I welcome the delegation from the Electrical Manufacturers and Distributors Association, EMDA. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person inside or outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. This is the usual warning outlined to all witnesses appearing before the committee. I invite Mr. Tilo Kruger to make his presentation.
Manufacturing Sector: Discussion with EMDA and SIPTU.
Mr. Tilo Kruger
I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for inviting us. I will start by outlining our position. I hope the joint committee received the print out of our submission earlier.
I will introduce our association. EMDA is the Electrical Manufacturers and Distributors Association of Ireland and it consists of 43 members with sales into the industry in excess of €0.5 billion and approximately 2,500 employees. Our members can be divided into three broad sections, namely, manufacturers of electrical insulation equipment, distributors of same and panel builders. Representatives of all three are here today.
EMDA usually represents the first step in the supply chain to the electrical industry providing electrical insulation equipment across the island of Ireland. Manufacturers and distributors usually supply their products to electrical wholesalers, the industry, utility companies and panel builders. The end users of our products are electrical contractors or electricians working for manufacturing companies.
The majority of EMDA companies distribute electrical materials throughout the island of Ireland. This could be as a wholly owned subsidiary of a multinational company or as a distribution agent importing branded products. We recognise and regret the decline in the domestic manufacturing of electrical insulation materials over the past decade. As multinational manufacturers have emigrated to more cost-effective locations, indigenous companies have found it difficult to attract investment. Electrical insulation products are predominantly used in the building and manufacturing sectors, both of which have been central to the success of the Irish economy over the past two decades. Unfortunately, both are now in serious difficulties.
I would like to concentrate on the construction sector as this represents a significant market segment for the electrical manufacturing and distribution industry. Residential house building activity will have dropped by 75% in the space of three years come December of this year and we are likely to see another drop of more than 50% in the houses and apartments connected by the ESB to approximately 10,000 units next year.
Alongside the collapse of the housing market, Ireland is also experiencing a severe economic downturn which brings commercial building activity to a similar standstill. Companies throughout the country are reviewing their spending to reduce cost and shelving plans for possible expansion other than for updating their current facilities. There has also been a drop in foreign direct investment and the building activity around it.
Unfortunately, the economic downturn has also severely affected the country's finances and the third big element of construction activity, namely, public infrastructure investment. With the supplementary budget in April, capital expenditure has been reduced to €7.3 billion in 2009 falling to €6.6 billion and €5.5 billion, respectively, over the next two years. Looking at those figures, it becomes apparent that we need to review investment priorities and ensure the country invests in short-term projects which kick-start the economy and create long-term economic prosperity.
If we exclude infrastructure investment, we can see a drop in construction spending from more than €30 billion in both 2006 and 2007 to an estimated €13.5 billion this year and €10 billion for the next two years. These are the economic realities our industry faces and our sector is adjusting to those difficult circumstances. Our members report an average reduction of 30% in turnover for the first nine months of 2009 compared with the same period last year. Companies have taken measures such as redundancy, short-time working and reduction in pay.
Other specific problems EMDA members face can be summarised in a few categories, some of which I would like to examine in more detail. These include commercial rates, cashflow or liquidity, cost of professional services, overregulation and poor support. Commercial rates are a serious issue for us but this issue has been discussed in detail in previous meetings of the committee and EMDA can bring no new evidence forward.
I would like to move on to liquidity which is probably the single biggest concern for all companies as cashflow shortages threaten the very existence of a firm. EMDA members represent the first step in the supply chain and depend not only on selling their products in sufficient quantities but also on getting paid to continue trading. Many companies find themselves in a particular credit squeeze. Our suppliers of finished goods or production materials in manufacturing are tightening their credit terms while it is becoming increasingly hard, and sometimes impossible, to get paid by our customers. Great concerns have been voiced by our members regarding potential negative outcomes from the commencement of NAMA's activities later this year.
On the purchasing side, the perception of Ireland is of great importance. With our reputation suffering severely over the past 12 to 18 months, some European suppliers are no longer extending credit facilities to Irish importers and are demanding to be paid upfront, often despite decades of fruitful business relationships. The diminishing Irish reputation, especially where it is connected to the building sector, also has a negative effect on the availability of credit insurance. EMDA members have seen credit insurance facilities withdrawn from many of their customers. We have reached the point that it no longer makes economic sense to have the facility as our key customers are no longer covered.
Availability of credit facilities from banks is also linked to liquidity. I acknowledge the committee has discussed this issue at previous meetings. Our members are reluctant to seek additional funding, which is hindering growth in job creation.
Another important area of concern is the cost of professional services. I refer to rates quoted in the Forfás annual competitiveness report 2009. The fee for a junior accountant working for a major international firm is €118 per hour, the fee for ad hoc on-site IT services is €165 per hour while that for junior legal assistants in a major legal company is €300 per hour. Similarly, training costs are considered to be high.
Our next issue relates to overregulation. To be fully compliant with all relevant regulations, a large number of processes have to be introduced and forms filled in. However, expertise in all subjects is hard to achieve, especially in small enterprises, which often require outside support involving high professional fees. However, in some areas the lack of a clear framework of what the compliance entails leads to uncertainties. Support structures are particularly lacking in these areas. For example, a specific problem arises from the implementation of the WEEE directive as it applies to the market for electrical insulation materials. EMDA members fully supported the introduction of the directive but the current administration of the directive creates a situation that places Irish manufacturers at a distinct advantage vis-à-vis imports. Discussions with relevant bodies over the past four years have not produced a resolution. As a result, some companies see no alternative but to cease manufacturing and resort to import substitution.
EMDA applauds the introduction of the employment subsidy scheme as it applies to the manufacturing and export sector. The majority of members are not in a position to benefit from the scheme because of the 30% export rule. Will the Government consider opening up the next phase of the scheme to manufacturing and distribution companies serving only the Irish market? Perhaps even the operational side of the business could be considered.
I hope my presentation does not leave members with the impression that everything is doom and gloom. Ireland can look back on great successes, and being part of the building industry or an indirect supplier to the various indigenous and multinational manufacturing companies has benefitted most EMDA members greatly over the past few years. The low corporation tax rate has assisted in the past and is probably assisting many companies to trade through the current economic difficulties. Recent Government initiatives have also aided EMDA members to compensate partly for the downturn in new construction. These are linked specifically to environmental policies. The work of Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, is closely connected to the electrical industry, as Ireland tries to reach its Kyoto targets. Two strands — the reduction of energy consumption and the avoidance of unnecessary energy usage — are at the heart of EMDA members' activities. The lighting sector is playing an important part in deploying energy efficient lamps and luminaires while building automation, presence detection or time controls help to avoid appliances being switched on when not required.
