Vol. 752 No. 4
6Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation the legislative measures, if any, he intends to introduce to prevent scenarios such as Vita Cortex and La Senza whereby places of employment are closed without prior warning being provided to employees and without provision being made for statutory or enhanced redundancy terms. [4108/12]
8Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation in the context of the treatment of workers in Vita Cortex, La Senza and Lagan Brick and other similar cases such as the Jane Norman chain in mid 2011, in which workers are denied the rights and entitlements by employers, the measures and legislation he proposes to put in place to ensure that such occurrences are not repeated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4111/12]
15Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation if he has considered a resolution mechanism to expedite labour disputes to prevent a repeat of the treatment of workers at a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4154/12]
31Deputy Derek Keating asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation if, in view of the La Senza case in Liffey Valley (details supplied) in which workers were told that they were no longer required to report for work on 10 January 2012 and following the intervention by the trade union group and the Minister for State, he will outline the lessons that have been learned from this case; if there is a need for new legislation; the protections in place to ensure that it does not happen again; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3946/12]
45Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation in the context of the treatment of workers in Vita Cortex, La Senza and Lagan Brick and other similar cases such as the Jane Norman chain in mid 2011, in which workers are denied the rights and entitlements by employers, the measures and legislation he proposes to put in place to ensure that such occurrences are not repeated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4112/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 8, 15, 31 and 45 together.
The number of cases that have arisen in recent times of companies becoming insolvent and not engaging in timely and adequate dialogue with their employees is regrettable. I fully understand the pressures companies are under, but this should not be an excuse for treating employees shabbily.
There are various legislative protections in place in both my Department and the Department of Social Protection to protect employees in situations such as those that have arisen in recent weeks. The arrangements in place offer comprehensive protections, but as recent events have clearly indicated, they require the willingness of all parties to ensure legal obligations are discharged. The Protection of Employment Act 1977, as amended, makes it mandatory for employers proposing a collective redundancy to engage in an information and consultation process with employees' representatives and provide certain information on the proposed redundancies. An employer is prohibited from issuing any notice of redundancy during the mandatory employee information and consultation period.
The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 make it mandatory for employers to provide a minimum period of notice in advance of any dismissal for employees with at least 13 weeks service. The notice period ranges in scale from one week to eight weeks, depending on the number of years of service. The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides that most employees are entitled to four weeks annual holidays for each leave year with pro rata entitlements for periods of employment of less than one year.
The redundancy payment legislation, administered by the Department of Social Protection, obliges employers to pay a statutory redundancy lump sum to eligible employees. Where an employer is unable or unwilling to pay, the Department of Social Protection has provision to make a payment from the social insurance fund. The insolvency funds also provide for claims that follow the failure of an employer, for reasons of insolvency, to make payments to employees that are properly due. These include payments in respect of such categories as arrears of wages due, holiday pay entitlement, pension contributions, etc.
Where workers believe their rights under legislation have not been respected by their employer, they have a right to pursue their complaint before the Rights Commissioners or the Employment Appeals Tribunal, as appropriate. Where disputes arise between workers and employers, the Labour Relations Commission can assist with dispute resolution services. The LRC has a very strong record of brokering solutions in many cases. However, not all situations are amenable to being resolved through conciliation. We must remember that the system of industrial relations in Ireland is essentially voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial disputes between employers and workers, whether in redundancy or other collective disputes, rests with the employer, the workers and their representatives. Recent developments have given us all cause for concern and my Department is monitoring developments in close consultation with the LRC.
The Minister's answer is not good enough. He has merely outlined the status quo and the backdrop against which the scandalous decisions have been made by employers to leave workers with nothing, without notice of closures which are sprung on them deliberately to evade the making of statutory redundancy payments. This is happening within the legislative framework outlined by the Minister, which clearly shows that systems and the level of enforcement are inadequate. There is an onus on the Minister to look further.
