Vol. 679 No. 2
31 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if it is intended to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the advisory group on media mergers published on 2 January 2009; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13366/09]
Under the media provisions of the Competition Act 2002, my role as the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment involves consideration of media mergers in the context of the "relevant criteria" set out in section 23 (10) of the Act. These criteria essentially relate to diversity and plurality, the strength and competitiveness of the media businesses indigenous to the State and the dispersion of media ownership among individuals and other undertakings.
In 2008, my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, initiated a review of the legislative provisions applying to media mergers. This was aimed at examining the criteria and arrangements for considering and assessing how a proposed merger might affect the diversity of views and the concentration of ownership within and across media businesses.
The media merger advisory group was established to assist in this review, which was undertaken as part of my Department's wider review of the operation and implementation of the Competition Act 2002. My Department is currently considering the recommendations contained in the advisory group's report. It is my intention to bring forward legislation during the course of this year which will reform aspects of competition law, including with regard to media mergers and which will also implement the merger of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority as announced in October last year.
I thank the Minister for her reply. The Minister knows the importance of the media in any democracy. It is important that this is recognised by statute and that an amendment is made to include a definition of "media". The definition of "media business" also needs to be defined and amended to include the publication of newspapers and periodicals and the broadcast of certain audio-visual material over the Internet because this is where much is happening.
I tabled this question because more and more newspapers and television and radio stations are becoming concentrated in the hands of a few; the Minister will accept this is the case. Her job is to protect the public interest. Therefore, I put it to her that the relevant criteria which she is examining with regard to the public interest is too narrow as defined in the Competition Act. This needs to be expanded to include the new forms of media presentation. This is extremely important to ensure plurality in the ownership of the media. Does the Minister consider that media ownership at present is concentrated in too few hands?
I should not care to answer that question.
Everyone knows that it is. Certainly if one is on the left of the spectrum, it is concentrated in too few hands.
The reason this was introduced in the first place is exactly as Deputy Penrose stated. The issue of relevant criteria and their expansion is very important and is being evaluated. I had anticipated more retort or at least more response from outside the Department on this issue when the report was launched. Unfortunately, we did not receive a huge amount of traction on it.
Many people did not know the report was launched.
I launched it.
The Minister launched it on 2 January.
Yes. It is out there.
We thought it was a bad day.
I thought there would be an avalanche but there has not been. I am very conscious of the relevant criteria and I believe that plurality is extremely important. We are working through a number of the recommendations. Deputy Penrose is correct that one of the recommendations is on the new types of media and this will be incorporated.
Will it be before the end of the year?
Yes, it must be because of other legislation. If Deputy Penrose wishes to put forward a view, I will be happy to take it on board.
I thank the Minister.
32 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when she will make a reasoned response to the report of the Committee of Public Accounts on mismanagement at FÁS; her views on the recommendations; when she will implement them; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13503/09]
I welcome the report of the Committee of Public Accounts on FÁS and commend the committee for the work carried out in this matter. I note that while the report in general concentrates on what went wrong in FÁS, it also points out that the good work being done by the staff should not be overlooked in any commentary.
Many of the issues contained in the report have already been aired in public. Previously, I have expressed my concerns in respect of various matters raised by internal audit reports in FÁS and subsequently taken up by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his earlier report on a number of public bodies.
Since the publication of these reports, a series of steps has been undertaken to deal with the matters raised. In particular, FÁS has clarified its procedures and strengthened its internal controls, including in the audit and procurement areas, and has passed certain issues to the Garda for investigation. A copy of the internal audit report INV 137, which was the basis for the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, has been sent to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. The Comptroller and Auditor General has commenced a wide-ranging investigation in FÁS, which includes internal controls, governance arrangements, marketing and advertising and specific follow-up of matters raised in the course of hearings of the Committee of Public Accounts. The chairman of FÁS, following a request from my Department has provided an undertaking that FÁS is now fully compliant with Department of Finance regulations on foreign travel. The board of FÁS has stated that whatever additional actions are necessary arising from the report will be fully implemented.
