Phil Hogan
Question:111 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the legislative changes he plans in view of the recent judgment in the DCC-Fyffes case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4190/06]
Priority Questions.
Proposed Legislation.
The legislative and regulatory regime that applied to the DCC-Fyffes case was Part V of the Companies Act 1990. Part V has been largely repealed with the introduction of a new more robust and more wide-ranging regime which came into effect on 6 July 2005. This new regime consists of the Market Abuse (Directive 2003/6/EC) Regulations 2005 and Part 4 of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005, which together transposed the EU market abuse directive. This directive provides for a common EU legal framework for preventing, detecting, investigating and sanctioning both insider dealing and market manipulation, that is, where someone seeks to distort the price of financial instruments or disseminates information in a manner that gives false or misleading signals about financial instruments. It also provides for a common approach on disclosure of price sensitive information to the market to limit scope for insider dealing.
While the Irish Stock Exchange was the competent authority for purposes of the old Part V regime, member states are no longer permitted to designate market operators-stock exchanges as competent authorities under the new market abuse regime. The directive specifically requires that the competent authority must be an administrative authority "completely independent from all market participants". The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority — the Financial Regulator — has been designated as the competent authority for policing and enforcing compliance under the new legislation. The new regime applies to any financial instrument admitted to trading on a regulated market or where a request for admission to trading on such a market has been made. Essentially this covers the vast majority of listed companies in Ireland.
It does not, however, apply to dealings-transactions in financial instruments of companies listed in the new Irish Stock Exchange junior market, known as IEX, which was launched last year. While markets such as IEX are outside the scope of the directive, it is planned to bring them in from a national policy viewpoint. The Financial Regulator asked that we should defer doing this until the new legislation had been bedded down and it is planned to make the necessary changes later this year.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In the meantime IEX companies continue to be subject to the Part V regime by virtue of provisions in the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005.
While acknowledging in her judgment in the DCC-Fyffes case on 21 December 2005 that Part V of the 1990 Act has been largely repealed by the new legislation, Ms Justice Laffoy nevertheless expressed the view that it would be prudent if section 109(1)(b) of Part V, in so far as it is still of relevance, were reviewed by the Legislature with a view to eliminating the uncertainty she perceives it creates. Section 109(1)(b) deals with civil liability and the judge saw some scope for argument as to the precise person to whom the provision refers. The issue is being examined by the Department in consultation with the company law review group with a view to seeing what legislative and-or drafting changes are necessary to address the issue raised by the judge.
Does the Minister agree the role played by the Stock Exchange in its initial response to the allegations of insider dealing in Fyffes raises concerns about a cosy club operating between those involved in big business and the supposed regulator of the sector at the time? Has he raised his concerns about this issue with the Director of Corporate Enforcement? What measures does he intend to take to ensure customers, as investors or through their involvement in pension funds, are protected against sharp practices involving publicly quoted shares?
Fundamentally, a new regulatory regime is operational to cover all these areas and it will be overseen by a new competent authority, the Financial Regulator. I am aware of the commentary on the DCC-Fyffes case, including that of Ms Justice Laffoy in her judgment, and we are examining the issues raised. I have referred a number of them to the company law review group with a view to ascertaining what additional legislative amendments may be necessary to deal with them. However, the legislative and regulatory regime that pertains is quite different from that which applied in the context of the case mentioned by the Deputy.
The Minister will agree that customers and pension fund investors are potentially the big losers if anything goes wrong in the regulation of the Stock Exchange. Is there a role for the National Consumer Agency in examining this matter given that we must be certain that pension funds are invested legally and transparently and that they are accountable? Reservations expressed by Ms Justice Laffoy in her judgment raise doubts about that. We want to clear up this matter once and for all. Will the Minister agree not only to refer the matter to the company law review group, with which I agree, but also to the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the National Consumer Agency, the chairperson of which might have expertise in this area?
