Vol. 708 No. 4
45 Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the cost of maintaining the unused buildings and grounds formerly used by Enterprise Ireland, Glasnevin, Dublin 9; the action he will take regarding these costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19281/10]
The cost of maintaining the Glasnevin site is approximately €1 million per annum, made up of local authority rates, security, heat, light, power and general maintenance. This figure includes general maintenance costs of the national metrology laboratory of the National Standards Authority of Ireland. For 2010, these costs are expected to be in the order of €140,000 approximately, which will be recouped from the NSAI.
Resulting from the centralisation of Enterprise Ireland's Dublin offices in East Point business park in 2008, it is anticipated there will be annual savings of approximately €3 million, in addition to significant operational efficiencies. The Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, has been in contact with the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, with a view to the Office of Public Works assisting in whatever way possible. The Minister has also asked Enterprise Ireland for an assessment of how the current costs for maintaining the site might be reduced in the short term.
In that context, Enterprise Ireland has advised that the current rates bill for the site, which is available for leasing, will reduce by 50% or €280,000 in respect of 2010. In addition, Enterprise Ireland has advised it has also secured an 8% reduction in the fees paid in respect of security services provided on the site. Pending any further advices from the OPW, in December 2009, Enterprise Ireland engaged estate agents to explore potential leasing options for the property.
I wish to ask three supplementary questions but on a point of clarification, if I understand his reply correctly, the Minister of State states the Government is spending €860,000 a year to maintain a disused site and building in Glasnevin.
That is entirely incorrect. It is not disused as people are occupying the same site.
They are only using——
It would be better if the Deputy did some research.
The Minister of State should wait to be called upon to reply and should address the House from a standing position when he is called.
I have done some research and I have listened to the Minister of State's answer very carefully. He is saying that the national metrology laboratory is using a small part of the site at a cost of €140,000 a year. I have no problem with this. However, the remaining €1 million — €860,000 in the difference — is being used to maintain a site that is not in use and has not been in use for several years. That is the Minister of State's answer. He may wish to clarify if it is not his answer.
I have two brief supplementary questions on that point. There had been a plan that this area would be used for the forensic science laboratory and this has now been changed. There had been a plan for it to be used for affordable housing. Is it still intended to use the site for affordable housing or has this plan also been changed? Is it not the case that other areas of the Department, including some agencies directly under the Minister's purview, are renting offices at a cost of hundreds of thousands of euro? How can the Minister of State justify a situation whereby one part of the Department is spending hundreds of thousands of euro renting private offices when the Department is spending hundreds of thousands euro to maintain empty offices?
I wish to make it clear that the affordable housing initiative no longer has an interest in that site. I remind the Deputy that strong interest has been expressed in the site. The people advising the Department on its disposal, sale or further leasing say there is strong interest. Perhaps the Deputy did not hear that part of my response where I mentioned that Enterprise Ireland has saved €3 million annually by moving from this site to another site. Quite a significant saving has been achieved for the Exchequer, in the order of €3 million, by the consolidation of Enterprise Ireland into a new site, thus vacating the many buildings it occupied previously. This is a 14-acre site with 18 buildings and which has a significant associated security cost, in the order of €240,000. It costs €120,000 for heat, light and power for the many buildings and facilities already in existence on the site. There is a general maintenance charge of €40,000 for the site. I hope that answers the questions.
Please allow other Deputies to contribute. I call Deputy Penrose.
I omitted to mention €600,000 of that was raised when that bill was halved to €300,000.
The Minister of State and Deputies should wait to be called to ensure we have an orderly debate.
I refer to significant tracts of land available across the country, including in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's own county, contained in the portfolios of IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. If these lands are not been used or are unlikely to be required, they should be transferred to the local authority such as the county council or town council——
Is this a specific question about Glasnevin?
County enterprise boards and county development boards or the employment action groups within those jurisdictional areas should be allowed to promote and foster employment opportunities that are not encompassed within the IDA or Enterprise Ireland areas.