In keeping with standard practice, a formal response to the Committee of Public Accounts on this report will be contained in the minute of the Minister for Finance on the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Fourth Interim Report on Special Report 10 of the Comptroller and Auditor General and FÁS 2007 Accounts. Officials in my Department and FÁS are currently preparing their inputs into the Minister for Finance's minute.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am glad to hear that the internal report INV 137 is being referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement because this was one of the strong recommendations of the report. Many of the recommendations cited in the Minister of State's reply relate to FÁS and to its board. Recommendations were also made with regard to the structure of the board and that the Labour Services Act should be amended to make the director general more accountable. Have these been addressed by the Department?
We are taking into account the findings of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. In fairness, much previous commentary was against the backdrop of these investigations. We will await the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and then do a full evaluation. It would be appropriate that we would only allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate and make recommendations. On foot of that, there will be a full review and analysis of FÁS on all aspects of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
Does the Minister of State believe the board needs restructuring or that there should be more accountability? Members of the board are appointed directly by the Minister, yet they do not report directly to her. Are there proposals to restructure the board?
The board is made up of the constituent parts of the social partnership process. There are nominations from the social partners, but we will await the outcome of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. A constitutional position like that deserves respect, and we will do a full evaluation on the report when he publishes it. We have not ruled anything in or out, as the old cliché goes.
It is important to agree with the Minister of State that good work is being done by staff at FÁS. Will he implement the recommendations of the report?
Is the Deputy referring to the report of the Committee of Public Accounts or the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Will he implement the recommendations of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General? When will they be implemented?
I appreciate the Deputy's comments. Many staff experienced anxiety during the turbulent period before Christmas. We should acknowledge that, especially for front line staff. The first thing we should do is await the report. When it is finalised and published, there will be broad discussions on its content.
I cannot comment on a report that has not been completed.
My concern is that there is not any sense of urgency to deal with the issues that have arisen in FÁS. The scandal that came to light in FÁS occurred almost a year ago. We have since had a report published by the Committee of Public Accounts, while the Comptroller and Auditor General is compiling his report now.
Much good work is done in FÁS, but it is also an agency with a budget of more than €1 billion. Much of the work done by that agency is no longer fit for purpose. The Minister of State was with me on "Prime Time" last night, and he heard the stories of the new unemployed, people with skills but for whom FÁS has very little. There is a great opportunity to re-found the agency to make it more relevant to the times in which we live. We can also make it accountable and implement some of the changes in the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not understand why there is no sense of urgency from the Government on this.
Can the Minister of State at least give us a timeframe? Will we have to wait until the recession is over before these measures are implemented? The Government has claimed it is dealing with the structural deficit in the budget and that the Fianna Fáil deficit will be cleared in five years.
There is much urgency in this. At the time these problems arose, the Tánaiste requested the Comptroller and Auditor General to go in and do an evaluation. As the Committee of Public Accounts had initiated hearings and discussions, the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated, out of respect for that committee, that he would await its report on FÁS. The Comptroller and Auditor General is in there now. It is a constitutional position and we should afford him the time to investigate and compile a report. When that report is completed, we will have a full discussion on it.
A new CEO will be appointed to FÁS in the very near future. We are very conscious of what is happening. There is a simplistic debate about FÁS and its budget of more than €1 billion. Much of that budget is used as a paymaster budget for allowances, training programmes and so on. It is not a €1 billion budget that is spent on training courses; it is also spent on the allowances for the trainees on those courses. More than 2,200 staff are employed by FÁS and they provide front line services to the unemployed and in re-training. The idea that €1 billion is being sloshed around the place is factually incorrect, and the Deputy knows that as well as I do. We all accept that FÁS must rise to the challenge, and it is doing that. However, the idea that €1 billion is being spent on training is not correct. It is being spent on the people who are participating in the training programmes.
Priority Question No. 26 was in the name of Deputy Varadkar. I put it to the end of priority questions, but the Deputy was unavoidably detained. I can take it now as an ordinary question, but that will require the agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.