The question asked what action the Minister would take, and there are a number of measures on which I would like the Minister to comment. The only way workers can meet the threat when closure is sprung on them is by occupying the place of work. Although it did not happen in Vita Cortex and La Senza, when workers occupied the place of work in Thomas Cook, they were dragged out. There should be a provision in these instances where workers could be given legal immunity. That is particularly relevant where people have given all their adult lives working in a particular place. Will the Minister comment on that?
Such people should be entitled to examine the books and the financial claims being made by employers, such as Vita Cortex's Jack Ronan, who say they have no money when everybody knows they have. Organisations such as KPMG represented La Senza in breaching legislation and avoiding statutory provisions, and they have been employed by Departments, which should not happen. The last issue is in the area of enforcement, for which the Minister's Department is responsible, and measures for staffing adequately the Employment Appeals Tribunal and other organisations.
I appeal to Members to make questions and replies short.
The various agencies and supports that have been outlined have been active in some of these disputes, and in some cases there have been successful resolutions, as the Deputy probably knows. There is active discussion ongoing in some cases, with SIPTU involved with the Labour Relations Commission and a proposal being put. In another of the cases, following discussions between Mandate and KPMG, the administrator, the outstanding moneys are being paid, with workers getting their entitlements. Portraying the issue as if the system is simply not working should not be the case. There have been cases that any of us would regard as not the way business should be done, and for instance, there may not have been sufficient notice. The agencies I outlined in my reply are taking action and achieving success in some cases. With other cases the disputes are proving particularly difficult.
Employers are under an obligation to give statutory notice and there are legal enforcement powers if there is a failure to do so. Those powers remain available. We have a system of voluntary industrial relations, with experienced machinery to help both sides reach conclusions. We allow those to work through but there are reserve powers; for example, in the case of redundancy, the Minister for Social Protection would pursue an employer to recover, on behalf of the taxpayer, moneys that may have been paid.
I know the Minister has engaged in a hands-on way with the two companies mentioned but I will bring his attention to another case. He mentioned the responsibility of employers and the usefulness of the labour relations machinery. In my constituency, there was an employer that was, effectively, the State. This relates to St. Enda's Sports Complex in Limerick, which went out of business. The employees had not been paid redundancy and took the employer to the Labour Court last May, and the court's recommendation was that the employees be paid because the redundancy happened because of the withdrawal of funding by a Department. The Department of Education and Skills informed me the money had been put aside to pay the business but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has refused to allow the money to be paid. We are talking about 28 workers and a grand total of €80,000, which is an infinitesimal amount of money when we consider what bondholders are being paid. A Department is liable for this €80,000 but the State is refusing to honour a recommendation of the Labour Court. Will the Minister investigate that and revert to me?
I do not know of the case. From the Deputy's statement, it sounds like the case has gone through the agencies for which I am responsible. At this point it is an issue in respect of honouring a recommendation. I will seek information on behalf of the Deputy but it is not available to me at the moment.
I am dealing first with the people who put down the questions and others can contribute if there is time.
I am taking Deputy Halligan's question.
The Deputy has a question of his own and I will come to him after Deputy Keating.
I am taking Deputy Halligan's question.
I am not aware of that. I will come back to the Deputy after Deputy Keating asks his question.
I refer specifically to the La Senza workers, and I know those who found themselves in a vulnerable position would like to express a sincere thanks to all those who provided support during the time in which they were in a very vulnerable and difficult position. I acknowledge the role of Mandate in those circumstances, although I was particularly disappointed with the role of IBEC, which could have been far more supportive.
Will the Minister consider introducing a dedicated section of the labour relations system that might respond if there is a repeat of these events, as people suggest is likely to happen again because of recent trends? I know the Government is making every effort to create jobs but we must be mindful as a Dáil and Parliament of the people who are in employment and who find themselves in a very vulnerable position. We have seen far too many cases of this recently.
