Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT debate -
Tuesday, 16 Jun 2009

2009 Annual Output Statement.

I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan, the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and commerce, Deputy Billy Kelleher, and the Minister of State with responsibility for science, technology, innovation and natural resources, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and their officials.

Members will be aware that as part of the budgetary process reforms initiated by the Minister for Finance in budget 2006, each Department must now publish an output statement for consideration by Oireachtas committees. In line with that reformed budgetary process, an output statement has been provided and circulated along with a briefing to members. This is an important initiative and is intended to facilitate better parliamentary involvement in the budgetary and Estimates processes. In addition, the Minister for Finance, in correspondence, requested that the Estimates debates have a particular focus on the outputs to be achieved for the moneys being voted. The office of the Chief Whip has informed the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment that all Revised Estimates must be considered by the select committee not later than Tuesday, 16 June, and we must complete the business today.

I propose that the Minister makes her opening statement followed by a statement by the Opposition spokespersons, Deputy Varadkar for the Fine Gael Party and Deputy Morgan for Sinn Féin. I am the spokesperson for the Labour Party. Deputy White or other members may offer as well. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to present my Department's Estimates and annual output statement.

The last year has been a turbulent one for every economy. It is well documented that the financial crisis which hit the world from last September with the collapse of Lehman Brothers has been of a magnitude which has not been experienced for almost a century. Adapting to this crisis has been difficult, even for those economies which were traditionally regarded as among the strongest and most robust in the world. Japan, America and Germany have all had to cope with sudden and dramatic reductions in exports and consumer sentiment. Virtually no country has been immune from the fall-out of the economic downturn and Ireland as a small open economy has experienced the impact of international events.

In light of this, the Government has had to make some very tough decisions in this year's Estimates. Cutting public expenditure is never popular. However, in the current economic circumstances, it was necessary. There are no quick-fix solutions to the situation we find ourselves in, but recent expenditure returns published by the Department of Finance indicate that the Government's policies are beginning to result in a stabilisation of the public finances. This will provide a platform to restore confidence in our economy.

However, reducing public expenditure alone will not steer us out of the current economic difficulties. We also need to be proactive in pursuing policies which will keep the life blood of the economy flowing. We need to ensure that we do all we can to prevent the re-emergence of structural long-term unemployment which blighted this country in the 1980s. We need, above all, to ensure that we are in a position to benefit from the upturn in the global economy when it inevitably comes.

My Department has a central role to play in supporting companies and workers through the present difficulties, and in providing them with the mechanism and skills that will enable them to seize the opportunities that will emerge from the global recovery when it comes.

The brief which has been circulated to the committee itemises my Department's 2009 Estimate allocation by subhead and shows the corresponding Estimate and outturn figure for 2008. My Department's annual output statement for 2009 has also been submitted for consideration. The annual output statement breaks down my Department's Estimate over seven key programme areas and sets out targets for each of these areas for 2009. It also provides details of the progress made against the targets that were set for 2008. I am glad to report that my Department met or exceeded most of its targets in 2008, in spite of the poor economic environment in the second half of the year. The annual output statement provides explanations for the small number of areas where the outcomes were not as high as expected. The Estimate of net voted expenditure for my Department for 2009, as published in the Revised Estimates volume totals €1,469.387 million. This sum is made up of just over €981 million in current expenditure and €488.3 million in capital expenditure.

Appropriations-in-aid in my Department's Estimate will amount to €87.310 million in 2009, giving a gross allocation from the Exchequer of over €1.556 billion this year. This represents an increase of 3% on the provisional outturn for last year, although it is some €31 million lower than the amount originally provided for in the 2008 Estimate. In addition to the 2009 Estimate provision, which the committee is being asked to examine today, a sum of €18.326 million is available to my Department's Vote by way of carryover of capital savings from 2008.