I am glad the Deputy mentioned this. The Office of Public Works is currently working on precisely the kind of initiative the Deputy speaks about whereby the State redeems best value from the property available to it. This came about as a result of the ideas campaign, which was a public campaign and this was one of its recommendations. The OPW is working to ensure that all lands, not just those belonging to the Exchequer, to ourselves or to line Departments, and all public buildings around the country are properly audited. To date, the OPW does not have a centralised register of all publicly-owned property, not just the core assets of Departments but also the wider local authority and health services sites.
Is the Minister of State aware that the HSE and a host of other State agencies are renting properties all across the State at a huge cost to the taxpayer of many millions of euro, while Government——
The Deputy is going well beyond the scope of the question.
——properties lie vacant? Many people believe this is only happening because the people who are renting those properties to those State agencies happen to be associates or friends of the lead Government party of Fianna Fáil.
I have to respond. The Deputy is mistaken.
I ask the Minister of State to allow me to conduct the debate. I call Deputy Naughten.
I have one brief question for the Minister of State. I acknowledge his reply to Deputy Penrose. I ask the senior Minister to consider consolidating the land portfolios of both IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. Businesses cannot be given a site because they come under the auspices of Enterprise Ireland and the lands are owned by IDA Ireland. This is costing jobs. Such an initiative would be simple and would help create jobs tomorrow morning. I urge the Minister to take up this as an initial initiative.
I wonder if I should bother responding to Deputy Arthur Morgan's insinuation about my party. There are many foul things I could say about his own party.
Please do.
I will refrain from talking about its record in the past 30 years and all the blood it spilled on the island of Ireland.
If the Minister of State and his predecessors had done their job right that phase of the Irish freedom struggle would have been unnecessary. They did not do their jobs and, therefore, it was necessary.
Does that justify it?
Neither am I going to bother responding to Deputy Arthur Morgan's smear about auctioneers or people associated with the Fianna Fáil Party.
It would be helpful if the Minister of State would not invite disorder.
We are back to where we started.
Deputy Denis Naughten asked a fair question and we will address that issue. If he has examples of where businesses are not getting sites because one agency is pointing at the other, we would be delighted to take it up with them.
The Minister should come to Roscommon.
They are under standing instruction to redeem best value for the State from the properties and lands held by them.
46 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his views on the fact that a number of Government Departments are falling short of meeting the targets set by him that suppliers would be paid within 15 days of the receipt of an invoice; the steps he will take to ensure greater compliance with the target set; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19181/10]
In accordance with the Government's decision of 19 May 2009, all Departments are required to pay their business suppliers within 15 days of receipt of a valid invoice. Departments are also required to report quarterly to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation on their performance in meeting the target.
The first returns by Departments covered 15 June 2009 to 30 September 2009 and were published on 30 December 2009. The second set of returns for the last quarter of 2009 were published on 5 March 2010. The third set of returns for the first quarter of 2010 are available from today on my Department's website under the small and medium-sized enterprises publications link.
The ongoing publication of these composite returns by the Department provides clarity on the performance of individual Departments in meeting the terms of the Government decision. While there is some variation between the performance of individual Departments and fluctuations across the three quarters, overall performance has been positive.
In the first quarter of 2010, the returns show that in value terms, Departments paid 96.7% of invoices within 15 days compared with 97.9% for fourth quarter figures and 97.8% for the third quarter; ten Departments paid in excess of 90% of invoices by value within 15 days; four Departments paid in excess of 80% of invoices by value within 15 days; and one Department paid 79% of their invoices by value within 15 days.
Departments are playing their respective parts in assisting the cash flow of their suppliers, many of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. The new procedures and processes introduced are having an impact in assisting the cashflow of SMEs in the current difficult economic environment, a welcome development.
