today I spoke to an upset member of my staff who had booked tickets on the airline that went to the wall yesterday. She was trying to find alternatives to get her to her destination. She said that last week's flights on Aer Lingus cost so much but that this week, they cost more. That is the way companies operate——
That is capitalism.
When there is much business and demand, that is what people do and I do not believe any law can get around that. Many pubs in Dublin did not increase their prices. Tourists will go wherever they most enjoy being. We all know that when we are tourists, we often go to more expensive places because they are more convenient. I hope locals are more discerning. If they are regulars, I hope they make their views known by perhaps withdrawing their business, albeit temporarily. I know many of the well-known hostelries around here frequented by Members of this House also engaged in price hiking that weekend. I do not believe there is a legislative way around it. The fact that the director highlighted it will make people less likely to increase prices on the next occasion. The publicity was certainly bad for those who engaged in it. That might discourage this activity from happening on other occasions.
The Director of Consumer Affairs named and shamed those people. Does the Tánaiste agree it is time to appoint a consumer affairs enforcer who would set up a website to name and shame organisations ripping us off day after day? Is that not the way forward? Would her Department support the setting up of such a website and league tables of the best and worst in each area?
The director has the power to name and shame, as the Deputy said, and to bring whatever information she collects as a result of investigations into the public domain in whatever ways she believes appropriate. She did so effectively on this occasion and it got extensive publicity. Before Christmas, the director of consumer affairs at the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, Mary O'Dea, did the same in regard to insurance. She showed a huge variation for similar profiles. I believe there was an eightfold or more difference between the lowest and the highest. There was a huge variation in the cost of motor insurance.
Naming and shaming is the way to encourage people to reduce their prices. I hope it will also encourage consumers to be more vigilant and supportive of those who have behaved responsibly.
Would the Tánaiste not accept that the attitude she has displayed to this question is giving the green light to publicans to repeat the process on the next rugby weekend or another special occasion? She said she will do nothing other than let the market take its course, and she has invited people to shop around. That is no consolation, however, particularly for the tourism sector because such weekends attract fans from neighbouring nations. Is it the Tánaiste's view that if visitors are ripped off on their weekends here, it is an issue for the market? If they leave Ireland with the impression that we are an exploitative and costly country, does she intend to do anything about it?
Would the Tánaiste consider a proposal for the Director of Consumer Affairs to distribute a logo to businesses that are not ripping people off, rather like the logo for guaranteed Irish promotions in shop windows? Would she consider that a good idea?
As regards Deputy Howlin's question, I said that I would not introduce a maximum prices order because the experience in the past was that everybody goes to the maximum and feels that is the allowable threshold or acceptable rate. I made the point that hotels charge more for busy weekends and airlines charge more for tickets at such times. Generally, businesses tend to scale their activities to suit demand and, while we may not like that, it is the reality. In this case, the Director of Consumer Affairs undertook an investigative survey and put it into the public domain. Hopefully, that will succeed in frightening people into not doing this again. Whatever about airlines and hotel rooms which often have empty spaces during slack times when people are not travelling, pubs tend to do good business all year round. The name and shame approach is probably the most effective way of dealing with this, rather than by legislation.
As regards Deputy O'Dowd's question, I do not think the Director of Consumer Affairs could get involved in saying "X" is good and "Y" is bad.
Why not?
I do not know how many staff she would need to operate a system of that kind. One would have to constantly inspect a few hundred thousand businesses throughout the country.
We could start with pubs.
To have a State agency deciding what is good value is not the way to go about it.
If they are giving good value, why not do it?
The approach the director has taken in this case is the appropriate way to go. Hardly any country in the world has price control legislation because it is impossible to enforce. It is not a way of reducing prices for consumers or of delivering better value for money.