No, I do not agree with the Deputy. I have referred the case to the company law review group to seek advice on specific points raised in the judgment. Over recent years, EU legislation has been adopted in all the areas mentioned, a number of which were originally covered by my Department. One of the features of the radically new and robust legislation is that member states are no longer permitted to designate market operators or stock exchanges as competent authorities and, therefore, the competent authority must be an administrative authority independent of all market participants.
The following is the current position on new EU legislation. The prospectus directive was transposed into Irish law on 1 July 2005; the new market abuse directive was transposed on 6 July 2005, with a number of provisions coming into effect on 1 October 2005; and a new ongoing disclosure obligation under the transparency directive is due for transposition by January 2007. IFSRA has been designated as the competent authority for the purposes of the new prospectus and market abuse directives and it will also be designated as the competent authority in respect of the transparency directive.
Overall political responsibility for the Stock Exchange rests with the Minister for Finance under the Stock Exchange Act 1995 which provides for the regulation of stock exchanges and their members. The Act provides the Financial Regulator with substantial powers in the initial authorisation of Stock Exchange members and their ongoing supervision.
Job Protection.
Brendan Howlin
Question:112 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date in 2006 with his consultations on the establishment of a joint labour committee to protect the interests of domestic workers, especially in view of evidence of exploitation of domestic workers from abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4163/06]
Arthur Morgan
Question:115 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the actions he is taking to protect migrant workers who are employed as domestic workers; and his plans to introduce employment regulation orders outlining rates of pay and minimum standards for domestic workers in light of increasing evidence that these workers are being exploited and mistreated. [4143/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 112 and 115 together.
The labour inspectorate of my Department is responsible for monitoring certain employment conditions for all categories of workers, including immigrant workers. The inspectorate operates without differentiation with regard to worker nationality as statutory employment rights and protections apply to immigrant workers in exactly the same manner as they do to other workers. In the area of pay and conditions, it is primarily the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 that apply to employees employed in domestic service. I have no function in the introduction of employment regulation orders, EROs. Such powers are vested in joint labour committees and the Labour Court.
Section 36 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 provides that an application for the establishment of a joint labour committee can be made to the Labour Court by the Minister, or a trade union or any organisation or group of persons claiming to be representative of relevant workers or of relevant employers. The possibility of establishing a joint labour committee, under the auspices of the Labour Court, has been mooted and is under examination in my Department to determine the feasibility of that approach, including enforcement difficulties arising from provisions in our Constitution and in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Labour Relations Commission commissioned the University of Limerick to carry out a review of the JLC system in 2005. Arising from this review and following bilateral consultations with the social partners and stakeholders, the Department has prepared a paper that will be used as the basis for implementation of the review in further consultation with the social partners and stakeholders, in the context of the forthcoming partnership talks. The issue of a JLC for domestic workers, and proposals for new JLCs for other sectors, will be considered in this context.
The Minister indicated to me in December last that his Department had held bilateral discussions with relevant stakeholders regarding the implementation of the recommendations in the University of Limerick review. In December, the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs promised that the establishment of a JLC for domestic workers was being considered. Since then, there have been two reports, one from the Migrant Rights Centre, which documented cases of low pay, excessive working hours, unreasonable working conditions, illegal deductions and threatening deportation, among women engaged in domestic work here. An investigation by the Irish Independent found that some young women are being paid as little as €25 for a 14-hour day. It found that women who come here to work as nannies, carers and domestic workers end up “being treated as domestic slaves, working 14-hour days, for six days a week, sometimes for as little €1.75 an hour”. In the context of that evidence, since the Minister gave me an assurance that the establishment of a system of protecting rights for this category of workers was being considered, will he now accept that it is time he implemented that recommendation, if such a recommendation exists? What is his view on the establishment of a JLC for domestic workers? In the interim, what steps will he take to protect from gross exploitation such vulnerable people who have come to our country?