It is the responsibility of each Department to meet its obligations under the terms of the Government decision. Any businesses that experience difficulties in receiving payment on foot of valid invoices within 15 days should contact the contracting Department to resolve their difficulties. It is incumbent on those Departments whose performance is lagging behind to improve their payments profile over the coming quarters.
The Minister has already indicated his intention to bring forward proposals to shorten public sector payment periods in areas beyond central Departments.
I thank the Minister of State for his useful reply. Cash is king in sustaining businesses and many profitable ventures have gone under because of a lack of cashflow. Has any Department which has not stepped up to the plate, a lagger, been subject to late interest penalties under the European Communities (Late Payment in Commercial Transactions) Regulations 2002? Under the regulations, interest charged on any outstanding amount for goods or services is 7% above the European Central Bank interest rate. Has any Department had to pay this interest charge? If not, then why is it not complying with EU regulations?
Will the 15-day average for payments extend to semi-State and departmental agencies such as the Health Service Executive? Many of them are not the fastest out of the traps when it comes to paying for goods and services.
I am not aware of any Department having been punished for late payments. Broadly speaking, the record is quite good. The Minister is determined to extend it to other public service bodies, including local authorities and the HSE. Local authorities report a 30-day average for payments while the HSE stands at a 45-day average. It has already agreed to reduce this to a 30-day limit.
The issue for the Minister is to decide whether this 30-day average should be shortened. The best option in the meantime is to achieve an average somewhere between what is required of central government and the current 30-day average.
When does the Minister expect Departments to be in compliance with the 15-day payment requirement? Will some continue to default into the foreseeable future?
With payments within the required time as high as 97% in some Departments, and the lowest at 79%, it is fair to say Departments are in compliance.
Is 79% of payments acceptable?
That is just one Department. I would be pleased to share the league table with the Deputy so he can examine it. If the average is 80%, then some Departments should pull their socks up and get their act together. However, the record is positive and is even acknowledged to be so by Deputy Willie Penrose. The object is to widen the 15-day requirement to the wider public service in which 30-day and 45-day averages seem to be the order of the day.
It is, however, easy to bash public service organisations. According to the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association the average time it takes a private sector business to pay its bills is 90 days. In fairness to the public sector, it is performing and paying its bills on time.
I would like to see the Minister's league tables.
If the average is 80%, then some Departments should pull their socks up and get their act together. However, the record is positive and is even acknowledged to be so by Deputy Willie Penrose. The object is to widen the 15-day requirement to the wider public service in which 30-day and 45-day averages seem to be the order of the day.
It is, however, easy to bash public service organisations. According to ISME, the average time it takes a private sector business to pay its bills is 90 days. In fairness to the public sector, it is performing and paying its bills on time.
The majority of businesses would be happy enough when bills are paid within a month, the standard terms of credit. The key issue is extending the 30-day average to other public service bodies, a development I advocate. Will the Minister consider requiring public service bodies to pay interest, say 1% a week, on late payments?
I agree with Deputy Leo Varadkar that there should be some element of sanction for agencies who go adrift of the payment average. This will be considered when extending the legislation.
There is no choice in the matter. Under the 2002 commercial transaction regulations, a Department is required to pay an interest rate of 7% above the ECB rate, which means 8%, on any late payments it incurs. That is the penalty that should be imposed on Departments and semi-State agencies which go beyond the 30-day requirement.
That was an answer rather than a question.
I thank Deputy Willie Penrose for clarifying the matter. I am sure Deputy Varadkar will absorb it.
I do not believe it is law but just a draft directive.
47 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if he has met with his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss the potential loss of employment in the Border region; if there will be cross-Border initiatives to relieve the pressures that mass unemployment in the region would cause; his views on whether the Border area can afford not to have joined up Governmental action in terms of dealing with unemployment in the region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19063/10]
Given my recent change of portfolio, I have not yet had the opportunity to arrange a face-to-face meeting with my Northern Ireland counterpart, Arlene Foster, MLA. However, I have spoken to her by telephone three times over the past several weeks on Quinn Insurance and the impact of redundancies on the company and the local economy. We discussed the possibility of preparing a joint proposal to apply for European Union funding under the cross-Border INTERREG programme for training initiatives and start-up business supports. Work on this joint proposal is now being progressed at official level. We also discussed how our officials could work together in other areas.