Other initiatives, like the accelerated capital allowance scheme, are designed to help private companies make the required investment and will probably be more successful when the economy is coming out of recession. Consideration might also be given to a "pay as you save" scheme which, in conjunction with utility companies, spreads the cost of investments in more energy efficient equipment over a longer period. This could help the companies involved to cut costs and Ireland, as a whole, to reach its carbon emissions targets.
We also very much welcome the initiative of the Government contained in the national energy efficiency action plan 2009 to lead the way and refurbish 1,000 large scale buildings by 2020 in order to reduce energy consumption by 33% and saving €1.6 billion annually in energy costs.
The adoption of the new guidelines for the purchase of energy efficient products in public procurement is another positive measure which will affect our industry. It is equally important to ensure all energy efficient products meet the relevant international standards. We also acknowledge that the OPW is actively monitoring energy consumption in public buildings under its remit and employs energy saving initiatives on a daily basis.
I referred earlier to the deterioration of the public finances and the need for fiscal consolidation contained in the supplementary budget of April 2009. When considering the new priorities for infrastructure investment contained in the national development plan, we mirror the call of the National Competitiveness Council and suggest prioritising investment in energy infrastructure, environment infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure. In addition, investment in education and health care facilities will help to increase the competitiveness of Ireland in the medium to long term.
We thank members of the joint committee for the invitation and hope our submission and the discussion will be of value.
I thank the delegation for appearing before the joint committee. In many ways, what Mr. Kruger said was nothing we had not heard before. It really spoke to the competitiveness crisis the country faces which has been unfolding for a very long time and has only become an issue of concern now that we are feeling its consequences.
I agree with most of what Mr. Kruger said in regard to endorsing the recommendations of the National Competitiveness Council. If one reads National Competitiveness Council reports of six and seven years ago, they tell us to do exactly these things but now it is almost too late.
For example, we now face an ongoing reduction in the capital budget. In a recession, it seems counterintuitive to cut back capital spending at a time when we need it more than ever to sustain jobs, improve infrastructure and make the country more competitive. When one faces fiscal consolidation of €15 billion, one cannot raise taxes by €15 billion and cut pay and welfare by 40%, whatever about 5% or 6%. It is inevitable there will be retrenchment in the capital budget.
We need to consider other ways to find capital resources. This could be done by using pension funds, public private partnerships or greater use of the private sector to build infrastructure and then toll it or whatever needs to be done in that way. We could also build schools and hospitals and then lease them from the State because I do not see how any Government could do anything other than reduce capital spending as part of its fiscal consolidation process.
I note Mr. Kruger welcomed the employment subsidy about which I have a major concern. I am not sure how well it is working. It is temporary and the more one extends it beyond the remit of export-oriented companies, the more one potentially ends up subsidising weak businesses and putting those that are strong out of business. There is a huge risk of that, of displacement and of dead weight in that particular scheme.
The focus should be more on reducing the cost of business and the cost of regulation. It should be on that side rather than the Government trying to compensate for its owned failed policies through subsidies. Much more would be achieved if the effort was on reducing taxes on business and the cost of business rather than on trying to subsidise businesses. It might be okay as a temporary measure in some areas but it is not a solution.
We have been told the purpose of NAMA is to restore liquidity to the economy. We were told the same thing about the bank guarantee scheme and the recapitalisation. In his presentation, Mr. Kruger seemed to suggest that some EMDA members have concerns that NAMA will not restore credit and liquidity to business. Perhaps he might comment on that. Mr. Kruger was not clear about export credit insurance. Is he asking the Government to introduce export credit insurance again?
I thank Mr. Kruger for his presentation. He covered areas we have addressed to some degree in the past and outlined the important role EMDA played in the construction industry and how vital that industry was to it. In view of the serious decline in the construction industry, we can appreciate the impact that has had on EMDA.
I refer to cashflow and liquidity. Mr. Kruger mentioned that liquidity is probably the single biggest concern for all companies, which we understand. He went on to state that grave concerns had been voiced by EMDA members in regard to the potential negative outcomes from the commencement of NAMA's activities this year.
The Government has indicated on a number of occasions that it is serious about tackling liquidity and opening up credit again for all companies and that it is important we take a big step. We have explained quite clearly the thinking behind NAMA and the impact it will have.
EMDA is perfectly entitled to have concerns about NAMA. There is no certainty attached to it and I believe the Minister has also indicated that. However, Mr. Kruger appears to be expressing concerns on behalf of EMDA members but we are not sure what the body's view is. It is not good enough to express concerns without putting forward some solutions to the liquidity problem. I would like to hear Mr. Kruger's views in that regard.
Mr. Brendan Meehan
I will address the NAMA issue and the concern in that regard. We do not know what the outcome will be. For instance, I employ 50 people and I started the business 19 years ago. I employed 75 people 12 months ago but had to reduce the number to 50. We had to make 25 people redundant. It was something we never had to do in the history of the company. The company had grown and it was almost like a family business. We had to deal with that.
We are now faced with a situation where we are owed substantial amounts of money from our customers who are also owed substantial amounts of money from property developers and other organisations. Until they get that money, they cannot give us the money they owe us. There is no guarantee that NAMA will place those people in a position where they will be able to do that. We are in limbo and do not know what to expect. That applies right across the board.
For the past 18 months, we have been operating in an environment in which there is a massive reduction in both the volume of work and the margin which is being achieved, and one cannot get paid for the work one does. The big concern is who the casualties of NAMA will be, if there are casualties, and how that will permeate through the organisations affected by these developers. It is a deck of cards waiting to fall and it depends on how they will fall. There is no firm idea as to how that will happen or what the outcome will be. That is the concern we all have.
It is real for us; it is not just voicing opinions. Many families depend on a business and the manner in which NAMA operates will directly affect that for good or bad. However, we cannot be sure whether it will be good or bad at the moment.
Does Mr. Meehan agree that was a problem before there was any mention of NAMA?