Any abuse of domestic workers is unacceptable and deserves to be condemned on all sides of the House. My Department no longer generally issues work permits for domestic workers, including carers or minders and nannies, except in exceptional and limited circumstances where the Department may have an assurance that workers have supports in place. As I outlined in my initial reply, the bottom line is that there are significant legal issues in terms of the enforcement powers that labour inspectors would normally have when engaged in compliance checking on entry to the employer's premises and on sight of documentation and so on. However, where the place of work is a domestic dwelling, the position is different. For example, the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 40 and 43 of the Constitution come into play and place considerable restrictions on the power of an inspector to enter the said premises.
I am aware of the difficulties. What will the Minister do about it?
These are relevant in the context of inspectors entering private dwellings in pursuance of employment rights compliance checking and enforcement. Article 40.5 of the Constitution provides that the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law. Article 43 of the Constitution provides as follows:
The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.
I know all that.
If the Deputy knows it, he will understand why there is a time lag between September and now.
The Minister will do nothing.
The Deputy made a big song and dance about being told something by the Minister of State in September. I am pointing out the very real difficulties that occur. We would like to provide a constitutional amendment. We are in discussions with the social partners.
They tend to be——
As the Deputy will be aware, there are other issues in that some of the social partners put forward the idea that recruiting agencies or employment agencies should be designated as representing employers. I would have difficulty with this proposal because it is not logical. I do not think they could represent individuals who would employ people in this context. We have consulted the Labour Court and discussed the matter with the Labour Relations Commission. While the feasibility of this proposal is difficult, we have a positive predisposition to it. We will be anxious to resolve some of the issues during the social partnership discussions.
Has the Minister plans to ensure that domestic workers are made aware of their rights? It is fine to stand here and quote the Constitution. Many Irish workers do not know what is in the Constitution, much less domestic workers coming here from abroad on work permits. Has the Minister plans to make these workers aware of the rates of pay and minimum standards that should apply, for example? Is the Minister considering encouraging these people to join trade unions who would, in turn, make them aware of their rights?
I am pleased these priority questions have been tabled this afternoon because domestic workers are probably the most vulnerable of all workers in the State because they are employed behind closed doors. We know that large groups of workers are not being inspected, so what chance have these people? How many inspections have been carried out in terms of domestic workers? Given that the Minister knows where these workers are, because they are subject to work permits, can he give the House this information this evening? The report of the Migrant Rights Centre outlined how these people are completely isolated. It outlined terrible personal cases of how workers were brutalised in these homes. Is the Minister taking steps to ensure that further inspections will take place? Many victims believe that because the work permit is held by the employer, it is another stick to use against them. They feel they are caught in a trap from which they cannot get free. Has the Minister seen the report of the Migrant Rights Centre and will he react on foot of it?
We will meet the migrant action group at some stage to discuss the matters they raised in the context of the Work Permits Bill which is currently going through the House. Part of the legislation relates to the positioning of key information on work permits in terms of wages, conditions of employment and so on which seeks to give added protection to workers, including issuing work permits to workers. This will strengthen the information available to migrant workers. In addition, FÁS has engaged in a substantial information campaign on labour law and the Irish labour situation.
Through what means?
Through multilingual leaflets and a lo-call phone service whereby people from different countries can ring up and get a response in their own language on their rights and entitlements, what is available in terms of employment opportunities and so on. The Know Before You Go campaign aims to talk to people before they arrive in Ireland about their entitlements and so on. I recently launched that campaign with FÁS.
As I said earlier, we do not issue work permits generally for domestic workers because of the difficulties involved in enforcement and the potential for abuse to emerge. This has been a very restrictive feature on issuing work permits to domestic workers. We are aware of very difficult cases where people with significant illnesses who live at home require domestic support and help. In some cases we have responded positively in those situations where we have been given certain guarantees and assurances about supports that would be available. Given the demographics and the way the country is going, if we can get the enforcement and compliance issues right, there is potential for a proper, regulated market in the area of domestic employment. I hope we can iron out some of the representational and legal issues in the context of social partnership because there are wider issues around the joint labour committees and also around the issue of labour law enforcement, on which we have engaged comprehensively and substantively with the social partners.