The inter-agency response team, which I established under the chairmanship of Mr. Dan Flinter, will work with Mr. Leslie Ross, who has been tasked with chairing a similar response team established by the Northern Ireland authorities. I also spoke with Sir Reg Empey, Minister for Employment and Learning, about the specific issues arising from the Quinn Insurance announcement. I will keep in regular contact with my counterparts on this particular issue.
On the broader issue of co-operation, I will meet the Minister, Ms Foster, MLA, at the next North-South Ministerial Council meeting in June. The Deputy will be aware that under the British-Irish Agreements there is already a wide range of cross-Border activities aimed at economic development. These arrangements are augmented by co-operation on a less formal basis, which has been taking place between Departments and agencies North and South for many years. These arrangements cover matters such as enterprise and business development, labour market and skills, trade, tourism and investment promotion and science, and technology and innovation.
I refer to examples of these activities. InterTrade Ireland, co-funded by my Department and its counterpart in Northern Ireland, was specifically established to support cross-Border activities across a range of activities including innovation, enterprise development, networking and policy development. Enterprise Ireland and Invest Northern Ireland collaborate on an all-island innovation vouchers scheme and on trade missions abroad. IDA and Invest Northern Ireland co-operate in Donegal and Derry in the North West Now collaboration. The IBEC-CBI Joint Business Council carries out an extensive North-South work programme. Ongoing co-operation between Governments on both sides of the Border, together with the work of the agencies on the ground will continue to support economic development and investment in the Border region.
I would have preferred if Question No. 90 had been taken with Question No. 47. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. The fact that he indicated he has had only three telephonic link-ups with his counterpart in the Assembly, Ms Arlene Foster, MLA, does not demonstrate the necessary focus on the very serious situation that has unfolded in the Border counties, specifically, Cavan and Fermanagh. The announcement last Friday week signalled some 432 jobs would be lost in Cavan and Fermanagh, in excess of 50% of the entire signalled loss of 846 jobs throughout the island of Ireland in Quinn Insurance Limited.
I am not at all impressed by the Minister's reply which is somewhat dilatory. The reality is if such an announcement were made in respect of any other part of the country there would be a far more focused and definite effort on the part of Government to try to save the jobs concerned. While I welcome and encourage cross-Border co-operation in the address of the terrible vista that has now presented for these workers, their families and the wider and interdependent community, real and serious questions must be answered.
A brief question, please.
We cannot divorce ourselves from the lead-in situation to the announcement of 900 redundancies in Quinn Insurance Limited last Friday week. Real and substantial questions must be put in respect of the decisions taken by the Financial Regulator. While I acknowledge the independence of his office, the Financial Regulator must be accountable in some way and there must be some basis by which his decisions should be justified either to the Department of Finance or some other agency of the State.
I absolutely reject the Deputy's suggestion that I was not proactive in this regard. When it first came to my notice I made it my business to meet Mr. Quinn. Subsequent to understanding the difficulties that were to arise, I contacted Mr. Frank Ryan, chief executive, and Hugh Cooney, chairman, Enterprise Ireland. I asked them to make arrangements to meet immediately with Mr. Quinn in respect of the matter. From the very first day, Enterprise Ireland interacted with the Quinn Group. I made it my business to contact Arlene Foster and Reg Empey. I made it my business to instruct officials in the Department to check out the feasibility of an application under the North-South INTERREG programme to establish whether we would qualify. I made it my business to ensure that when the redundancies were announced I remained at home rather than go on a trade mission to Australia and to be in Cavan to meet the administrators to hear what they had to say and to establish how we could facilitate what was taking place within the group.