I would be advised by the Labour Relations Commission, which is the body with experience in this sphere. It is a very hands-on agency and it is not a question of allocating a particular section to work on this. It is every man to the pumps in these cases and from the chief executive down its best effort is put into finding a solution. Sometimes it is not possible to bring about a solution and sometimes it is, as was the case with Lagan Brick, as the intervention seems to have been successful. Unfortunately, the intervention so far with Vita Cortex has not been successful. It is not an issue of finding a new section or hiving off an area in this regard.
I share the Deputy's concern as this is a worrying trend and we need to get both sides to understand their responsibilities. We should not see such disputes reach this stage. On another side I am trying to improve the operation of the employee relations and industrial relations machinery to co-ordinate and improve the system. There is a design to promote better compliance and understanding rather than relying on dispute mechanisms to such an extent. I accept the point being made by the Deputy but I am not sure a dedicated section would make a difference.
Is it not the case that the only reason these issues are even being discussed is that workers took action and forced a response from this Government. I refer specifically to the cases of Vita Cortex, La Senza and Lagan Brick. The issue raised by those struggles is what the Government will do to prevent a recurrence of this. Workers want the Minister to ensure that workers who are owed money by companies will have first call in the administration process, and companies will not be able to shelter moneys owed to workers under other company names when those firms still trade in the State. Administrators like KPMG should have a strict code of conduct applied on how to treat workers in these cases.
There is a specific case where employees did not engage in an occupation but the Minister is aware of it and has done nothing. Workers for the Jane Norman chain received exactly the same outrageous treatment when they had contracts terminated in June 2011. They were not paid for a month and have still not received wages. The firm went into administration and the workers were still not paid the money owed. Some three or four months later, the Jane Norman chain, under the new ownership of Edinburgh Woollen Mills, again set up Jane Norman to trade in the State. The workers have still not been paid. Will the Minister intervene in this case, of which I believe he is aware, to ensure those workers are paid the month's wages they are owed, and that the situation cannot arise where a company sacks its workers, owes them money and redundancy, which still has not been paid, and then sets up again a few months later paying workers less and employing them on lower conditions? What is the Minister going to do about that?
The point must be made that the State is standing by workers in these situations. For example, where cases have been pursued under the Redundancy Acts, it is the State that pays workers and ensures they get their rights. The State would then have to pursue the employer, as is required under the law, to recover the money from the employer in those cases. It is not the case that the State is not standing by workers; it is seeking to protect workers in this situation.
Not in parts of Limerick.
We seek to ensure it is not the taxpayer that is always left having to deal with these situations. The State uses the machinery to protect both itself and workers in these cases. I understand that in the case of Jane Norman, the administration that occurred there has recognised insolvency status under Irish legislation. The money due to the workers will-----
What about the month's wages that were not paid?
-----fall to be paid from the insolvency payments scheme. The State will honour the position of those workers. A number of cases are still to be heard by the rights commissioner service in respect of employees from the company.
The truth is that the State seeks to support both sides in resolving disputes. Where they fail and there is genuine insolvency, the State obviously honours the commitment to workers. In cases where dispute resolution fails and the situation is not genuine, the State pursues the employer to recover costs. Where there is failure to give 30 days notice, the State can pursue charges against the company concerned. Legally enforceable powers will be pursued in cases where they are appropriate.
I will take three brief questions from Deputies Tóibín, Catherine Murphy and Buttimer.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
We have only three minutes left. We have already spent 15 minutes on this question.
We are entitled to ask supplementary questions.
The Deputy will have to raise the matter in some other way. We are doing our best to be fair.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
No, I am sorry.
No way. My question is on the Order Paper and I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
The Deputy should please resume his seat.
No, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Then the Deputy will have to leave the House.
Could you explain to me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, why I am not entitled to a supplementary question?
Because there are five Deputies with questions.
I am one of them.
Of course. I am allowing three other Deputies to ask a brief question.
You are selecting three Members.
They are three people who have an interest in the issue.
Why is the time not divided evenly?
I divided it among the five Deputies who tabled questions.
Yes, and I am one of them.
Please, Deputy Boyd Barrett. I call Deputy Tóibín.