The latter statement from the Minister is the most important one, that is, that the response should not be to exclude people because there is a definite need and a requirement for people to come, but to regulate properly. That really is the nub of my question; how are we going to regulate properly? Will the Minister indicate how it will happen in the short term? Negotiating with the social partners is one thing.
I welcome the Minister's indication that he will meet with the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland in regard to the work permits Bill, but will he specifically meet the Domestic Workers Support Group, which is a subsidiary of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, to hear the specific difficulties it has? Perhaps it could help in finding a solution in regard to this matter.
What is the extent of the Know Before You Go campaign? In what countries does it operate to give clear information? I spoke to a Polish national at the weekend who said Poles ring her all the time and they are unaware of their rights or entitlements. Poles are the most populous group of immigrant workers here so countries that would not be represented in such great numbers would be less likely to have access to that information. I hope the Minister will use the embassies to ensure people come equipped with information.
Of course we will meet with the group suggested by Deputy Howlin. I will come back to him on that. Second, I will organise for FÁS to brief the Deputies in the House on that campaign and the scale of it. The campaign is concentrating on the high volume countries — Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.
Domestic servants would usually come from countries other than those.
We do not issue many work permits for this type of work. There may be a degree of unregulated employment in this area which would be illegal. If non-EU persons are working here without work permits that would contravene the law but it also makes it more difficult in terms of enforcement personnel dealing with the issue.
Quite a number of workers are in that category and we should be dealing with them. The position is that we can only deal with those workers who have work permits. When can we expect to see some protections emerging on foot of the University of Limerick study?
I hope and trust we can reach an agreed solution between Government and the social partners on a broad approach to the enforcement of, and compliance with, our labour law. All of these issues are being actively discussed.
Wage Levels.
Eamon Ryan
Question:113 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his Department has evidence of the lowering of average wage levels within certain sectors of the economy here due to an increase in labour supply from new European accession states; and the measures that are available to the Government to counter such a trend should it develop. [4405/06]
It is very difficult to provide evidence regarding the impact on wage levels of the increase in new European accession states' nationals working here. This is because it is not possible to conclusively isolate this impact from that of the various other factors that affect wage levels.
It is true that a significant number of EU-10 nationals have joined our labour force since accession in May 2004. We know that since May 2004 over 160,000 PPS numbers have been issued to them. Based on Revenue Commissioners data, it is estimated that about 70% of these people have employment details and therefore worked here at some stage, although many of them may have returned home in the meantime.
Preliminary indications regarding whether the participation of these EU-10 nationals has had a significant impact on overall wage levels, or on unemployment rates here, are that in overall terms it has not. Unemployment in Ireland remains at very low levels and has averaged 4.3% over the past year, the lowest in the European Union. In the year to the third quarter of 2005, employment grew by 5.1%, in other words, an additional 96,000 jobs were created, of which about 40,000 were taken up by non-nationals. In general, non-national workers appear to be filling jobs in those sectors which are experiencing strong jobs growth.
Most sectors of the economy in which a high proportion of EU-10 nationals are working are also showing fairly robust levels of earnings growth. For example, many EU nationals are working in the construction sector and the latest figures for that sector show fairly strong annual wage growth to the third quarter of 2005 of 6.8%.
I am fully committed to ensuring the employment rights of these workers are effectively enforced on the same basis as their Irish colleagues. As Deputies are aware, this issue is being discussed with the social partners at talks that began last Thursday. I assure Deputy Eamon Ryan that all efforts are being made to ensure that the State's employment legislation covers all employees and exploitation will not be tolerated.
I take the point that the measures we have protect all workers but concerns exists that while we have certain protections in terms of, for example, the minimum wage, the real concern among trade unions and elsewhere is that this may become a standard wage and that we need more scientific evidence as to what exactly is going on. The figures the Minister gave for the construction industry are interesting and would dispel such concerns, given the percentage increase outlined by him. Does the Minister not agree that the real concern in this issue is a decrease in wage levels, rather than the issue of displacement, given our low unemployment rate and the research done by the Green Party?