The committee may also wish to note that the national training fund will contribute €381.483 million to my Department this year on top of the voted Exchequer allocation. The national training fund is used to upgrade the skills of the labour force through training and research into future skills needs. A particular emphasis is being placed this year on providing supports from the fund for those who have recently lost their jobs. The annual output statement also provides details of own resource income, which some of my Department's agencies expect to generate and use in the delivery of their programmes this year. This income, like the national training fund, is additional to the voted Estimate. When all sources of income are taken into account for my Department's programmes, the total gross expenditure for 2009 will amount to €2.058 billion.

I would now like to outline some of the key objectives for the use of these funds, as set out in the annual output statement, starting with the area of science, technology and innovation. The strategy is a whole-of-government approach to improving competitiveness and growth through targeted investment in research, development and innovation. Funding for the science, technology and innovation programme areas in my Department’s Vote for 2009 will amount to €317.3 million, including administrative costs. A further €6 million is available in capital savings carried over from 2008. My Department plays a key role in delivering the strategy for science, technology and innovation through its co-ordination function and through the activities of Science Foundation Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. Funding is also provided for the Discover Science and Engineering programme and some smaller projects as outlined in the annual output statement. IDA Ireland has a complementary role to play in promoting research and development through its activity and funding under the enterprise development programme area, which I will touch on later.

The role of my Department's agencies under the science strategy is to help enterprises become more competitive through investment in research, development and innovation and to realise the commercial potential of that research and innovation. The work being carried out by my Department and its agencies is having a real and positive impact on improving Ireland's competitiveness, not only in high-end innovative products, but across the enterprise spectrum. This work is also meeting the objective of improving Ireland's international reputation for generating and using new technology and knowledge.

The impact is being seen through the following: the increase in research and development activity in indigenous companies; the growth of spin-out and incubation companies; the generation of technology licences and technology transfers; the collaboration of enterprises in the centres for science, engineering and technology; research clusters and competence centres; and through the number of research projects being won by IDA Ireland arising from the groundwork carried out by Science Foundation Ireland, SFI, and Enterprise Ireland.

In 2008, 56 research, development and innovation projects were approved by the IDA. Also in 2008, 707 companies in Ireland spent in excess of €100,000 on research and development; a further 49 companies spent in excess of €2 million on research and development. This represents increases of 13% and 16%, respectively, over 2007. These improvements are a measure of how we are bringing about an important shift in the mindsets of companies and creating a realisation that research, development and innovation are key ingredients of success in today's global economy. Of course, successful companies create jobs and sustain local business and employment through spin-off services.

Science Foundation Ireland operates a range of programmes designed to deliver a world-class standard of research activity to Irish enterprises and institutions. There are now world-class research teams working with over 359 distinct companies in Ireland. SFI's remit was extended in 2008 to include research activities in areas of sustainable energy and energy efficient technologies. These areas offer potential for employment growth in the coming years.

My objectives for 2009, through the funding provided for the science, technology and innovation programme areas, are as follows: to promote research and development in companies; continue to support and develop the centres for science, engineering and technology, and the strategic research clusters; increase the commercialisation of publicly funded research; create six new competence centres, involving over 60 companies in collaborative research; and win further research, development and innovation investments through IDA Ireland. The target is to approve 53 such projects in 2009. SFI will also publish its energy strategy, in line with its remit in the areas of sustainable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Specific targets for 2009 are set out in the annual output statement.

Investment in science, technology and innovation in my Department's Vote is complementary to the wider range of activities supporting industry in the enterprise development and competitiveness programme area. The objective of this programme area is to optimise competitiveness and growth by promoting entrepreneurship, all-island enterprise collaboration, foreign investment in high value-added manufacturing and services activities, scaled increases of exports and balanced regional development. The programme area funds activities carried out by Forfás, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Shannon Development, the county and city enterprise boards, the National Standards Authority of Ireland and InterTradelreland. Funding is also provided for enterprise development under the INTERREG programme, and for the monitoring and evaluation of related EU co-financed programmes. Total funding available for this programme area in 2009 amounts to €514.3 million, including own resource income, which the enterprise development agencies will generate. The Exchequer contribution is €403.3 million, including the cost of my Department's staff who oversee the work of the agencies. A further €9.8 million in Exchequer funding is available from capital savings carried over from 2008.