26 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she will ensure there will be no reduction in funding to Skillnets in 2009; her views on proposals to include newly redundant people in Skillnets training; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13739/09]
Government funding of the Skillnets training networks programme, which supports enterprise-led training in the workplace, has increased in recent years. Public funding of all training networks and in-company training programmes managed by Skillnets Limited amounted to €26.7 million in 2008. This level of funding has been indicative of the Government's commitment to upskilling persons in employment, with particular emphasis on those with low basic skills, in order to retain and enhance employability and maintain competitiveness. The programme's budget is provided through the national training fund, with levels of matching funding provided by the private sector.
The changed economic and employment market has meant many of the workers who would have benefited from training programmes for those in employment are now unemployed. In my view, this means we must adjust our training programmes to the new reality of the labour market. That is why my Department is implementing a number of initiatives to increase training for the unemployed. This will mean refocusing some of the finite budgetary resources for training towards activation measures aimed at training greater numbers of unemployed persons. It is because of this that the Skillnets training network programme allocation for 2009 is under review in the forthcoming April budget.
I am aware that proposals have been made to my Department from Skillnets on how the enterprise-led Skillnets training network model might potentially be of assistance in the training and up-skilling of the unemployed and of part-time workers. These proposals are currently under discussion with the Department. All departmental budgets are under review. Any re-allocations that result will reflect the funding priorities that have been agreed by the Government and the changes necessary to support their delivery.
As this question is being taken in ordinary time, any Deputy may intervene. I call on Deputy Varadkar.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State for agreeing to allow the question. Skillnets does an excellent job. It is one of the examples of money that is well spent. It provides excellent training, it is largely employer-led and it gives the people who work in those industries the skills they need to improve the competitiveness of the industry and to go on to promotion and better jobs. I would not like to see it cut, and if it is cut, the Minister of State can be sure it is one cut Fine Gael will definitely reverse in Government.
When will the Minister of State tell us about cuts? There are 100 Skillnets companies across the country, and they have been told their budgets will be cut by 26% this year. We are already half way through the year, and the companies must make commitments. Will we know by next Tuesday whether the Government is going to cut Skillnets? I also understand that the Minister of State is analysing the idea of including some unemployed people in the Skillnets programme. Does he not think that makes much sense? In the past, we have isolated unemployed people and put them on their own with other unemployed people doing separate training? Does he not think it makes good sense to take newly unemployed people and involve them in skills programmes with people who are in work and in business?
Skillnets has been already given its budget for 2009. There has been a reduction of 26% in the budget for the provision of training for those in work. It is part of the national skills strategy and the one step up programme for training people in unemployment. Let us be under no illusions. We must refocus and rededicate the scarce resources to provide training for people who lose their jobs. Many of the people who would have trained in Skillnets were low skilled workers and have recently lost their jobs. The priority obviously is to train those people and provide upskilling support for them.
Skillnets has already got its budget, but we will evaluate the resources for those who find themselves unemployed in order to train them.
Will the Minister of State tell us by next week?
I will tell him when the decision is made.
Does the Minister of State not understand the damage being caused to the country by this uncertainty? People do not know what is happening. They do not know how much they will be paid next month, or how much they will be taxed next month. We need certainty.
A budget will be introduced next week and that will bring finality to many of the issues being raised by the Deputy. Skillnets has been given its allocation for 2009. It is the case that there is a reduction, but the priority must be with people who now find themselves unemployed and no one in the House could disagree with that. We must use all our resources to ensure such people at least have some form of training, re-skilling and reorientation of their skills available. This will assist their efforts to try to find work in the limited opportunities available, but at least when the upturn comes, they would have been given that opportunity.
Does that mean there has been no change in the Skillnets budget?
There is a reduction. It was 26.7% last year and it has been reduced by in excess of 25% this year.