The broad analysis of the CSO figures shows the percentage increase in job numbers. Given this has not been matched by a corresponding increase in tax revenue, is this a possible indication that while evidence shows wage levels in the construction industry are not decreasing, it may be occurring in other sectors? How does the Minister propose to be more scientific in analysing this area?
The Minister did not really address in his response what measures we could introduce or avail of if such a trend was to occur. In terms of a putative services directive, it appears the real concern is that we do not have legislative teeth in Ireland to protect wage levels, which does exist in other continental countries and that would be recognised within the framework of a services directive. We do not have the ability to avoid the minimum wage becoming, in a sense, the standard wage here. How can we get more scientific information and what can we do to hold up wage levels? Does the Minister believe we should be doing that?
We have fairly robust legislation, above and beyond the minimum wage, in terms of sectoral wage agreements.
It is very limited.
They exist and those areas are being explored in the context of the current talks. I am not saying what is our position on that but we are exploring the whole registered employment agreements, REAs, scenario. They are well developed in the construction sector and have been for quite some time. We have engaged in sectoral agreements. I have also asked FÁS to study the impact of economic migration on the issues of both displacement and earnings. Some preliminary work has been done but the study is still in progress. As soon as we have some data from FÁS, we will send it to the Deputy. I note that Mr. Beggs of AIB is publishing its analysis of the matter at some stage today and I hope to study those figures.
The difficulty is that in some areas of manufacturing, agriculture and construction there may be some indicators of wages not climbing as high as others but that could be due to a number of factors. In manufacturing, for example, it could be due to some indigenous companies not participating in some aspects of it or to people deciding not to go overseas with their companies. I noticed in the past year that we have received more applications for work permits in agriculture than was the case in previous years. The argument being made is that it is increasingly difficult to get young people to seek careers in agriculture, particularly in manual work on farms. There can be a variety of factors leading to change in some sectors of the economy.
As other political representatives have mooted, one could look at whether one wants to stem the tide of migration into the country. I did not anticipate that was what Deputy Eamon Ryan was envisaging and that is why I did not go down that road. In fairness to him, he never has taken that position. That is an obvious instrument if one wanted to restrict the numbers coming in but that could create other pressures within the economy if there was not sufficient supply. Currently our migration policy very much tracks the labour market trends.
In the context of social partnership there is some exploration of the idea of some sectoral agreements, although flexibility is important on the other side of the equation, in terms of the overall cost base of the economy etc.
The Minister is correct in that my party is not of the view that restricting European Union accession state citizens to the labour market is the way to proceed.
Regarding sectoral agreements some of which he mentioned existed here in a certain capacity, would the Minister agree with my understanding, which is derived from discussions with people who are examining it, particularly the development of the services directive, that under European rules and regulations such agreements here have no teeth and no binding force, and that the concern is that if we go down the route of this continued development in terms of globalisation or of opening our markets, as we do not have such support structures we may well see a widespread lowering of wage rates? Has his Department examined how those sectoral agreements could have real force? When he gets that information from FÁS, would he send it to the representatives of the other parties here so we can have a broad, open and honest debate on the issue?
I certainly will do that. Overall, the evidence is not that there is a wholesale dramatic decline in wage levels.
He should look at the income tax take from last year.
Yes, but wage levels generally have increased across the economy.
The income tax take, with 90,000 extra people working——
I just made the point in the context of the construction industry, that they went up approximately 6.8%. Likewise the AIB analysis, published today, states the case remains to be proven or is not proven in terms of the issue.
It depends on which newspaper one reads.
That does not mean of course that we do not have to be vigilant about this. We must be vigilant because the Government's position is not to undermine living standards or drive down the earnings of people because we worked too hard to build the economy and to build the living standards and quality of life for all concerned.