Enterprise development and export growth are the linchpins on which our economy will recover. It is only through enterprise, and the employment and income that it generates, that we can restore economic growth, protect our long-term competitiveness and fund services in other areas of government. The industrial development agencies are playing a vital role in supporting enterprise and in attracting new investment to Ireland.

In spite of the global economic downturn, Enterprise Ireland's targets were generally met or exceeded last year. In 2008, Enterprise Ireland supported 71 high-potential start-up companies across a range of knowledge-intensive sectors. These companies are expected to create close to 1,000 new jobs over the next three years. Enterprise Ireland clients also succeeded in reaching the target of achieving some €1.33 billion in new export sales in 2008. Some 608 companies assisted by Enterprise Ireland achieved annual global sales of €5 million for the first time in 2008. A further 226 companies achieved global sales of €20 million for the first time last year. The fact that all of this was achieved in the face of contracting international markets is a credit to the tenacity and resilience of those Irish enterprises that continue to compete for and win new business overseas. It is also a credit to the staff in Enterprise Ireland who have supported these companies and it demonstrates that the Government's enterprise strategy is paying off.

The enterprise stabilisation fund, which was announced in the supplementary budget in April, is further evidence of this Government's commitment to supporting business in the current challenging environment. This fund is targeted at vulnerable, but viable, internationally trading companies to help them survive the current downturn by supporting their drive to reduce costs and gain sales in overseas markets. Some €50 million has been allocated to Enterprise Ireland in 2009 for the stabilisation fund and a further €50 million will be provided in 2010.

Foreign direct investment, FDI, has been hugely important for the Irish economy and job creation over the past 30 years. Over 136,000 people are employed in IDA-supported companies and these companies contribute in the region of €16 billion per annum to the Irish economy. Apart from the employment generated directly by foreign companies established in Ireland, further jobs are created in local businesses that provide supplies and supports to the larger companies. In 2008, the IDA approved 130 new investment projects, with the potential to create 9,500 new jobs over the next three to five years. These investments will also help to sustain existing jobs and help the companies to develop higher value products and services. The number of new investments approved by the IDA in 2008 exceeded the agency's target of 122 investments. This strong performance is attributable to a concentration on the research and development agenda, building on work under the science strategy. Some 60% of the investment projects approved by the IDA in 2008 are for outside the greater Dublin area. The IDA's results show there is still potential to attract investment to Ireland, even in these challenging times. The IDA has set a target to approve 125 investment projects this year. A key component will be to ensure that the investments have sufficient scale and impact and make a significant contribution to the development of the regional and national economy.

Shannon Development also performed well in 2008 in a difficult global business environment. Ten new investment projects were approved last year and 576 new jobs were created, a net gain of 108 jobs. Shannon Development is committed to working with its existing client companies this year to sustain their operations in Shannon and win incremental activity. The agency hopes to approve a further ten investment projects this year.

The county and city enterprise boards, CCEBs, will also continue to play a key role in the Government's enterprise strategy by providing support for micro-enterprises, and by stimulating entrepreneurship at local level. The CCEBs also promote entrepreneurship through their collaboration with schools and through the national student enterprise awards scheme. A total of 959 projects were approved for financial assistance from the CCEBs in 2008 and more than 21,900 people participated on management and capability development training courses. There were some 33,811 net jobs in CCEB-assisted enterprises in 2008. The 2009 targets for the CCEBs, and for the other industrial development agencies, are set out in the annual output statement.