33 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her plans to combat inefficiency in her Department; the way in which she will speed up redundancy payment rebates to small businesses from her Department; the waiting time for such a payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13551/09]
The significant increase in the number of redundancy payment claims lodged with the redundancy payments section of my Department in the latter part of 2008 and to date in 2009 is unprecedented and is giving rise to delays in the processing of redundancy payments for individuals and companies within a reasonable timeframe. The scale of the challenge is evident from the statistics which indicate that, at the end of the first quarter of 2009, the number of new claims lodged with my Department was 19,742, which equates to almost 50% of the entire level of applications lodged in 2008. It is equivalent to 78% of applications lodged in 2007. The number of claims received is averaging 1,600 per week. The Tánaiste and I are acutely aware of the difficulties which the inability to deliver an acceptable turnaround of redundancy rebate payments gives rise to for both individual employees and the business community. We are taking steps to address the issue.
Until mid-2008, our customer service targets for processing correctly completed redundancy claims were, in order of priority, four to six weeks for statutory redundancy lump sum claims to employees whose employers failed to pay the statutory entitlement; six weeks where claims were correctly submitted on-line; and ten plus weeks for manual claims sent in by employers. By and large these targets were met.
However, because of the huge surge in the number of claims received in redundancy payments in 2008, customer service targets have slipped as existing staff levels are insufficient to cope with such a significant increase in claim numbers. Actual timeframes being achieved are, in order of priority, between six and eight plus weeks for statutory lump sum payments to employees whose employers had failed to pay the statutory entitlement; 12 plus weeks for correctly submitted on-line claims; and 16 plus weeks for manual claims sent in by employers.
There has been a reallocation of an additional nine persons to the redundancy payments section since the start of the year and I have identified an additional 12 persons to be reassigned in the coming days and weeks. However, there is a limit to the number of people that we can reassign internally, because other areas of the Department are equally busy, for example, on labour force activation issues and in the employment rights bodies. Therefore, we are also in discussions with the Department of Finance to establish the extent of the scope for the assignment of additional staff, possibly from other Departments, as occurred in the case of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
One of the problems is that people — quite rightly — are concerned about their redundancy claims and are telephoning frequently to check on progress. While this is understandable, it is adding to the delays as it means that staff are tied up on phones and not processing the claims. Therefore, we are making arrangements such that the dedicated call centre of the National Employment Rights Authority will be able to give out better and more up-to-date information to callers about the status of their applications.
I assure the Deputy that this matter is under constant review in my Department and that every effort is being made to deal with an increasing backlog in an attempt to ensure that claimants get the best possible service at, what is for them, a very difficult time.
I welcome the announcement that the Minister of State intends to appoint more people to that section, which is important. However, the Government has made several commitments recently. It committed to paying its bills on time and to paying redundancy refunds on time, but these commitments are not being honoured. As a customer, the Government is putting businesses out of business, because it will not pay the money it owes for services provided within a reasonable timeframe, that is, between ten and 14 days, nor will it pay for redundancy refunds which are paid from employers' PRSI, let us not forget. They are refunds. As a result, more businesses are going to the wall and more jobs are being lost. Does the Minister of State accept responsibility for his Department's inefficiency and the fact that it is causing more people to lose their jobs in addition to those jobs the Government has already destroyed? Will the Government give a cast iron commitment or when will it honour its commitment to pay all its bills within 14 days? Who will resign if that commitment is not delivered?
I thank the Deputy for acknowledging that we have reassigned nine people. Between today and tomorrow, another six people will be reassigned to deal with the matter. We are very conscious of the fact that the redundancy payments should be met on time.
Will they be?
Some of the staff are currently occupied by answering the telephone from people made redundant with understandable queries. I beg the indulgence of the House to say that if people have a query, they should telephone 1890 80 80 90 to get a generic reply.
Do you think they are listening?
If they require a specific reply there is an e-mail address which will provide an immediate response and which I can pass on to the Deputy afterwards.
The people suffering most are those in small businesses. They are on their knees. Many such people have said that the Government is able to organise a bank bail out in days but they are still waiting. Those expecting payments from October and November are still waiting and the waiting period is significantly in excess of six weeks. I suggest the Minister——
I mentioned those small businesses already.