10 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the criteria which apply to the IDA and Enterprise Ireland on the nature of companies they can support; if restrictions exist for either agency on the basis that their client companies have to be engaged in a certain percentage of exporting activity; if it is possible for companies involved in import substitution to meet such criteria; and if not, if she will consider a review of such arrangements. [13895/04]
The decision whether to provide funding to a company is a day-to-day matter for the State agencies. Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland operate in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Development Acts and within the policy framework established by my Department.
Enterprise Ireland is the agency that has primary responsibility for the development of indigenous sector. A small or medium enterprise is considered to be a company employing between ten and 250 staff. The types of service that may be eligible for Enterprise Ireland support are scheduled in the Industrial Development (Service Industries) Order 2003. Enterprise Ireland also has responsibility for Irish-based food and natural resource companies that are overseas-owned or controlled. IDA Ireland is the agency with statutory responsibility for the attraction of foreign direct investment to Ireland.
Enterprise Ireland works with companies in its portfolio to assist them in growing their sales and exports, and to improve innovation in order that they can compete on world markets. It also supports entrepreneurs with the ability to initiate projects that can compete in international markets. It is not true that potential clients must be engaged in export activity. However they must be able to demonstrate that export activity is a real possibility for the company and that the company has an ambition in this regard. The key focus of Enterprise Ireland's policy is to work with companies which have the potential to develop sustainable export sales, and to qualify for support, a company should demonstrate clear potential to do this.
It may be possible for Enterprise Ireland and IDA clients involved in import substitution to meet support criteria as the business development plans of such clients are considered on their merits. Import substitution can contribute to the viability of a new or growing enterprise and, to that extent, it is a valuable and welcome constituent part of the client's target market and can be a component of a client's business plan. However, import substitution by itself is typically considered insufficient to justify significant resources. It is important for companies to recognise that Ireland operates within the single European market and that supplying the domestic market will be carried out in competition from suppliers in other European countries.
Import substitution could be effective in helping Irish industry to improve performance in many areas. I am thinking of the fish sector, for example, which is seasonal. As some fish products are plentiful at certain periods, their price could be maintained at reasonable levels if blast freezers were made available in ports. It would also create additional employment, albeit for a short period initially. The increase in turnover would help the companies concerned to expand into other areas beyond the realm of import substitution. Research and development also applies in this regard. Does the Tánaiste consider this area to be worth examining?
Import substitution clearly has a role to play, but it depends from where the imports come. We cannot support import substitution from taxpayers' money if the competitor is another European company from within the enlarged EU. If the company was Chinese or American, import substitution might have a role to play. This market is very small with a population of less than four million. Companies must focus on wider markets and must look at export potential, rather than substituting imports. We are trying to grow companies to succeed in selling products, not just in nearby markets but in far away ones also. The second largest market for Irish companies, after the United Kingdom, is the United States. The EU is now bigger than the US, but the US has emerged as a successful market for our new technology companies.
As the Deputy knows, I do not have responsibility for the food and fisheries sector. The food sector falls within the remit of the Minister for Agriculture and Food while the fisheries sector is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I would like to see greater value being added in both those sectors through more processing rather than some of the activities being engaged in whereby fish from Ireland is sold in Spain. We could get much greater value from our fishing industry than we may have realised to date.
11 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of deaths and serious accidents in the past three years from the use of tractors and farm machinery; and if she has further proposals on safety. [9070/04]
Under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, the Health and Safety Authority is the State body charged with overall responsibility for the administration, enforcement and promotion of workplace safety and health.
The breakdown of the number of deaths from the use of tractors and farm machinery is as follows:
|
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 (provisional) |
|
|
Machinery-related |
4 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
|
Tractor-related |
6 |
0 |
11 |
3 |
6 |
There is no specific data available on the level of non-fatal accidents in the sector from the use of tractors and farm machinery. The Health and Safety Authority set up a farm safety action group in February 2002. Its terms of reference include "the development of a national action programme, co-ordinating the actions of the representative organisations and assigning tasks". In April 2003, the group published the Farm Safety Plan 2003-2007. This plan sets specific targets against a base year of 2001, including a reduction by 50% in farm fatalities with no child fatalities, a reduction in the farm accident rate to less than 1,600 per annum and an increase to 50% of farmers complying with health and safety legislation.