Mr. Brendan Meehan
Of course it was a problem. We are not saying NAMA is wrong. That is not what has been said. All we are saying is that there is a concern as to what the outcome of NAMA will be. We are entitled to be concerned because all of our businesses are potentially dependent on how it performs and operates. We are not saying it is wrong or right but that we are, and must be, concerned.
We are not talking about export credit insurance but rather actual credit insurance in the island of Ireland. We have international suppliers and we buy from their local operations. They insure their credit to us with credit insurance companies which historically have had absolutely no problem in giving very good credit ratings to us. Now they look at a balance sheet that has not changed, but they reduce a company's cover from €1 million to €100,000 on the basis of Ireland Inc. because they do not want to be operating in this sector. They are concerned about the construction sector in Ireland and do not want to be involved with companies operating in that arena at all. Overnight a company's ability to purchase is reduced from €1 million to €100,000 while trying to continue in business. They do not care what the impact or effect is on companies like ours. Something needs to be done about that. They were the people giving out umbrellas when the sun was shining and now when it is really needed they are not there and do not want to know about it. That is equally as serious a situation as NAMA.
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
I am in accord with what Mr. Meehan has said. Our concern is that the outcome has not been projected. We look at it as businesspeople and try to project forward. We are the same. We have been in business since 1974 and have been around for a long time. However, we have been forced to let many people go. We are not sure of what will happen in the future. We see what is happening in the country. We see empty buildings of all types and we are worried about the fallout from that. We are suffering as Ireland Inc. We have had situations where we have dealt with European companies for a long time. They have said to us that they have been told from the top not to deal in Ireland because it is too dangerous in terms of credit share risks. That is the worry we have. We are worried about whether somebody has projected how this will fall out when something happens. We accept that NAMA is what is going to happen. We were certainly worried before NAMA. We would like to have some sort of projection as to what happens from this onwards.
We all know the manufacturing industry has come under strain in the past ten years and particularly in the past three four years. Could EMDA envisage any way forward whereby we could win back market share or start manufacturing again? We have many innovators. What is the spark that might put us back on a manufacturing growth path? What has happened in the past decade has been camouflaged by the construction industry and everything else. Many people have gained employment in those areas and we lost focus on manufacturing — we have lost a decade. Is there anything that might put us back on that path? That was an important segment of economic activity here. If we are not manufacturing here, those same products are still being utilised and consumed and are therefore being imported. In recent decades we have prided ourselves on our educated workforce, which is no less educated and able in devising or designing things that could be manufactured. What can we do that might reverse the thrust of the engines and allow us to get back on the manufacturing pathway at which we were very good? We lost our way, lost focus and took our eye off the ball. I know much manufacturing is done in other countries because of their wage costs and structures. Is there not something else? We now need to import products that we once manufactured or had the potential to manufacture. When all the costs, including those for transport and various duties that will be imposed are added up, is there any prospect of us getting back on that path? Are there initiatives and mechanisms that would be of help to get us back on the path? I acknowledge that is a broad question but I refer, in particular, to the manufacturing industry.
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
Based on our experience in business, two opportunities are probably not being recognised. The first is communication with trade associations such as ours. We are delighted to be present and to be recognised as representing electrical manufacturers because we do not receive enough recognition. As a trade association, we could put forward many ideas but there is nowhere we can get support for them. We receive feedback from the trade but we have nowhere to project the ideas.
We like to stick to business. We hate to be sidetracked to cope with regulation, which is not productive for us. For example, our industry has a problem administering the WEEE directive. We found great difficulty getting people to listen to us. The directive was well administrated for the retail trade.
Will Mr. O'Reilly explain what the imposition of the directive means for EMDA's members? It is an important initiative but a layer of bureaucracy probably attaches.
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
The purpose of the directive was to find a way of disposing of electronic and electrical waste without putting it in landfill. Legislation was introduced through SI 340 in 2005 by the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Dick Roche. At the time only Ireland and Greece introduced legislation. The directive was not introduced in the UK until 2007. It was brought in suddenly from our perspective and by the time we realised it was being introduced it had been well flagged to electrical retailers. When one buys a fridge, one pays a recycling charge and a business model is in place to cope with that. However, we are manufacturing and selling electrical installation materials and our structure comprises manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers, wholesalers and electrical contractors. There is no facility to cope with the directive and we, therefore, have great difficulty.
In my case, we have two factories, one in Dublin and one in Spiddal, County Galway, which make lighting. We have a serious problem because we buy our lamps in Ireland as opposed to other companies, which import them. They have an advantage over us. It is complex to explain but I have spent the past few years trying to resolve the problem without any support, which is disappointing. We have approached this problem as an association and we have been unable to generate a response to it to the extent that we are considering ceasing the manufacturing of luminaires in Ireland because we cannot put up with this.
I am past the bus pass age threshold but I recall Foir Teoranta many years ago, which saved ailing public companies. It is a great pity we do not have something to save ailing private companies. I attended an auction of manufacturing equipment at a factory that was closing down last week and a guy from England bought the entire factory with fantastic machinery and everything ready to be switched on. However, the equipment had to be taken out of the country because there was no one here to invest in it. It is a great shame to see a company that had brought its product to an advanced stage in design and so on fail. I do not know what happened but the company ran out of cash and no supports are available to help such companies. The net result is equipment and so on is sold on out of the country. If one wants to do that again, one must start at square one. Examinership is a great facility in the courts and if one is lucky enough to get that, it can be very helpful. However, many companies do not make it that far. They are the two things about which I would like to see something done.
I refer to the implementation of the WEEE directive and the impact it is having on EMDA members, who are looking askance. Is that because there is a cost implication to the WEEE directive or that EMDA members' competitors have an advantage over them?
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
First, it is because of the implementation of the directive. We agree totally with it but in terms of the cost, the prices were set in 2005 when the financial situation in Ireland was quite different. It needs to be looked at again at this time. Our problem is with the way it is administered and that is what puts us at a disadvantage vis-à-vis importers.
What has the association done in the past 12 to 24 months to become more competitive? Would Mr. O'Reilly like to voice an opinion on the minimum wage? It is unusual to find a Dub stuck for words.
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
We had an open day in our factory in Bluebell three weeks ago and invited all our customers. We adopted as our slogan for the day Oscar Wilde's famous quote, "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Our sales are down 40% and we have had to make people redundant. We have just unveiled an investment of €1 million in new machinery in our factory. I do not know whether I am seeing stars or looking at the stars but we hope there is an end to this recession and that somehow we will get through it. The only reason we will get through it is that we have been here since 1974 and have put a little bit of money in reserve over the years to try to bring us through.