I will make a worthwhile suggestion. Any employer who has made staff redundant could offset the 60% refund due to them against any tax liability which arises, whether PAYE or whatever. This suggestion came from a business person. The Government should hand it over, because the Revenue is still putting pressure on small businesses. This morning I heard of a contractor in the building industry. He collected money from the sub-contractor. The process is circular and the money goes back into the same pot. Will the Minister consider the suggestion? I accept the Minister is trying to deal with the matter, but it will necessitate a significant number of staff. It will require more than the number mentioned by the Minister of State to deal with the current level, especially if redundancies keep coming through. Will the Minister consider that suggestion? There could be a payment offset against liabilities or any money due to the Revenue. The Government has the money in any case, so no one would go out of business. A 60% refund could be offset against PAYE, PRSI, capital acquisitions tax, capital gains tax, income tax or whatever else. Let us engage in forward thinking and join up those computers.
I can inform the Deputy that has been agreed with the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners.
I congratulate the Minister of State.
We are thinking ahead.
The Minister of State might have said as much in his reply.
I applaud when a job is well done.
Questions have been asked many times regarding payments, but will the Minister of State get the message through to the various Departments and staff that businesses are under immense pressure? The UK immediately brought in a ten day rule, but we have not done so. We are doing quite well in some cases, but whenever there is any problem with red tape, a missing dot on an i or cross on a t, there are very significant delays throughout the Departments. Businesses are under very serious pressure. Get the message through to those doing the work for the Government that this is urgent. It is no longer a joke and it should not require Deputies to make phone calls to speed up payments, whether for social welfare, redundancies, grants or whatever else. It should not be necessary in the current climate. Everyone should have woken up to the position in which we find ourselves. There are problems and those employed by the Government could solve them if they moved at the necessary pace.
I thank the Deputy for the suggestion. We are getting the extra staff and we are very conscious of the fact that the payments should be processed as quickly as possible.
It applies throughout all Departments, not only the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
34 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when she expects to receive the report commissioned from the Comptroller and Auditor General into the effectiveness of FÁS’s financial management and control systems; if pending the receipt of the report, she will take action arising from allegations of financial irregularities; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13357/09]
This question should have been taken with Question No. 33.
It is very similar to the previous question. Will I read the reply into the record?
The question is on its own.
It is the same answer.
If it is the same answer, there is no point in reading it again.
I would not impose on the Minister of State. I know Mr. Eddie Sullivan is in there.
It is a very good answer.
I am sure it is an exceptional answer.
Earlier, I spoke of Lannigan's ball and I was right. I understand Mr. Sullivan is the acting director general of FÁS at present. When does the Minister of State intend to set up interviews for appointing a director general who will obviously have to take on board the numerous recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts? When does the Minister of State anticipate that the Comptroller and Auditor General's report will be available to him? I appreciate he cannot comment on something he has not read. Is there any indication of when that report might become available to the Government and other Members?
The appointment of the new director general of FÁS will be made today. Interviews have been finalised such that there will be an announcement on that issue.
I am running very fast to stay still.
The Deputy is asking all the right questions. Putting a deadline on the report would not be possible. We must understand that the Comptroller and Auditor General is a constitutional position. When requested, he agreed to do this. Out of respect to the Committee of Public Accounts, which was investigating the issue at the time, he decided to await its findings. FÁS is implementing some of the PAC's recommendations.
When the report is finalised, we will have a full and frank discussion in which many of its aspects can be taken on board. It would not be fair or possible to request a timeline, as this detailed and wide-ranging analysis and investigation of FÁS will take time. Once the report is published, I am sure everyone will comment on it.
I acknowledge the good work of the many people at ground level in FÁS.