Am I getting a supplementary question?
I am calling Deputy Tóibín.
Am I getting a supplementary question?
As Chairman, I can call people as I wish. Deputy Boyd Barrett should please resume his seat.
Am I getting a supplementary question?
Deputy Boyd Barrett should please resume his seat.
Am I getting a supplementary question?
I am calling Deputy Tóibín. Deputy Boyd Barrett should resume his seat.
I want to know if I am getting a supplementary question.
Deputy Boyd Barrett should resume his seat or leave the House. I am calling Deputy Tóibín.
On a point of order, will you explain to me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle-----
The Chair is on its feet.
Could you explain to me-----
I want Deputy Boyd Barrett to resume his seat or leave the House.
It is a point of order.
It is not a point of order.
It is a point of order.
It is not.
Why am I not entitled to a supplementary question?
The Chair is on its feet. Deputy Boyd Barrett should resume his seat.
This is wasting time.
Deputy Boyd Barrett should resume his seat.
Will you explain why I am not entitled to ask a supplementary question?
Deputy Boyd Barrett should resume his seat. I ask the Deputy to leave the House. The Deputy should leave the House. If he does not resume his seat, he should leave the House.
I am just sitting down.
I asked the Deputy to leave the House.
Could I give my time to Deputy Boyd Barrett to ask his supplementary question?
I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I thank Deputy Tóibín very much. All I want to know is whether that is a commitment from the Minister that the Jane Norman workers will be paid the moneys owed to them and that the Minister is going to investigate the matter and ensure those workers receive the same justice that workers in La Senza and others are attempting to receive? Can I get a commitment that the Minister will investigate the Jane Norman case?
I call Deputy Murphy.
I will give up any opportunity to ask a question in favour of Deputy Daly.
I will come back to the Deputy. I call Deputy Buttimer.
I compliment the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, and the Minister on taking the initiative in the Vita Cortex case. However, it has not succeeded. It appears that a deal was done but at the 11th hour one of the parties reneged and walked away. The situation is that 32 people were denied their entitlements by the owner of a company who has engaged with NAMA. I appreciate that the Minister has engaged with the LRC on the matter, but what can we do for these workers who are being denied their rights and entitlements? This group of people have been engaged in a sit-in for in excess of 40 days. These workers are not prohibiting other work being done. They are engaging in a democratic action to receive their entitlements. They are not militants. They are not part of any group of mavericks. They are genuine, decent people who have in some cases worked for 47 years in the company. Where can they go now?
The Minister has avoided many of these issues which have not been sorted. Some La Senza workers are not being paid social welfare for the days of the sit-in. Tens of thousands of workers are waiting for statutory redundancy payments. Some cases came in under the radar before Christmas. The Minister has made a lot of points about the industrial relations machinery of the State, such as the LRC, but what will he do given that there is a waiting list of 74 weeks for rights commissioner cases? That is nearly a year and a half. We have 15 rights commissioners and 44 staff in the LRC. That is a reduction on the previous staff number yet, as the Minister acknowledged, the demands are greater. He is not resourcing the machinery on which he seeks to rely. What will he do about that? Why is he continuing to use agencies such as KPMG for statutory or Government work given that it has been involved in bad practice?
Some of those issues are way beyond my responsibilities. My understanding in the case Deputy Boyd Barrett raised is that a UK administration was appointed. The workers were not given their proper right of notice in that case. It does appear to be an insolvency and under law the power of the Minister in such a case is-----
The company is trading again in the country.
I will investigate whether that is the case and if that is undermining the position. My understanding is that the insolvency fund will be called into action to honour commitments to employees. I will take note of what the Deputy said. He said that the company that went into administration is still trading. I will investigate that.