The companies within our association which are surviving are doing so on their reserves because they are certainly not making any profits. They will be the ones who will make it through. That makes it a very difficult time.
As a company, we are investing our money. We do not get State aid or anything else to drive us forward. We took the decision to invest in order to make the new products we want to make to stay in the market.
This association meets monthly. It is invaluable to us to be able to interface with our competitors and peers in the industry. That is from where we come as an association and what we get from it. We would not like to think we are without hope.
Mr. Brendan Meehan
We are all very positive. We always regard the glass as half full and always look for opportunities to try to do things better. As Mr. O'Reilly said, we have let people go and have experienced the hardship of that process. A major problem for us is that we are owed substantial amounts of money on which we have paid VAT. We invoice someone for €0.5 million worth of product and we must pay the VAT within the next month but the person who has not paid us claims the relief on that VAT because it is on the basis of invoices received and not cash received. If something could be done in order that one could not reclaim VAT on something for which one has not paid——
Is that being accommodated on a cash receipt basis rather than an invoice?
Mr. Brendan Meehan
Cash receipts only work up to a certain level of turnover. One can operate on a cash receipt basis but not when one goes over a particular level of turnover.
Deputy Power asked a question which we might as well ask. Would Mr. Meehan advocate a change to cash receipts?
Mr. Brendan Meehan
It must be changed. It is so penalising that we are in a situation where we have paid VAT on money we have not received. The person who has not paid it has claimed the benefit from it. In the current environment, that has to be——
That could bring down a business.
Mr. Brendan Meehan
Absolutely.
Our committee has a wide remit and we try to give everyone an opportunity to participate in our deliberations. We hope to listen to and transmit views. Would the association not advocate this change? When NAMA has been dealt with, the Minister for Finance will focus on the budget and this represents a significant budgetary change to help small businesses. Private companies cannot be given State aid and while we all want companies to be aided, the Government might as well nationalise all of them if one looked at it like that. Let us be realistic. The pot is almost empty and there is no point in us making a false promise that something will happen. We should examine practical ways to help companies and making a change from VAT invoices to VAT receipts is one example.
Mr. Brendan Meehan
I suppose we assume a change of that order in the way VAT is handled is beyond the realms of possibility but it needs to be considered because the current system will bring companies down. It may have done so already.
Surely there is a level of turnover at which——
Mr. Brendan Meehan
It is a relatively small amount.
If the threshold, for example, is €1 million of turnover, could that not be increased to €2 million or €3 million because that would be practical? Deputy Power tried to ascertain practical initiatives the association would recommend.
We have an affinity with manufacturing and industries have disappeared from many towns and villages meaning the country has been denuded of a manufacturing base. Are there products being imported by the association's members that could be made in Ireland? We have many young innovators and entrepreneurs. Deputy Fitzpatrick is an advocate of county enterprise boards. What interaction has the association with such bodies regarding import substitution? Can the association contribute in this regard? All of us must think outside the box, as we were lulled into a false sense of security for a decade but now we are in a competitive environment and it behoves us all to play a constructive role. What can the association bring to the table? Some of the officials present have been members for 35 or 40 years. They are not juveniles and they have survived tough times previously. What can happen in the future?
Mr. Brendan Meehan
If we saw an import that could be substituted, we would be doing it.
I mean something that could be manufactured here rather than imported. Much of the commentary about the manufacturing industry revolves around companies relocating to cheaper economies, particularly in the context of labour costs and so on. If that were the case, every company would be gone. Can we do anything to trigger manufacturing as we used to know it?
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
The simple answer is it is not attractive to invest in manufacturing in this country and that is the reason it is not happening here. Over the past ten years, everybody who had money invested in pubs, apartments and so on. I am still working because I could not dispose of my company. Nobody would buy it because employing 60 people is a huge responsibility. There has to be some way to make manufacturing attractive to people entering industry. That is difficult and it is a big issue to resolve.
Would Mr. O'Reilly look at a tax incentive-led system?
Mr. Kevin O’Reilly
In the past, tax incentives have certainly worked and have been very good in this country. The BES sort of scheme is very good. We have problems in that we cannot get our money back from the BES schemes and if we do invest in them they do not have any money. We are already reducing the tax because we are compensating for the redundancy moneys we cannot get because there is no cash in the Exchequer's coffers. We are already doing that. As regards the future, a task force is needed to get real about what can be manufactured. Our association has well over €0.5 billion worth of products going into the market, although we do not represent the full market, just our membership. There must be some way that we can make a contribution to that.
Deputy Seán Power asked about the minimum wage. Somebody said to me that it is unbelievable that in this country we do not have a big lighting manufacturer or any other installation material manufacturers. We have to compete with people in Spain where the minimum wage, at approximately €3.50 per hour, is substantially lower than here. That is the reality, unfortunately. We are isolated by distance from the main market, so those are things we have to get realistic about. There is no doubt that process of investing in manufacturing is a long haul and one must be committed to it. There is no easy answer but the bottom line is to make it attractive to investors. That is the only way.
I thank the delegation for an interesting presentation. Has the BER, building energy rating, scheme made any difference to the manufacturing industry? Has it had any impact and, if so, has anybody assessed that impact?
Mr. Tilo Kruger
To a certain degree it has had an overall impact, although perhaps not in our industry as such. Many of the BER measures would concern insulation and changing heating systems, whereas we would be more involved in electrical insulation materials. However, only a small element of that applies to us. In the domestic situation it concerns changing lightbulbs to the value of €150, which is the full extent one could do in an ordinary house concerning electrical materials. Heating and insulation have a much bigger impact. We feel that this is important because other elements will come into play, certainly on the commercial side. These include lighting and building automation with the installation of simple timers to ensure that appliances are not used unnecessarily. A motion detector in a toilet can save up to 80% of energy, as the light will switch off automatically in a low-frequency toilet. There is a quick return on that, for example.
Many of our companies are registered with the ACA scheme under SEI in that respect, but unfortunately we do not see a throughput on that at the moment. Our companies cut back wherever they can on the cost base. Deputy Varadkar asked if we could cut down on costs, but we are now at a point where there is not a lot more we can cut. We have sympathy with that position because we do not have the money to spend and neither do others. That is why I said in my address that, hopefully, the scheme will take off once people return to profitability. When the economy in general picks up, investment will come along.