At the moment the announcements were made all the agencies were in place and a one-stop shop was established in each of the locations. An opportunity for workers to look for advice and to seek support was provided. I secured the agreement of the Northern Ireland Minister for Education and Training to a €1 million activation fund for the areas affected by the redundancies. As the Deputy is well aware, discussions are still ongoing. Recently, the Taoiseach met not alone with the Cavan Chamber of Commerce but with the elected representatives of the workers.
I wish to call Deputy Crawford but I call Deputy Ó Caoláin for a supplementary question first.
The fact of the matter is that when this announcement was made the Government failed to properly address what it could do in real and specific terms to save these jobs. It is all very well to refer to education and re-training afterwards. For heaven's sake, do not utter "taskforce" across this Chamber to me because I will surely take ill. The fact is the Government has yet to demonstrate properly why it was not feasible or explain why it could not have introduced a Government timeframed guarantee to underscore the solvency deficit in respect of Quinn Insurance Limited to allow the company to continue to trade throughout the Six Counties and in Britain, where it was relatively embryonic, where over a short period it could have established its viability and profitability and where it had already demonstrated its competitiveness among the other players in those markets. That was what the Government could have done to save the jobs rather than react after the event.
Although I am surprised at the Deputy, I should not be and there is political expediency in his statement.
No, there is not.
The Deputy attended a meeting yesterday evening——
This is what I put to the Minister when I met him personally——
Please allow the Minister to reply.
——and I have repeated the proposal to all his ministerial colleagues. The Minister has never explained why he could not take this course of action.
I call on the Minister to reply through the Chair and the Deputy to allow the Minister to reply.
The Deputy attended a meeting yesterday evening. He was in the presence of the Taoiseach during which the issues of aid and the independence of the regulator were raised. It is not expedient for the Government to appoint an independent regulator to ensure companies and groups are subject to financial regulation and then interfere in the process. Is that what the Deputy is suggesting?
We are not suggesting interference.
The Deputy has had his say. He should let me finish.
At the meeting last night——
Members should not shout one another down.
The Government took a different view in the case of the banks.
The Deputy was present when it was made quite clear by the Taoiseach last night that the Government cannot become involved in State aid to a private company. The Deputy is also aware that the Government could not become involved in State aid to Waterford Glass when that issue surfaced. Where required, the Government has given a guarantee to the regulator in the UK——
We are doubly over time. I call Deputy Crawford for a supplementary question.
——when it came to policies within our remit.
I would be obliged if the Minister would facilitate the question.
The Deputy is well aware that we have done everything possible to extend car insurance and now we are making every effort——
I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Crawford to put a supplementary question and he may come back again afterwards.
What we need is the restoration of access to all relevant areas.
I tabled Question No. 87, which was similar, and I am disappointed it was not taken. This would have allowed more time to discuss the issue. It is an extraordinary and very serious situation because everyone maintains the Quinn company is a good and profitable company but it appears to be falling on its feet every hour because of its inability to sell commercial insurance in Northern Ireland and the UK. I hope some progress can be made on the matter before the weekend is out.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I realise he is new to the job. Were he to examine the situation in the Border counties of Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim and Donegal, he would realise no investment has been made in the whole area, especially since the Troubles. I ask the Minister, on the occasion of his first Question Time, to ensure that a genuine effort is made, taking into account the Quinn Insurance situation as it is today, to ensure the area is prioritised. I am not satisfied that personnel in IDA and Enterprise Ireland are committed to the area. If it was not for Seán Quinn there would be nothing there.
I welcome Deputy Crawford's positive approach. It is important to acknowledge that this is an outstanding company and that the people losing their jobs are of the highest calibre. We must do everything possible to assist them. We should also keep in mind that 1,900 people are still employed by the company and that the administrators are confident these jobs can be sustained and hopefully expanded into the future. We must generate confidence in the company in order to ensure its ongoing viability.