People are facing pay cuts and higher taxes. People on training schemes are not paid well, nor are most FÁS workers on the ground. In this context, is the remuneration package of the director general of FÁS, which is worth more than €200,000, not excessive and inappropriate? Should the Minister of State not announce that the chief executive's salary will be capped at, for example, the level of a Minister of State? This should be made clear in order that people interviewing for the job will not be under the illusion that they might get a highly paid job presiding over an agency staffed by people who are not particularly well paid and trainees who are paid appallingly.
The setting of remuneration for such a position is a matter for the Department of Finance. Given the backdrop, people are trying to make sacrifices to ensure the broader public buys into our attempts to face current challenges. In light of how things are going, someone might not take the job were he or she paid a Minister of State's salary.
It is a slash and burn approach.
I understand Deputy Varadkar's opinions, which are being echoed elsewhere. People are conscious of the need for remunerative packages to be set in accordance with our current backdrop.
35 Deputy Damien English asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the actions she is taking to ensure the survival of an avionics and aircraft maintenance industry at Dublin Airport; the actions she is taking to ensure that employees of a company (details supplied) are not short changed in terms of pensions or redundancy payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13513/09]
46 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the correspondence she has had with a company (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13398/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 and 46 together.
The Government is anxious that as many jobs as possible be secured at Dublin Airport. We would like to see the SR Technics Group do what it can to facilitate this, such as helping to promote the capabilities and skills available at the Dublin facility, agreeing to an orderly wind down of the facility to give IDA Ireland an opportunity to promote the location to interested parties and maintaining assets and equipment at the site for at least six months. I have conveyed these points, and the widespread concern that every effort be made to maintain the maximum number of jobs at the facility at Dublin Airport, to SR Technics at group level.
IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, EI, have formed a project team to promote the operation through the IDA overseas network of offices and to meet with and assess expressions of interest. A number of parties have expressed interest in acquiring at least elements of the business and both IDA Ireland and EI are exploring options with them. IDA Ireland and EI are continuing to examine proposals. Actual involvement by both in providing financial or other supports will be dependent on a company or companies submitting commercially viable proposals for consideration and seeking approval for State support in the normal way.
Regulatory responsibility for the oversight of pensions funding is the responsibility of the Pensions Board under the auspices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The Government is conscious of the pressures on scheme trustees and employers sponsoring pension schemes arising from the significant losses incurred by pension funds in the past year. While measures were announced last December to ease the funding pressures on pension schemes, the Government is considering a comprehensive framework for future pensions to set out a new model that will aim to secure the future of social welfare, private, occupational and public service pensions.
The services of the State's industrial relations machinery have been made available to assist in resolving the issues in dispute. All-day conciliation talks were held in the Labour Relations Commission on Tuesday, 24 March. However, a resolution to the issues in dispute could not be agreed and the issues involved were referred to the Labour Court. A Labour Court hearing was held on the morning of Monday, 30 March, and the court issued its recommendation yesterday. I understand this covers increased ex gratia redundancy payments and full funding of the pension schemes by the company. I hope the recommendation will be accepted by all parties to the dispute.
It should be recalled that the State provides free of charge the industrial relations dispute settlement machinery to assist this process which, in line with the general principles of industrial relations in Ireland, is voluntary in nature. Responsibility for the resolution of trade disputes is a matter for the parties involved.
The State agencies will continue to engage with all groups, indigenous and overseas, interested in building commercially viable and sustainable operations to secure as many of the jobs as possible at Dublin Airport.
I thank my colleagues for allowing me to contribute on this matter of importance to Dublin North and the whole of the region. A rebate of €15 million is due to the company. It was due some €20 million from the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, for the return of the hangar and the lease on same. The Tánaiste should correct me if my figures are wrong, but they were given to me by a trade union official not one hour ago.
IDA Ireland may be requested to provide €25 million for the most interested party that wants to retain SR Technics as a going concern. If the company goes to the wall in the first year, it will cost the taxpayer €50 million. We can exercise a certain amount of muscle with the company. Did someone say something?
Not on this side of the House.
I apologise, as I believed I heard someone talking.
A foreign channel.