While we will work with the enterprise sector to maintain existing jobs and create new ones, one of my key priorities is to assist the large numbers who have recently lost their jobs as a consequence of the global economic downturn. To this end, the labour force development programme area in my Department's Vote will focus heavily this year on measures to assist the unemployed. Total funding of €1.1 billion is available to my Department in 2009 for labour force development activities. This includes a contribution of €381 million from the national training fund. The allocation will fund a range of programmes operated by FÁS, as well as training for those in employment operated by Skillnets, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Shannon Development and a small number of other organisations. My objectives for 2009 in this programme area are to increase the capacity of FÁS to handle the extra demand for its employment services and to provide activation services to a greater number of unemployed people to help them get back into employment as soon as possible.

Since the end of last year, the Government has taken a variety of actions to help those who are unemployed to get back to work. For instance, in recent months we have doubled the capacity in job search support, training and work experience programmes. In particular, the capacity of the job search supports provided by FÁS employment services and the local employment services has been doubled to 150,000 places per year. In addition, the number of people who can be offered training places under the auspices of my Department has been doubled to 128,000 places. Moreover, I have launched initiatives such as the work placement programme, which aims to provide participants with six months work experience, and the short-time training programme, which trains people who are on short-time working. In both cases, participants are allowed to retain their social welfare allowances while participating on these programmes.

I also announced last month details of several new training programmes for those who have lost their jobs in the construction sector to convert or upgrade their skills to take advantage of new opportunities emerging in renewable technologies and energy efficiencies. A number of special measures have also been introduced to help redundant apprentices in the construction trades to progress their training towards qualification. I assure the committee that I will continue to work with my Government colleagues on developing schemes to address the current unemployment situation and providing workers with every possible support to find alternative employment.

Notwithstanding the increase in the numbers who have become unemployed recently, there are still close to 2 million people at work in the State. Safeguarding their rights and ensuring that they receive their appropriate entitlements, especially if they are made redundant, forms the core work of the programme areas dealing with employment rights, industrial relations and occupational health and safely. Total funding for this programme area in 2009 will amount to just over €51 million, as set out in the annual output statement.

The programme area funds the activities of the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court, the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the National Employment Rights Authority and other activities aimed directly at promoting social partnership. It also funds the activities of the Health and Safety Authority and the administration of the redundancy and insolvency payments schemes in my Department. My priorities for this programme area this year are as follows. We intend to deliver the Government's legislative commitments in the area of employment rights and industrial relations, including the employment law compliance Bill, the agencies regulation Bill and the industrial relations (amendment) Bill. We will continue to promote and support a stable industrial relations climate, including through the provision of effective dispute resolution mechanisms such as the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. In the area of health and safety, we will continue to prioritise the high-risk sectors, like agriculture and construction, and will prepare and introduce secondary legislation that will provide the necessary enforcement regime for certain EU chemicals regulations.

My Department is also working to ensure that the significantly increased volume of claims for payments to workers who lose their jobs through redundancy or company insolvency are processed and paid within a reasonable timeframe. There has been a backlog in this area due to the unprecedented number of redundancies in recent months. However, measures have been taken within my Department to address the impact of the influx, including the reassignment of 19 additional staff from other areas of the Department to the redundancy payments area; the prioritisation of the Department's overtime budget to the redundancy payments section to tackle the backlog; the establishment of a special call handling facility to deal with the high volume of telephone calls from people and businesses who are inquiring about their payments — we are using the facilities and co-operation of NERA to help with this process; and the provision of better quality information on the Department's website relating to current processing times.

To put the size of the challenge facing the staff in the redundancy section into perspective, the number of redundancies in 2008 was 40,607, which represented an increase of almost 60% on the figure for 2007. The volume of new claims to end of May this year was almost 36,000, a level which was not reached until well into October last year. I am optimistic that the measures we have put in place to address this huge increase in redundancy claims will bear fruit. My Department will keep the situation under review and take whatever additional measures are necessary to ensure that the backlog is dealt with as swiftly as possible.