Deputy Buttimer asked what the next move is in respect of Vita Cortex. An application has been made under the terms of the Redundancy Acts to the Department of Social Protection. In the normal course of events it will pay out money to the workers when it has assessed the claim and seek to recover moneys from the employer. There is also a question of redundancy sums being pursued which are beyond statutory redundancy. That is not covered by the Department of Social Protection. The LRC is maintaining contact with both sides to see whether there is scope to intervene. That is the difficulty. Through the LRC we will keep a close eye on matters and consider whether there is anything we can do to intervene.
On the question of social welfare and KPMG being involved in other cases, it does appear that KPMG and Mandate had discussions that resulted in a fruitful outcome in that case. Like the Deputy, I was surprised at the initial response that appeared to be forthcoming, but the administrator seems to have mended its hand and that issue has been resolved. I can understand the impatience of Deputies. Our system relies on co-operation from both sides, particularly employers, in honouring their responsibilities and is meant to maintain a voluntary approach. It has served us well for many years and across many disputes. We have established expertise that is clearly being put under strain by these disputes, but we will keep a watching brief and seek to make it work to the advantage of workers who are exposed in this way.
7Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation the number of the 13,000 plus Industrial Development Agency supported jobs created in 2011 that were based in County Wexford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4045/12]
18Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation in view of the creation last year of more than 13,000 jobs supported by the Industrial Development Agency and in view of the net gain of 6,114 jobs overall, the number of these jobs that were created in County Wexford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4044/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 18 together.
In 2011, IDA client companies created more than 13,000 new jobs, up 20% on the previous year's level of 10,897, increasing the total number of those employed directly in companies supported by the agency to almost 146,000, representing a net increase of more than 6,000. The IDA has informed me that there are 12 IDA Ireland-supported client companies in County Wexford employing 2,060 people. Some 51 new jobs were created in IDA Ireland-supported client companies in Wexford in 2011. The most significant announcement last year came in September when the Taoiseach joined Mr. Muhtar Kent, chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company, to celebrate the opening of the new $300 million Coca-Cola manufacturing and innovation facility in Wexford, which will facilitate the creation of 100 new jobs in the coming years. This investment is a vote of confidence in Wexford by a global leader.
The past year has been a difficult one for the south east region with significant job losses. The rise in unemployment in the region has been sharper than in the rest of the country. In the wake of the TalkTalk closure, I instructed my agencies to put together an action plan for the south east. The report was published in December 2011 and contains many actions that can help deliver on the ambition of having a stronger local enterprise base, but it can only achieve so much. There are challenges for all agencies in the region to help build up its competitive advantage and promote it in a co-ordinated manner.
The south east received a boost earlier this month with the announcement that Eishtec, a Waterford-based company providing consumer contact centre services, is to create 250 new jobs by mid-2012 as part of a major new expansion at its new custom built facility in Cleaboy Business Park.
The situation in the south east is bad, but it is even worse in County Wexford. The creation of 51 jobs out of 14,000 means that, compared with the national average, matters have worsened in the past year. Almost 20,000 people are on the live register in Wexford and it is one of the country's worst unemployment spots.
Two factors help people to get out of difficult circumstances, those being, jobs and education. We are lagging behind dramatically in both respects. This has led to significant social problems. We have some of the highest illiteracy, teenage pregnancy and suicide rates. We have no third level college. The recent cuts in special needs assistants, SNAs, have had a dramatic effect in Wexford, probably more so than in most counties. Cuts to resource teaching for Travellers and to language support teaching have had considerable effects on primary schools. Gorey community school, the largest school in the country, has lost three guidance teachers.
The situation is going downhill. What active decisions can the Government take to reverse this trend? Traditionally, places with poor land were poor. The land in Wexford is good, but 50% more Wexford people were working outside the county than in it in 2007. For some strange reason, few jobs have gone to Wexford in the past 20 years.