An bhfuil sé as Béarla nó Gaeilge? On Friday, 600 people will be let go; which 600 is not known. One hour ago, I was told via telephone that the SR Technics Group has refused to abide by the Labour Court recommendation and that the workers are meeting among Dublin Airport's hangars to discuss their future as we sit in the Chamber. In this light, what assistance can the Government provide them? Without breaching EU law, will it undertake to make funds available to IDA Ireland in order that it can sustain a takeover of the company and retain the jobs?
On Friday, 600 people will lose their jobs. If they are dispersed, knowledge and expertise will be lost to us forever, which we cannot afford. Recently, the Government's thrust has been in respect of creating and retaining jobs. This situation is an acid test and one I hope the Government will pass, given how much hangs on it.
Saying a number of things would be appropriate. First, several people have tabled management buy-out proposals, which are being evaluated. As I indicated to the unions today, it is important that they evaluate the proposal under discussion in the House and take on board its implications for workers. I am not referring to work practices, but to the use of redundancy funds. Second, if a viable commercial proposal is tabled to IDA Ireland or EI, we will support it. There is no two ways about that. The viability of any proposal must be examined in the normal context of EI or IDA Ireland criteria.
As I indicated, it is important that we consider the proposal's elements realistically. Unfortunately, the proposal is more complex and complicated than normally would be the case. However, we are working through it and we will do everything we can to assure people that everything possible will be done to sustain employment at Dublin Airport.
It is equally important to highlight that the companies outside of the State that have expressed an interest have not done so within the same framework as the expressions under examination. I assure people that, if a viable proposal is tabled to the Government, we will support it. It must be a business proposition and people must have the prerequisite funding to make the company a viable operation.
I have met many Opposition and Government Members regarding this issue. A number of people have been forthcoming in supporting different projects, which are being examined. I again met representatives of the IDA on this matter this afternoon. There also have been discussions today with the unions on this matter. When they met me recently, the unions were anxious that we would do all we could to sustain employment in that area and it is my clear intention to so do to the best of our ability.
Has consideration been given to nationalising the facility, at least on a temporary basis, to allow the continuation of work while the proposals the Tánaiste has just mentioned are being discussed? If the service or contracts are broken at this point, it will be extremely difficult for the plant to get back on its feet again. As a temporary measure, the State could step in for at least the three or four months in which the aforementioned proposals were discussed or their viability investigated.
The answer to the Deputy's question is a categoric "No". The Government cannot involve itself in line or base maintenance.
It did so in respect of the banks.
It is not the Government's intention to take over SR Technics for a number of months in order that a viable proposition could be put forward. In the normal course of meetings with me, the Minister for Transport, Enterprise Ireland, the IDA and all the State agencies, there is a clear indication, when working with the unions or otherwise or with whoever comes forward, to do as much as possible to sustain jobs, employment and skills at Dublin Airport.
The Tánaiste stated she was highly committed to sustaining jobs in that part of the world.
At Dublin Airport.
I remind her that Members are discussing north County Dublin, which is a few miles away and not Argentina or India. It is located in Deputy Reilly's constituency at present and will be in mine quite shortly.
Will the Deputies still be friends?
Members should be aware that Irish jobs, located just down the road, are under discussion. What is happening at SR Technics is a scandal. While many jobs have been lost in the economy, many of the major job losses in large industries in Dublin and elsewhere have occurred in industries that were on the way out anyway as they may not have been profitable or their jobs models were of a different age. SR Technics is different because it still is viable. It still is a potentially profitable company, which should be and must be saved.
The Tánaiste has stated a few times that if a viable proposal comes forward, it will meet with the full support of the State. I took a call earlier today from a representative of the trade unions in SR Technics, in which I was informed that a viable commercial proposal for the takeover of the entire business has been made. Is this the case and if so, why will the Tánaiste not support it?
I must respect the confidentiality of those who have approached the IDA and Enterprise Ireland.
The Tánaiste said "if", which means such a proposal has not been made.