There are approximately 300 amendments tabled for the services directive, which is in draft form. It has a long journey to go. I am particularly keen that we ensure our basic laws, in terms of pay, rates and conditions, are protected from anything the services directive has to bring forward.
I listened to the debate in the House on the services directive and despite all the polemic commentary, everyone in the House stated by the way that they believed there should be some liberalisation and believed in the idea of access to markets.
Absolutely.
Much Irish employment is dependent on access to European markets.
That is not the argument. They are not mutually exclusive.
Only last week I was with a company announcing an extra 50 jobs. It employs 250 already. It is in the services side of the economy and is looking for markets overseas. It is looking to break down barriers and regulations to get into other markets. We cannot have it both ways but our agenda is to achieve liberalisation of the market whilst protecting our basic standards.
Economic Competitiveness.
Phil Hogan
Question:114 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action he intends to take to control price rises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4191/06]
My policy and that of the Government is to provide that both consumer and competition law operate in such a way that the economic well-being of the consumer is maximised. The objective of consumer policy is to provide consumers with the knowledge required to make informed choices, to provide protection from unscrupulous traders and to guarantee that consumer interests are reflected in the decision making and enforcement process. Competition policy assists the consumer by providing a choice of goods and services at a range of prices.
I therefore have no plans to reintroduce price control. I recall that during the 1980s when maximum prices orders under the Prices Acts 1958 to 1972 were last in force, products covered by the orders quickly resulted in the maximum price being the minimum price. To reintroduce maximum price requirements would not only contradict the objectives of consumer and competition policy but would act against the economic interests of consumers by ensuring prices for products could not respond to competitive movements in the market. Such a policy would penalise many while it is unclear whether it would benefit those for whom it was aimed.
Along with our phenomenal economic growth in recent years there has been an accompanying rise in the cost of living. Notwithstanding this, I am pleased to note that the consumer price index fell to 2.5% in December 2005, the latest month for which figures are available. The inflation trend for 2005 was one of relative stability. When energy products are excluded from the overall consumer price index, annual inflation averaged 1.7% for the year. This highlights the impact of mainly imported energy products on our inflation. However, this should not stop us from using the policy tools we have at hand to affect prices. As regards grocery prices, one of the main provisions of the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005, currently before the Oireachtas, is to revoke the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order 1987. I expect that once the groceries order is repealed we will see greater competition in the retail grocery sector and prices will reflect this increased competition in the sector.
The Consumer Strategy Group Report of May 2005 recommended the revocation of the groceries order. The principal recommendation of the group was the establishment of a new National Consumer Agency. This has been accepted by Government and I have established the agency on an interim basis. I hope to publish legislation to establish the new agency on a statutory basis later this year. The interim board of the agency has been involved in raising consumer awareness regarding their rights. The agency will have specific statutory powers and responsibilities in areas such as consumer advocacy, information, education and awareness, enforcement and research. I am certain that equipped with these powers the NCA will be able to make a positive impact and shift the balance more towards consumers as recommended by the Consumer Strategy Group. The Government will continue to use all the policy options available to ensure the interests of the consumer are protected.
The Minister has indicated it is always the Government's policy to keep prices down. I do not know where he has been living for the past number of years but he and the Government have been responsible for 41 additional taxes and stealth charges since the last general election. Such inflation, introduced and imposed by Government arising from its decisions, has been running at six times the rate of inflation for the 12 months to the end of October 2005. That is a significant contribution the Minister and the Government are making to increasing prices to the consumer across the board.
In that context, notwithstanding some of the comments the Minister has made about being pro-active in terms of the Competition Authority, I am not surprised he wants to exclude energy from the calculation of inflation. Honing in on the energy area of electricity charges and gas charges, there has been a 25% increase in gas charges in 2005 and a 61% increase in energy prices in the past four years. Would the Minister indicate his view on the policy of his Department on the role of regulators, particularly in energy, and the massive contribution such regulators are making towards the deterioration of competitiveness?