I accept the Deputy's comments. For the reasons he has outlined, I have directed the IDA to give a particular priority to the region. It has suffered badly, and not only during the recession. During the good years, the growth in its industrial base did not match the growth in other parts of the country. I have also directed Enterprise Ireland to contact its portfolio of companies intensively and to make a competitive call for feasibility funding for new start-ups targeted specifically at the south east. Some of Enterprise Ireland's new programmes will be piloted in the south east to give the region the first opportunity. We have sought to build on the research excellences found in Waterford Institute of Technology, WIT, and work with companies to develop them. We are intensively considering what our agencies can do to promote employment growth in the south-east and to support business start-ups.
Many of the issues the Deputy raised fall outside my remit. I am acutely aware that, for a long time, the region has sought to upgrade from an institute of technology. I understand that criteria will shortly be published to clarify the requirements for the development of a technological university. The Minister for Education and Skills is clear on there being an opportunity for educational institutions to develop. I acknowledge the Deputy's remarks and it is a region to which we are giving intensive attention.
The Minister should keep in mind that most of the initiatives to which he has referred are directed towards Waterford. Wexford has a much faster growing population. It is one of the country's fastest growing populations. Many of the issues I raised are of a social nature and outside the Minister's remit, but the lack of jobs feeds into them. For example, Gorey community school is the largest school in the country. When I visited it last week, people were worried that students would fall through the net because of the cut to guidance teachers.
The lack of jobs is creating social problems, yet we are cutting the measures to deal with those problems. Given that Wexford has a fast growing population and has already fallen behind, its circumstances will worsen without active intervention on the part of the Government.
This is active intervention. I have already directed the IDA to ensure that 50% of projects should be outside Dublin and Cork. Within that directive, we are placing a spotlight on the south east. While that also includes Waterford, one must consider a region's strengths and its hub and gateway locations and try to build on what exists. The IDA does not have the power to move jobs around and companies can choose locations. We must consider the region as a whole. I hope our intervention will help the entire region and not just focus on its largest city. We will monitor progress.
There are significant regional disparities in the State-aid provided through the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. For example, County Meath has 4% of Ireland's population but receives 0.3% of IDA funding. In three of the past five years, counties Cavan and Monaghan received no IDA funding. Last year, Meath received two IDA visits in total.
My issue relates to Deputy Wallace's questions. When one approaches these enterprise organisations, one is often told that they find it difficult to get businesses to come to Ireland and that getting them to locate in particular regions is next to impossible. How much is the Government spending on regional offices for the IDA and Enterprise Ireland if, by their own admission, they are irrelevant in terms of directing businesses to the regions? We are funding a regional infrastructure within the State agencies, yet they cannot intervene to direct where the businesses go.
Some businesses are operating without making provisions for contingent liabilities such as redundancy pay. Therefore, they are operating in a bankrupt fashion. Either the legislation or the policing of this matter is not working. Will the Minister consider a system whereby businesses must pay a bond, as construction companies did in the past, to ensure those liabilities are covered in the event of company failure?
Immediate success can be had by IDA Ireland in respect of smaller companies. However, in the case of substantial job announcements, where the company in question is seeking a very deep labour pool, there is, of necessity, a certain restriction in terms of the regions that can offer a good fit. More recently IDA Ireland's focus has been less on the blue chip companies and more on emerging businesses which are more regionally footloose. It has had success in establishing such projects in regions outside of the core population centres. That approach is working well.
It is essential that we have a regional network whereby the agencies can work closely with local authorities and the other players which provide the property solutions and so on. They must be able to work with educational institutions on research and development, for instance, and on identifying the needs of particular companies. It is essential, whether for importing indigenous companies or IDA Ireland companies, that there be a support network which facilitates that level of intelligence.
The Deputy is correct that there has been a growing focus within IDA Ireland on winning business overseas rather than concentrating on particular regions. Traditionally, advance factories were the big selling point for the agencies, but that is no longer what companies are seeking. Requirements are changing and IDA Ireland is evolving to meet them.
Question No. 8 answered with Question No. 6.
9Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Jobs; Enterprise and Innovation the steps he has taken to reduce the regulatory burden on business; the steps he proposes to take over the next three months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4171/12]
Good progress has been made by my Department and its agencies in reducing administrative burdens on business, with a reduction of more than 23% already achieved. This amounts to annual savings for business of more than €198 million. Details of all the initiatives making up this total are available on my Department's website.