It is positive that the Government has taken the initiative to refurbish 1,000 large-scale State-owned buildings over the next ten or 11 years. On average, that means 100 large-scale buildings per year. That will help our industry. It will help electricians and everyone getting involved there and making that. If the outcome is a €1.3 billion energy saving, we would all benefit.
I thank the witnesses for their contributions. From speaking to representatives of other companies we know of the difficulties with doing business. Mr. Kruger spoke about large-scale buildings and building refurbishment. The EMDA presentation mentioned short-term projects that would kick-start its industry again. What kind of short-term projects does it have in mind? I understand the difficulties the companies are having with credit insurance. Has any element of certainty returned now that the NAMA legislation has been published? We hear that it has given certainty to the international markets. Have members of EMDA seen any sign of that certainty in the willingness to free up credit flow?
Mr. Tilo Kruger
I will deal with the first question on short-term projects. When we looked at it we thought about building and refurbishing schools, etc. While it is badly needed, the funds are just not available. Usually over the summer there is a big flurry in the months of July and August when many projects seem to be coming on line. That did not happen this year. That might be just perception and I do not have the figures to back that up. From being in the industry, seeing the projects under way and talking to our customers, it did not appear to be as busy as it used to be. Such investments would help to keep people in jobs and keep business going, which would benefit the country as a whole. The same is true for health infrastructure. We all agree that something needs to be done and now might be the time to invest in these areas, which would have a knock-on effect not only in an industry such as ours, but also in the construction industry overall.
The Deputy asked about credit insurance after the announcement of NAMA. There are basically only three main European suppliers of credit insurance. If a company is dropped it is not only dropped by one but is also dropped by the other two within 24 hours. I can only speak for our own company. We cannot see any improvement in that situation after NAMA. We still get the cancellation or reduction of customers' credit. I would not say this happens on a daily basis as I do not want to exaggerate. Customers who would be in the business for a very long time are suddenly dropped by credit insurance companies. Our companies need to take the risk. While I accept that to a certain degree that is our function, it comes to a point where one bad apple ripples through the system. It will kill many more jobs than just those in one particular company. Our concern is over the uncertainty. I hope NAMA will bring back confidence internationally so that the perception of Ireland Inc. will improve and we can continue to do business.
In our own case, we are part of a multinational company. Our company is a European company based in France and Germany. We do not experience these credit issues because we are supplied by our headquarters and use product mainly used on the Continent. From that point of view we are in a very good position. Many of our colleagues in the industry are suffering from the perception that Ireland is not good enough to deal with at the moment.
I thank the delegation for giving the time to appear before the committee. We appreciate that it is an important area which is why we decided to investigate it.
I thank the delegation for assisting us in our deliberations. We invited the association to appear so that we could engage directly with representatives of businesses fighting the recession. We hope we can assist its members in providing the optimum regulatory environment in which to operate. Mr. O'Reilly referred to the impact of the WEEE directive and we will reflect on that. Perhaps more detailed notes could be forwarded to the committee about this and the VAT issue, which we will then pass on to the relevant Ministers. We wanted to hear the opinions of the delegation and I thank it for giving its time. Its members are at the coalface and that is why we thought it would be worthwhile inviting them to appear. SIPTU representatives will appear before the committee shortly and I invite the EMDA officials to sit in the public gallery while they make their presentation.
We will now discuss the challenges facing the manufacturing sector in Ireland with representatives of SIPTU. I welcome Mr. Graham Macken and Mr. John Murphy and I thank them for their attendance.
Before they make their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that while members of this committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to people appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I invite Mr. Macken to make his presentation.
Mr. Graham Macken
The manufacturing sector has played a critical role in the development of the economy and has made a significant contribution to the growth of employment, productivity, innovation, technological change and prosperity over the past 20 years, in particular. However, during the current round of negotiations with respect to the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, the necessity to put in place the relevant safeguards to protect this industry and ensure its survival for the 21st century was highlighted.
As an economy, we have relied too heavily on the construction industry and we are experiencing a sharp decline in employment as a direct result of the collapse of the housing and commercial property market. The associated knock-on effects from this global collapse can be seen throughout the economy and they have, in turn, led to the current financial crisis within the banking sector. It is, therefore, essential that we look at all other avenues for potential employment and the manufacturing sector will play a pivotal role in this revival. Some sectors of the economy believe this can only be achieved by attacking the benefits that have been accrued by employees over many years and by a direct attack on wages. SIPTU does not share this opinion. On the contrary, we believe that if we ensure that workers' rights are protected and enhanced throughout the European Union and further afield, this will create a level playing field. In effect, a rising tide should lift all boats and, therefore, society in general can benefit.
It is important to consider the value of this sector to the Irish economy. For example, in 2004, the combined expenditure of the Irish manufacturing sector on wages, Irish materials and services was €25 billion. Almost 28% of the total corporation tax yield was attributed to this sector. However, while the industry has grown on the basis of view of productivity, there has been a negative effect on employment which has led to a decline. There was a 13% decrease in employment in this sector between 2000 and 2005.
I refer to the challenges which face us. It is essential we tackle the costs associated with business in Ireland. This can be achieved without an attack on wages and there are many other factors that are attributed to high operating costs. Energy is one of these key elements. The cost of electricity and gas is primarily dictated by the price of oil and other factors outside an island economy's control. We must maximise our potential for renewable energy.
There must be a renewed emphasis on the national development plan with regard to infrastructure. We must finalise our road network and transport facilities that enable businesses to conduct their activities in an efficient manner. We still have employees who travel 70 km to work. This journey in other economies would take approximately 40 minutes but it could take two hours here. This has a knock-on effect on the work-life balance and productivity and has a direct effect on the transportation of goods.
There must be a continuous emphasis on training and upskilling the workforce. This must be done as a natural part of our daily working lives and, therefore, a proactive step as opposed to reacting when the problem of a particular sector ceases its operations.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has proposed to Government that €1 billion should be made available to businesses where it can be shown that their continued viability and ability to sustain employment has been jeopardised by the current economic climate. A large percentage of this would be aimed at the manufacturing sector. Similar schemes have been introduced successfully in Germany and elsewhere with a view to retaining jobs and training workers as opposed to the loss of these jobs and the subsequent impact that this would have on social welfare services and local communities.