That is somewhat unfair.
What is unfair?
I have some difficulty with the Deputy's presentation on prices generally. The National Competitiveness Council produced a clear analysis of where we are strong and weak in terms of competitiveness. It made clear that there was a lack of intense competition in the domestic markets, that the most productive side of the economy was the foreign direct investment side, and yet when we move to do something, for example, the abolition of the groceries order, Deputy Hogan in a calculated manner does everything possible to undermine that initiative and opposes it in the House——
The Minister's backbenchers agree with me.
This is despite its identification by all concerned — those on the consumer and competition side and who advise us——
Why did he not do it properly?
All of them say this will have a beneficial effect on price and will not lead to artificially——
We know that. Who is saying that?
——high prices. What does the Deputy do? He comes in and opposes it, tooth and nail, for electoral gain or to deal with certain vested interests. The Deputy has been straddling both sides of the equation.
We know from where the Minister is coming.
I am talking about prices. The Deputy cannot come in every day asking questions of the Government, like "What will it do about prices?"
He should answer the question asked.
When we do something about prices, the Deputy uses his legislative muscle to frustrate and thwart an initiative that can have a beneficial impact on prices.
I obviously upset the Minister.
No, he did not. I am stating in the House that the Deputy needs to realise that producing websites is not the panacea for bringing prices down, that one must make concrete, substantive legislative change to make an impact.
I hit a nerve. The Minister has a nerve.
In that respect, the Deputy is not giving due credit to our attempts, particularly in the context of the amendment of the Competition Act, to make a beneficial impact on prices.
This is an ard-fheis rehearsal.
We all know what has been happening internationally on energy prices.
Do we?
We know we depend significantly on imported energy. We have some structural issues that other countries do not have, for example, a strong reliance on fossil fuel energy which has cost implications.
The Government has done very little to reduce that.
The only reason I mentioned the impact of energy prices on our inflation was that if one removes the importation of energy, Irish inflation shows a good performance in the degree to which it is converging with the EU average inflation rate of 2.5%.
The Minister is obviously upset that Government-imposed sectoral prices have been contributing six times the rate of inflation to the overall prices in many sectors. The Government has been responsible for 41 additional taxes and charges since the last general election. No amount of rhetoric and palaver from the Minister today will disguise that fact.
How does he propose to stem the tide of Government-imposed prices to stop activity of the type happening in recent years, particularly in the energy sector? Government has imposed and sanctioned, through its regulatory policy, massive——
Rubbish.
The Minister sets the policy for the regulators. There is no competition in the energy area, despite all the commitments and promises made when the regulator was established. Will the Minister outline the action proposed by the Competition Authority to open many areas to competition, including energy?
When Government establishes a regulatory regime and regulators the last thing it should do is interfere, intervene or try to undermine them. The idea behind developing a liberal and competitive market is that it should be regulated independently of Government. It is facile and over-simplistic of the Deputy to label all sectors as filtering back to Government through local authorities and regulators etc. The Deputy's party gained extra seats in the last local elections and, along with other Opposition parties, has control of local authorities.
That is a sign of things to come.
I have seen no downward pressure, however, on rates, development charges or any other charges from those local authorities.
Where do they get their money?
Central Government funds them. It provides 60%——
Where will they get the money?
There is a lack of any real and substantive commitment to the issue of prices generally. That is the reality. On the wider issue, inflation is approximately 2.3%.
It is 2.6%.
That is a significant improvement on recent years. I do not accept the fundamental tenet of the Opposition's proposition, particularly in the context of this year's Estimates for local authorities.
Where is the improvement? Inflation has increased.
Members of Deputy Hogan's party would abandon the increase in some counties without due regard for business or competitive issues.
The Government has given them no money.
The time for Priority Questions has expired. We must, therefore, take Question No. 116 in ordinary time.
Question No. 115 answered with QuestionNo. 112.