Successful initiatives resulting in significant savings include company law savings of almost €80 million per annum, more than €33 million of which is due to the work of the Companies Registration Office, CRO, with companies now able to submit their annual returns online via the CRO website. It is envisaged that by mid-year, the audit exemption threshold for companies with fewer than 50 employees will be further increased from the current limits - €7.3 million for turnover and €3.65 million for balance sheet - to the maximum allowable under EU law, that is, €8.8 million for turnover and €4.4 million for balance sheet. Raising the threshold will increase the €4 million in savings already achieved. In health and safety law, a total of €117 million in annual administrative savings for business has been delivered by the Health and Safety Authority via two key projects, namely, the BeSMART online tool for preparing the risk assessment and safety statement, at a cost of €53 million, and the SMP20 guidelines, costing €64 million, which assist construction firms with fewer than 20 employees in establishing and maintaining an effective safety management system.
The reorganisation of the five existing employment rights and industrial relations, ERIR, bodies, which I have set in train, will result in a simplified two-tier structure comprising a single body of first instance adjudication and a single body of appeal. This new structure will provide a better service for both employees and employers, with fewer delays and reduced administrative burdens. Already there has been some significant early progress, including the development of a single complaint form for use in all existing bodies, the establishment of a single point of entry for all claims, and the creation of a centralised website containing all relevant information on employment rights and industrial relations. My officials are currently using the standard cost model to estimate the likely savings for business that will be delivered by the ERIR simplification and will report on these later in the year. Estimates of the administrative burden savings that will arise from some of the simplified approaches within the consolidated companies Bill will be also produced.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department also co-ordinates the cross-Government measurement and reduction of administrative burdens towards the 25% target to be reached by the end of this year. A project to measure the burden imposed by regulation under the responsibility of seven Departments and Revenue was initiated in September 2011, and I expect results from the first cluster of Departments by the end of the first quarter of this year.
Work is continuing to identify new areas where administrative burdens on business can be reduced. In this respect, the high level group on business regulation is an important forum for my Department to hear directly from business representatives. As part of the action plan for jobs, the Government will be undertaking an assessment of the opportunities to achieve further reductions in regulatory burdens.
I am confused by the Minister of State's reply. According to the briefing I obtained from his Department, an initial target of a 25% reduction in administrative burdens was set, with that reduction expected to produce cost savings for businesses of €500 million. However, the Minister of State says there has been a reduction of 23% and an associated saving of €198 million.
The target is 25%.
Yes, the target is 25%. However, according to page 46 of the briefing given to me by the Department 12 months ago, a 25% reduction should represent a monetary saving of €500 million. If that is so, how can a 23% reduction amount to a saving of only €198 million?
The figure is a whole-of-Government estimate. A large number of intergovernmental bodies and Departments are working on this initiative, but my reply referred only to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. It is about the simplification of regulations, but not all of the Departments that are bringing in reductions deal with business.
There are many simplifications that can be introduced to make the methodology and operation of a Department more effective. The burden of inspections on companies and the associated regulatory requirements are very much a hidden cost. We are obliged to reduce that cost. In regard to the simplification process, overall administrative burdens in the areas of company law, employment law and health and safety law have been reduced by more than 23% to date. Details of all of these initiatives are available on the website.
In addition, workshops were held around the country, which were very well attended, in which we discussed how best we can engage with business people. The high level group established by the previous Administration has as its aim to identify burden issues to Government and to follow through on the implementation of corrective measures. As a former Minister, the Deputy will be aware that it is difficult to bring that mind set into Government. The high level group has been effective thus far, with progress being made in regard to the health and safety statement, online taxation returns and so on. It is about finding practical solutions. In regard to enforcement and inspection, there is now increased co-operation with those bodies. Our objective is to reduce inspections of compliant firms and to identify those which are not compliant.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