I have put staff from all the industrial development agencies into the Border region. The IDA has been made acutely aware of the need to provide opportunities for those who will lose their jobs at Quinn Insurance. As staff take voluntary redundancy, the administrators will make available to the IDA and to Enterprise Ireland details of their skills and experience. The development agencies will tailor that to the jobs that can be created and the businesses that should be supported.
48 Deputy Michael Noonan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation his plans to merge the National Consumer Agency and Competition Authority; the progress made to date; the target for implementation and the reason for the delay in implementing the policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19288/10]
80 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation when he plans to introduce the promised legislation to provide for the merger of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19174/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 80 together.
As both the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority were established under statute, it is necessary to give effect to the newly merged body by way of primary legislation. At the time the merger of the two bodies was announced, as part of the rationalisation plan for State agencies during the 2009 Budget Statement, work on a review of the operation and implementation of the 2002 Competition Act was well under way. The various submissions received following a public consultation process were being considered, as was the report and recommendations of the advisory group on media mergers.
Rather than give effect to the amalgamation of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority in a stand-alone Bill, to be followed in due course by legislation to amend, reform and update the 2002 Act, it was decided to introduce a single comprehensive Bill that will create the new consumer and competition body, update existing competition law, strengthen the public interest test in respect of media mergers in line with the report of the advisory group on media mergers, make some minor amendments to the consumer protection legislation and give effect to the Government commitment under Towards 2016 regarding the exemption of certain specified categories of vulnerable workers from competition law. While work on the draft legislation on this basis has been progressing, developments in other areas have arisen which have led to additional requirements in the Bill.
The renewed programme for Government contains a specific commitment to "implement a code of practice for doing business in the grocery goods sector to develop a fair trading relationship between retailers and their suppliers" and "to review progress of the code and if necessary to put in place a mandatory code". An enabling provision for this code will be provided for in the legislation. This all-encompassing approach has to some extent delayed the legislation for the rationalisation of the two bodies. However, we will be better served in the long run by a single legislative measure that both establishes the new body and provides for a combined and updated consumer and competition code with appropriate enforcement provisions being given to the new body. Work on the draft heads of the Bill is now at an advanced stage and I intend to bring these draft heads to Cabinet within the coming weeks. I hope to publish the Bill in the autumn.
I apologise for neglecting to congratulate the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, on the occasion of his first Question Time, on his appointment to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. I wish him the very best in his new role. However, there is one aspect of his appointment that has not been clarified for reasons unknown. The Minister did a reasonably good job as Minister for Education and Science, particularly in terms of how he dealt with difficult decisions in regard to cutbacks, including reductions in class sizes. It is still not clear to me why he and the Tánaiste have switched roles. The Minister may wish to comment on that in his reply. We are all very curious about it on this side of the House.
That is a question for the Taoiseach.
Vacancies occurred in other Departments due to illness and resignation, but we have no idea why the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, and the Tánaiste switched Departments. It would be interesting to know the reason.
I thank the Minister for his reply to these questions. Can he offer an assurance that the new legislation will not be used to weaken the Competition Authority in any way? One of the strengths of that body is that it has an executive board made up of experts in their field who tend to act like regulators, in the mould of ComReg or the Commission for Electricity Regulation, rather than taking the more passive approach of the traditional State agency. It is very different to the National Consumer Agency in that regard. Will the Minister comment on that?
I thank the Deputy for his good wishes. I am sure he will help me along my way. On the question of ministerial appointments, the Deputy will have to put down a question to the Taoiseach. All such decisions are his prerogative.
By merging the two bodies in question we can produce a stronger entity, but there is no point in doing so unless the new body has teeth and the ability to implement its remit. I am willing to listen to the Opposition in terms of any amendments it puts forward during the debate on the legislation. It is in all our interests to have an effective code and a body with powers to ensure businesses act within the law and that restrictive practices are removed.