At present, three proposals are being evaluated by the IDA. A meeting took place in confidence on Friday with these companies. They were asked to revert to the IDA on Monday and there will be further discussions with them. Therefore, discussions are ongoing. Some slight confusion has arisen about a number of these proposals but I believe that one in particular, which is perceived as a management buy-out in consultation with the unions, is the proposal that everyone is discussing. While that project is being evaluated at present, the IDA has indicated that the basis on which it has been put forward warrants full examination, to ascertain what exactly is the proposal in the first place. It will be at that point that people will be able make up their minds. However, a considerable number of other entities have expressed interest in parts of the company.
It is important to note that I must uphold the confidentiality of those who have expressed interest. Second, if the proposals put forward to the IDA are commercially viable and pass the criteria whereby they can be recommended to the respective boards, the Government of course will support them. The Government will continue to work with everyone to ensure that this happens to the best of everyone's ability. However, it will be important to achieve a balance between the workers, their rights and access to the redundancies to which they are entitled, and the creation of a new viable company.
I met representatives of this company in Zurich some time ago and have followed on with a number of meetings. Together with my officials and the IDA, I have been working with this company for a considerable number of months, on foot of the loss of the contracts with Aer Lingus, because it had a need that we were trying to meet. Unfortunately, the framework and plan that went to the company's head office in Zurich was not accepted by it on the basis that globally, SR Technics was in financial difficulties and had made the decision to get out of baseline maintenance and to move on to the more high technology side. This is the framework in which we are working at present.
As an island nation, the implications in respect of this company are national and are not limited to north Dublin. A cohort of people are highly skilled in the aeronautical and aviation industries. Does my earlier suggestion make good sense? Rather than paying 900 or 1,000 people, which will cost the guts of €20 million in social welfare payments and forgone income tax, would it not be as well to consider the proposals? I appreciate they must be evaluated in respect of viability. Workers also should get their due entitlement but that is a matter to be worked through with workers and their trade unions. They could ascertain whether another issue exists in respect of reinvestment. As this will cost €20 million in social welfare payments anyway, why not invest it to keep at work those who have the necessary skills and entrepreneurial spirit to ensure they survive?
Second, approximately 70 or 80 third and fourth year apprentices work there. Has a lesson been learned from developments at SR Technics to the effect that when a problem arises regarding job placement work, we now will ensure the institutes of technology are capable of bringing forward their third and fourth year theory components? One should ensure that apprentices do not lose out and such components should be brought forward to develop their educational acumen and skills. This should be done as I believe FÁS has done so.
Third, does Aer Lingus now regret its decision to withdraw the contract from SR Technics? Perhaps it does.
On the final question, I will leave it as stated. However, the decision had a direct implication on the viability of SR Technics.
My information is it may not be getting on as well at the place to which it went.
Moreover, the reason it still operates in Switzerland is because it is tied to SwissAir.
Second, on the question of the apprentices, the Deputy had a meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, and he and I are working with DCU on that issue on their behalf. It would be great, were another component company or an organisation similar to the ESB in a position to take on these people. However, we are working through this issue.
There is a simplistic view being expressed across the House that one takes the money people have as a personal entitlement and put it into the company, which then will keep going. That is not the position.
No one suggested that.
They would have to agree to it.
The point is the IDA and Enterprise Ireland have the requisite resources to support an application being made to them. There is no problem in this regard. My agencies have the necessary resources and finance to support a viable strategic proposal. It is important to clarify again that there is no problem other than the viability of a business proposal must be such that it stands up. Were we to intervene on the basis of a motion, I would not want a situation to arise in which Deputies sought my resignation in six months' time, on the basis that I had made a bad business decision. I am not looking forward to such a debate and therefore——
It would be a good reason to resign
The Tánaiste should be happy to get six months.
The Tánaiste is immune from accountability in that party.
No, I am not. However, it is important not to make a mistake when making such decisions on the basis of viability. The skills are there and the framework is in place.
The biggest mistake would be not to move quickly and to lose these jobs.
It is our clear intention to do our utmost to support these people. It is important that the message is given.
If the jobs were in Donegal the Minister would move with greater speed.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