We must make third level education more readily available to school leavers and provide a base of operation in Ireland when they qualify. There is no point training our citizens and forcing them to take their skills abroad. There must be much more emphasis on the importance of transition year for students to consider their options and develop the necessary skills for their future careers.
We must try to focus on high tech-based manufacturing to counteract the loss of some of the low tech, labour intensive industries. For example, emphasis should be placed on pharmaceutical and engineering projects.
It is essential to get credit moving again in the economy and while there may be differing views on the current Government strategy to achieve this by the recapitalisation of the banking industry, there are few commentators who would argue that action was not necessary. Until we can stabilise the economy and give confidence back to investors, there will be no real growth in any sector. It is essential, however, that we ensure this cashflow is made available to business and not simply a way to address these institutions' balance sheets.
The social partnership process has served the economy well and played a major part in turning the economy around in the 1980s. We should not, as some commentators wish, allow decisions and policies that will affect present and future generations be taken by vested interest groups which wish to see a race to the bottom in wage rates and public services as the answer to the problems faced in the manufacturing sector and the wider economy. The high level group report on manufacturing should be the basis for Government policy on the future of this critical industry.
SIPTU and ICTU believe legislation agreed in social partnership talks should be enacted to protect workers in all sectors from the right-wing agenda of purely slashing wages which, in turn, will force our economy to become a low wage economy subsequently leading to an erosion of consumer buying power. This will result in further job losses in manufacturing which is already under pressure from low-cost economies. We do not believe Ireland is in a position to compete or should not be drawn in to this race to the bottom.
Furthermore, we believe that it is imperative to get social partnership back on track as this has been shown to deliver during previous economic difficulties. The ten-point plan put forward by congress should be the basis for this recovery.
I thank Mr. Macken.
I thank Mr. Macken for a very succinct, clear and timely presentation. There is much external comment about what should be done. I agree with most of Mr. Macken's comments about the success of the social partnership model and it must be nurtured. The Government and the various pillars need to step back. They might need a history lesson on where we were in the 1980s and 1990s and how we found our way out. It has been stated many times in the Chamber that we find ourselves in a different situation now. I am a product of the 1980s and 1990s. I worked in employment exchanges and in communities in the north inner city and I acknowledge it is a different situation.
Mr. Macken stated that industry had increased on the basis of productivity which had a negative effect on unemployment. A proportion of the decrease relates to progress. In other words, better technologies and working methods and conditions are being used and that must be balanced against the suggestion that we move away completely from what we did in the past and make a complete change. The social partnership model should be maintained. It has been successful and we can build on it. The model must be adapted to the current scenario and, like everything else in life, if one does not adapt and move forward, one will go backwards.
I agree with much of what Mr. Macken said. The committee has had similar presentations from numerous delegations. They outlined their problems with liquidity from the banks and the problems small and medium-sized businesses have securing loans, overdrafts and other credit facilities. The suggestions made to the committee are being fed to the various Departments dealing with the issues. Will social partnership come back on to the agenda? Will the model change and become stronger?
Mr. Graham Macken
There are different opinions about the benefits of the social partnership model. It would be incorrect of us to give the impression that we agree with all aspects of it. There are 47 signatures on the document. The difficulty is not what is contained in Towards 2016 but implementing what was agreed. For example, in many cases where there is a genuine concern about the pay element of the agreement, provisions are in place to allow companies with a genuine difficulty to implement certain clauses and they can seek offsetting measures in total or in part. However, the difficulty we have is that in a large number of employments, people are sitting on the fence. They are not claiming an inability to pay but they are not prepared to attend the appropriate fora available such as the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court because they do not want to open their books to external scrutiny. We are fed up trying to explain to these firms that it is not as if they are opening their books. Independent arbitrators would be given the task to assess their position and our concern is that where they are not prepared to go down this road, it will lead to one of two scenarios. They are either being opportunistic or they have an inability to pay, otherwise there should be no reason not to fall in under the agreement.
Policing the document and passing the legislation that was part of the national discussions are serious concerns. The forum and the idea of social partnership should work, but it is a question of policing and implementing it in the appropriate fashion. From the viewpoint of businesses at home, or potential investors abroad, it is crucial to know that there is a relatively stable economic climate here. Partnership has achieved that by way of certain mechanisms in place, although we would not agree with all the clauses. However, it is better to have forums to deal with problems as they arise, rather than going back to a 1980s-style knee-jerk reaction.
I thank the delegation for coming in and sharing their thoughts with us, but I do not share their enthusiastic view of the success of social partnership. It was a wonderful idea at the time and certainly laid the foundations for much of the success we enjoyed, but in many respects it has outlived its usefulness and created enormous difficulties. It contributed in no small way to the difficulties we are experiencing at present and the lack of competitiveness that is so obvious throughout the country.
In his contribution, Mr. Macken said that our economy relied too heavily on the construction industry. Nobody in their right mind would disagree with that. He went on to say that it is therefore essential that we should look at other avenues for potential employment. We would all agree with that also. He then said that some sectors of the economy believe this can only be achieved by attacking the benefits that have been accrued by employees over the years. Can Mr. Macken be more specific about who he is referring to in those sectors? What sectors is he talking about?
As regards challenges, he said it is essential to tackle the costs associated with doing business in Ireland. He mentioned the factors that have contributed to high operating costs, including energy in particular. He expressed the view that we should maximise the potential for renewable energy. I do not think anybody would disagree with that. We realise how finite oil resources are and, although oil prices have been at what one might call a reasonable level over the past 12 months or so, the price can only go one way eventually. It is something over which we have no control. In fairness, we have made significant efforts to try to maximise the potential for renewable energy. There is enormous potential in that regard but it cannot happen overnight. Maybe we should have started earlier but we cannot turn the clock back. Enormous efforts are being made to maximise the potential of renewable energy. We need immediate action to attack high energy costs, as well as planning further down the line.
I cannot see how the delegation cannot accept — particularly with the deflationary impact of recent times, which will continue for a while — that we have been paying ourselves too much. That is the case whether it concerns TDs or others in the public service. At some stage, the delegation will have to accept that fact. The country cannot afford to continue this way. We must get real about this and accept that we have been paying ourselves too much and it cannot continue. If we are genuinely serious about protecting existing employment and creating future jobs, this is one area that cannot be neglected. It is a simplistic approach which goes down well with the public. We are talking to thousands of people who are going through financial difficulties, yet we are also talking about protecting wages. If we are to be serious about becoming competitive again, creating much needed employment and getting the economy going, we must face the harsh reality — that wages are far too high and will have to be reduced.