I wished the Minister well last Thursday when he introduced the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2010 in the House. He made a good start by indicating his receptiveness to Opposition amendments. Ministers who close their minds generally end up with the smile on the other side of their face because we chase them up.
Will this merger generate any savings? There is a significant degree of overlap across many agencies in all sectors. Deputy Varadkar has been on the case on this issue for some time and is broadly correct in the points he has made. The Competition Authority does important work in dealing with cartels and so on. However, I am concerned at the manner in which it has chased up some issues. We will have nothing but ghost towns if it continues with its current policy where pricing is the only parameter that counts and there is no consideration for value and service.
The Competition Act 2002 has been a source of great problems for people in part-time employment such as artists, freelance journalists and actors, with the bodies that represent them being defined as undertakings. That was never put forward as the desired interpretation during the course of any debate on the legislation in this House. However, it is the interpretation arrived at by the Competition Authority which seems to have carte blanche in this regard. Does the Minister agree that the people to whom I referred are entitled to have collective bargaining rights and negotiating rights attributed to bodies on their behalf? I refer to the Irish Pharmacy Union, Irish Dental Association and Irish Equity, the SIPTU branch representing actors, among others. Surely the time has come to honour the commitment given in Towards 2016 by amending section 4 of the legislation to reflect the will of this House. The Competition Authority must adhere to the provisions of legislation passed by the Oireachtas.
That is a broad expansion of the question.
But that is part of it. It is a fundamental of the Labour Party that we stand for trade union rights, and it is important that those are not taken away at the stroke of a pen. That is what has happened with section 4. I said that in this House 18 months ago and I am still right.
On the question of savings, I advise Deputy Penrose that both bodies are operating at staffing levels below what would have originally been sanctioned. The NCA has 39.4 whole-time equivalents — WTEs — and 80 were sanctioned. The Competition Authority has 43.2 WTEs and 59 were sanctioned.
I anticipate that the staff complement of the new merged body will be less than the posts allocated to the two bodies. That must be considered in the context of the overall control of public sector numbers. I expect there will be savings from shared services in back-office activities such as human resources and finance. The NCA is taking over the functions of the Financial Regulator relating to consumer information and education, and some staff have already been transferred. The two agencies are located in two separate buildings, and the issue of relocating them to one building is being examined.
Deputy Penrose raised the issue of what powers we will give the new body. Regarding direct complaints to the Competition Authority, the forthcoming legislation will not only restate the provisions on anti-competitive conduct in the grocery goods sector in the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2006, but include additional provisions to make it more attractive for people to pursue actions against grocery goods undertaking. That is subject to the advice of the Attorney General. The legislation provides for relief by way of aggravated damages and allows the courts the discretion of limiting the costs of action taken by parties.
Where the court has determined that a particular practice is anti-competitive on the basis of an action taken by the new body, the parties taking private follow-on actions should not also have to prove that the particular action was anti-competitive. I view that as very progressive.
Is the Minister happy that the new authority will be able to control some of the extremely serious situations involving the supermarkets and our large agricultural sector? They insist that money is paid up front for shelf space and so on. The food industry is currently under extraordinary and severe pressure. Farmers are getting only about a third of the price that the consumer pays for milk. Such issues must be dealt with, or we will end up with no production in this country and everything produced elsewhere.
I wish the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation well in his new portfolio and congratulate him on his appointment. I look forward to many battles together — although I hope those will not be necessary and we can do business as well.
I thank Deputy Morgan for his good wishes.
In response to Deputy Crawford's question, I hope that with the appointment of John Travers, we can put in a voluntary code of practice. That can be converted into an absolute code of practice enshrined in law. I hope that if we can get the co-operation of both sides under the chairmanship of Mr. Travers, there will be a fruitful outcome on what has been — and still is — a very contentious issue.
Voluntary does not work with that group.
We will make the code mandatory if necessary.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