The plan recognises the need for a range of activities to achieve these targets and has adopted an approach based on engineering controls, enforcement, and education and training. Central to the success of the plan is the development of a "safety partnership" between all of the interested parties to develop and co-ordinate the approach contained in the plan and for the parties to have given a written commitment to their contribution to the implementation of the plan. The Health and Safety Authority, as part of its commitment, is to undertake a minimum of 1,000 farm inspections in 2004, with appropriate enforcement action and follow up inspections being taken where necessary.
Following the publication of the plan, the Health and Safety Authority has established the farm safety action group as a standing committee of the board of the authority and the farm safety partnership advisory committee to ensure that the plan is progressed and kept under review.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
As indicated in the farm safety action plan, a series of surveys conducted by the Teagasc national farm survey since 1991 gives an estimate of accident trends during that period. In the Teagasc surveys a farm accident was defined as an event associated with farming activity, which impacted on normal work routine. An accident, therefore, must lead to an injury and must be associated with a farming activity. Data from the 1991, 1996 and 2001 farm surveys show both the number and the distribution of accidents per 100,000 people employed in farming as follows.
|
Year |
No. of Accidents |
No. of Accidents per 100,000 |
|
1991 |
5,000 |
1,970 |
|
1996 |
2,000 |
896 |
|
2001 |
3,100 |
1,805 |
While the overall number of accidents fell between 1991 and 1996, the accident level increased substantially again between 1996 and 2001. There were 1,805 accidents per 100,000 employed in farming in 2001, which is close to the 1991 figure of 1,970 accidents.
I am very disturbed by the figures quoted. However, I urge all those in farming to pay the utmost attention to all aspects of safety and where there are any questions in the minds of farmers in regard to any aspects of farm safety, they should seek the advice of the Health and Safety Authority.
I welcome the work of the Health and Safety Authority. I agree fully with the Tánaiste that the increased vigilance and inspection rates on farms can only help to avoid further serious and fatal accidents. In the past ten years, 43 children have died on farms, which is a frightening figure. Comparing the statistics in construction to those in agriculture, agriculture is a more dangerous sector. What further steps can we take to improve safety? The current television advertisements are effective and are helping to make people aware of the hazards that exist, particularly for young children.
As someone who grew up on a farm, I know farmers take enormous risks with young children. Part of the problem arises because the residence and the workplace are together and children are close by. Inspections and enforcement are crucial roles for the State, but education and awareness are also vital. Often people take chances with children that they do not think about and, as a result, we have seen so many tragedies that could have been avoided.
There should also be more emphasis on health and safety clothing and equipment. People go out on tractors without head gear and do not wear protective clothing while using chemicals and other dangerous substances. The farming community must be involved to a greater extent in an awareness and education programme and that is what the Health and Safety Authority is trying to achieve. It is involved in the stick approach of enforcement and the carrot approach of encouraging people to change their behaviour.
While I welcome the advertising campaign and its positive impact, does the Tánaiste accept that the Health and Safety Authority is already stretched when it comes to providing staff for on-site inspections in the construction sector, much less on every farm in the State? Does she see a role for the local authorities in this area? Could building regulations have a role, with a separation in planning terms between areas of a farm for industrial uses and the accommodation uses? Does she accept that many of the accidents that occur involve visitors who are less aware of the dangers? There should be physical barriers to ensure inexperienced visitors are protected.
The separation of building controls is worthy of consideration for new dwellings on farms. Many of the accidents occur on existing farms and many farmers are earning low levels of remuneration for their activities and we do not want to involve them in increased expenses. If people are cautious and aware of the dangers, it will go a long way towards minimising the risk. I agree with Deputy Howlin — many of the accidents on farms involve relatives or visitors and the onus is on the owner of the property or the driver of the tractor to do everything possible to keep young children away from farming activities and machinery.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