I would like to speak as there will shortly be a vote in the Dáil. What three things does SIPTU believe the Government should do to help the manufacturing sector get through the recession?
Mr. John Murphy
At the top of our list would be the investment that congress and SIPTU want the Government to put into industry as a whole, but primarily into manufacturing. If the €1 billion survival package that we sought were channelled in the right direction it would lead to our second biggest priority, the upskilling and training of people currently in employment. When people lose their jobs there is nothing worse than being left claiming social welfare on the dole for a number of months and then trying to get access to training and upskilling in the hope of getting re-employed. We need to identify sectors in the manufacturing industry experiencing pressures from low-wage economies outside Ireland and through investment in upskilling people try to attract the high-end technology manufacturing. It would be better to do it while these people are still in employment and to use the money that would be paid out through social welfare on jobseeker's allowance and benefit. This would give them a mixture of employment and training on the job in the hope of either securing their present employment or giving them access to future employment in either that sector or another sector.
The last of the three main issues I would identify is an emphasis on the youth and the future generations. At the moment there is no attraction for school leavers to enter third level education on the basis of employment in the manufacturing industry. It all seems to be geared towards computers and finance, which have initial upswings to the economy, but we do not believe that is sustainable. We believe a solid strong manufacturing base will carry us through for more than just swings and roundabouts. We need the framework of a sustainable manufacturing industry and school leavers actively pursuing work in manufacturing, engineering and other trades aimed towards manufacturing to attract the inward investment the country needs from high-end manufacturing industry.
I know Deputy Seán Power said we need to readjust wage levels. There is no way Ireland can adjust its wage levels to the extent that we could compete with low-cost countries like China and India. We have lost the clothing, footwear and manufacturing sectors to those economies and we will just not be able to compete with them. We do not believe we should be aiming to compete with them. We should be aiming to attract sustainable manufacturing work and we need to put in the infrastructure through the education of our young people in third level and in upskilling and training people before they lose their jobs.
Mr. Graham Macken
I wish to respond to Deputy Seán Power's comments that we overpaid ourselves in the past. There may well be some sectors that have been overpaid in the past. As I touched upon in my opening submission, fundamentally we are against any rolling back of salaries or wages in the current economic climate. However, we have entered into discussions locally with many employers. In the case of a number of them — possibly the majority — where they have identified a genuine concern with their cost base and a genuine difficulty with sustaining the level of wage costs they incur, we need to make an informed decision. Either we need to take a leap of faith or it needs to be proved to us as to whether the company is genuinely in difficulty. If the company is in difficulty it would be ridiculous for us to fight and win the battle because ultimately the company folds and leaves the country. That is not in anyone's interest. If nothing else, from a selfish point of view we want to maintain our members. If that means maintaining our members' jobs in smaller numbers that is better than overseeing the demise of an industry.
As I mentioned earlier, the difficulty is not those industries that have come to us and identified a problem but the industries that have taken a particularly annoying line. I do not have privilege in this regard, so I will not name individuals. However, certain organisations have decided to take an opportunistic approach. Although they may be one of the 47 signatories to the Towards 2016 national wage agreement, they seem to feel they are not bound by it and seem to have a fear of coming in under a clause which states, "inability to pay". Instead, they sit on the fence and state, "We agreed to it on Monday but we do not like the view on Wednesday. We will pull out of it and are not bound by it." That is not acceptable.
One of two things happened. They went into the negotiations on behalf of their membership but did not have the mandate to agree to anything. They went back to report to their members but were overruled. We need to know when we negotiate with people in Government Buildings, or with the social partners, that they have the mandate to agree to what they are there to do. That is basically the problem.
We do not accept the fundamental roll back in earnings, salaries, wages or benefits of any description. However, if a company identifies a problem to us, we will sit down with it in the spirit of partnership, albeit at local level, or through the various mechanisms provided by way of the Labour Court, Employment Appeals Tribunal and so on, and discuss options. The problem is many companies are not prepared to discuss options.
Does Mr. Macken accept that many workers have been very flexible in understanding the new situation in which we find ourselves and have been quick to accept work changes and work practices and reduced wages in an effort to keep businesses afloat and to protect their jobs and those of their colleagues?
Mr. Graham Macken
Yes. Many individuals have done that and agreed to those changes under the stewardship of their representative body which, in many cases, was SIPTU. We have done deals with companies as survival packages. However, I am concerned if individuals do not have the appropriate representation. What has happened in some companies, which perhaps do not have recognised unions, is that they go to the staff and ask for a 5% to a 10% pay cut. If a 5% to a 10% pay cut is required, it must be agreed by way of a mechanism which can be reviewed quarterly, monthly or otherwise. Those safeguards must be put in place. Those are the types of negotiations we have with companies.
Those people without representation are agreeing to cuts of 5%, 10% or otherwise but there is no mechanism in place to ensure that when we return to the good times, we reinstate that portion of their earnings which they have let go so readily.
I do not have all the answers and certainly do not have the monopoly on wisdom but if one reduces wages, one reduces the availability of funds in the economy to purchase products, services and goods. Ultimately, reducing wages has a knock-on effect——
It costs less to live in this economy.
Mr. Graham Macken
When we had the Celtic tiger economy, some companies made astronomical profits and I assure the Deputy that they did not put their hands in their pockets and pay in excess of what was agreed under the national wage agreement. To be fair, it is swings and roundabouts. Let us see give and take on both sides. At present, it seems to be at the expense of the employees at all stages.
Mr. John Murphy
Deputy Seán Power said he believed that perhaps social partnership had outlived its usefulness. I disagree with that.
I said it had in many respects.
Mr. John Murphy
The main benefit during the good times, and which got us out of previous bad times, was planning and the ability of companies to be aware of the environment in which they were trying to compete. As Mr. Macken said, we do not ignore employers who recognise unions and who are in difficulty. It is not in SIPTU's interest or that of any trade union to ignore genuine downturns and difficulties employers faces because, ultimately, our members' jobs are on the line.
I refer to companies which do not recognise unions and afford their employees the right to representation.
We touched on the compliance Bill and legislation to protect employees. Where we represent employees in companies, they are up against unfair competition from outside because of this legislation. It is not sustainable because we face a return to the 1970s and 1980s when there were no social partnership agreements. There was chaos in some sectors relating to industrial relations issues. We do not say there must be an X% increase or a pay freeze but the model must be reinvigorated and re-examined and that can only be done through dialogue and sitting down with ICTU, of which SIPTU is a member. Employers will have to bring their issues to the table and if there are genuine problems, we will not be found wanting, but it is not correct that some employers are jumping on the bandwagon of the current downturn to slash costs and have a race to the bottom. That will not sustain manufacturing industry in Ireland going forward.
Deputy Power referred to the problems of energy costs. Congress's ten-point plan identified that the regulator is keeping energy costs artificially high in the hope of attracting competition into the industry.
I do not disagree but it was explained clearly——
Mr. John Murphy
We know the reasons but manufacturing industry and inward investment are suffering because energy costs are high. It is not all about wages.
I accept Mr. Murphy's comment. This creates a difficulty but there is also the issue of dealing with a scenario where there was a monopoly and trying to create competition through artificial means. It appears to be working but perhaps not as quickly as we would like.
Mr. John Murphy
That is the problem. It may be working and competition is being attracted into the energy supply industry but it is also having an effect on costs in manufacturing.
The social partnership process needs to be reinvigorated and alternatives must be examined. Wages are only one element of the process and many ancillary issues are also addressed. Following the passage of the Lisbon treaty in the referendum, a number of important issues it deals with relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights will, hopefully, be addressed. The only way to do so is, as Mr. Murphy said, to get around a table and have comprehensive discussions with an open book where everybody is up-front.
Workers are not excluded from the chills of reality. They are in the marketplace and their relatives and friends are losing their jobs. I hope social partnership talks will recommence with vigour. We should never overlook the role the agreements played in the 1980s when circumstances were bad. The Government, as a major employer, could bring a number of initiatives to the table. Everything does not revolve around a wage increase and many other initiatives could be brought to the table which would, hopefully, encourage and reinvigorate the process in order that we get to a stage where a constructive role can be played in ensuring the country confronts its significant economic difficulties.
We are examining the manufacturing sector, in which Ireland has lost out, and we had an important discussion with electrical manufacturers earlier. However, I am worried that we have allowed our traditional manufacturing base to go down the Suwannee. I hope SIPTU will bring ideas to the table that focus on traditional manufacturing, which the Government could then examine in a constructive, positive way. No job would be worth a candle if the pay rates offered in China and other countries were contemplated. We need to focus on non-pay areas such as education and other areas that would get us back on the pitch of manufacturing again. We got so suffocated in an air of unreality in construction that we left the playing pitch of manufacturing. We let it sail down the Suwannee and into oblivion. We have very little manufacturing left. The clothing and footwear industries have disappeared. Even in some agriculture-related areas where we have comparative advantage, there will be significant difficulties trying to ensure survival.
I hope that all the relevant partners get back into talks. Some of the partners involved do not represent some of the areas that are under threat. I know that is not a function of SIPTU. However, there are many small and medium-sized businesses that are not members of ISME, the SFA and other organisations. This is such a significant point in our economic cycle that the shutters should not be pulled down on anybody who can make a contribution. That is not a function of the unions. Very often it is a function of Government. ISME and other organisations have members contributing to employment. If the table needs to be made bigger, it should be made bigger so that all the voices are heard.
SIPTU has articulated a number of issues affecting its members. They are facing all the cold winds of repossessions and trying to renegotiate interest-only loans where previously they were repaying capital and interest. Some of them are being placed on part-time or short-time work. All those issues need to be brought to the table. We want to ensure that all the relevant interests are represented at that table. We need to get away from the situation where some people feel excluded when they have a contribution to make. Some of the bodies that have appeared before the committee feel they were left out of the process. The Government defines the groups involved. Congress represents an enormous number of employees and is there as of right. However, other organisations that feel they could give a valuable and constructive input feel they are excluded. I would hope the process would come back into play in a reinvigorated and renewed fashion dealing with the challenges we have today. That may mean SIPTU and others looking at problems anew. I would hope it will be all-embracing so that we can all play a role, including ourselves as politicians. I hope we are open enough to play that role and be constructive and not be so constrained by old views of the world rather than opening up to the new views that are necessary to ensure we get back on the path. It is no use SIPTU members losing jobs to other countries and The Wall Street Journal then referring to some other economy being on the up while we lose everything.
I thank the delegates for attending.
Before the Chairman wraps up the meeting, I wish to point out that as the Chairman said in private session, there was a lack of members present today because so many meetings were taking place and we are only just back after last week. Many people apologised for not being present. It is no slight on SIPTU's presentation. That is just the way things happen.
In fairness, our trade unions friends will have run into the same problem when a number of meetings run on. They may well have been at another forum today but had to come here to represent their union. They are a bit like us and I do not believe they will take umbrage at the fact members have been running around today.
We are only back after a week off for the referendum. I insisted this meeting go ahead so if anybody should apologise, it should be me. A number of colleagues had other meetings at3 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. but I insisted we go ahead because we had the SIPTU representatives lined up. We will pass on the contribution to the relevant Departments, so their points will be made.
The past 30 years have seen the total decimation of manufacturing in Ireland. Even during the boom years when other sectors grew, wholesale manufacturing jobs disappeared. Carpets, furniture and shoes are just some examples. These products, which were manufactured in Ireland, are now imported.
We will call on the Minister to see if it is practical for any of these industries to be revitalised or if new manufacturing industries can be established in Ireland. The skills are still here, although some are lying idle. Mr. Murphy said we should focus on the education train, so to speak, and ensure that is addressed.
We have achieved much and have created many jobs in the services sector, in pharmaceuticals and in computers but we made a big mistake in allowing manufacturing jobs flit away industry by industry. Now might be a good time to think about bringing them back.
If any of the SIPTU representatives' colleagues wish to make a written submission to us on any area in which they believe something positive could be suggested, we would be delighted to take it on board as with the presentation made today.
The SIPTU representatives were under pressure today because of their national conference in Tralee. I thank them for their time. We acknowledge and are grateful for their contribution.
The joint committee went into private session at 4.03 p.m. and adjourned at 4.05 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 October 2009.