The investments in enterprise, research and innovation which I have outlined previously are underpinned by ensuring that markets work in an efficient manner, that fair competition is promoted and that consumers' interests are safeguarded. The commerce, consumers and competition programme area in my Department's Vote seeks to ensure that there is an environment in which trade and consumer transactions can take place on a fair and equitable basis. This programme area funds the activities of the Competition Authority, the National Consumer Agency, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Companies Registration Office, the Registry of Friendly Societies and the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. A small grant is also made to the Consumers Association of Ireland. The allocation for these activities for 2009, as set out in the annual output statement, is €33.358 million. Related support is provided for the high level group on business regulation, the company law review group and the sales law review group under the other services programme area.

The need for a strong regulatory framework to ensure fair and equitable trading has been highlighted by recent national and international events. However, it is also important to strike a balance between regulation and the need to reduce unnecessary red tape to allow businesses to operate effectively. My priorities for this programme area for 2009 are as follows. It is intended to publish legislation to merge the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority in line with the Government decision of last October. This legislation will also amend competition law provisions following a review of its operation and implementation, and will give effect to Government commitments concerning collective agreements. I hope to achieve substantial progress on the review being undertaken by the sales law review group of the legislation governing the sale of goods and supply of services. My Department will provide continued support for the high level group on business regulation, which has a strong and expanding work programme of actions for 2009. The group's recommendations are already estimated to have saved Irish business some €20 million per annum in administrative costs through cutting out paperwork, revising the rules for small businesses and making much better use of secure online services. To ensure that competitiveness is enhanced, my Department will work, initially with the Competition Authority and then with other Departments, to identify and prioritise those recommendations of the authority whose implementation will have greatest impact on competitiveness.

Among my other priorities for this programme area, as set out in the annual output statement, is to ensure, as far as is practicable, the enactment of the Companies (Amendment) Bill 2009. This Bill was drafted to address a small number of perceived weaknesses in existing company law, relating in particular to the provisions of the Companies Act 1990 dealing with investigations by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, among others, and transactions involving loans to directors of companies.

Underpinning all of the programmes I have outlined, the annual output statement includes a programme on the delivery of strategic goals. My office and those of my Ministers of State and other staff of the Department receive high quality supports which ensure the delivery of the goals and outputs set out in the other programme areas. These central support services include human resources, information and communications technology, organisational support and financial administration. They are delivered through my Department's corporate services division. As well as providing services internally, the division delivers services to external customers, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, other Departments and agencies and the public. The total cost of these services this year will amount to €17.7 million, a reduction of €1.1 million, or 6%, on the 2008 outturn. The reduction reflects a number of administrative efficiencies made in the Department's core administration costs in line with the Government's objective of containing the running costs of public bodies.

My Department's Estimate for 2009 under the heading "Other Services" provides funding for several diverse activities, including subscriptions to international organisations, funding for commissions, committees and special inquiries, superannuation for retired members of the Labour Court, the Competition Authority refund to the Exchequer of export credit insurance, and other miscellaneous payments. The total Exchequer allocation for this area this year is €21.3 million, representing an increase of €3 million on the 2008 outturn. The increase is mainly attributable to increases in subscriptions to international organisations and to the provision of a contingency for legal costs related to several cases before the courts.

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the opportunity to outline my Department's Estimate for 2009 and the key objectives for the funding. This year has been, and will continue to be, challenging for the economy. However, as I have outlined, we are achieving strong export growth, winning substantial inward investment and increasing our capacity to deliver new and innovative products and services. With the focus on the programmes I have outlined, I am confident we are pursuing the right policies to build the foundation for a swift economic recovery and that Ireland will be well placed to capitalise from the upturn in the global economy when it arrives. I would be pleased to answer any questions from the Chairman or the committee with regard to the Estimate.

There are two matters before us, the annual output statement and the Revised Estimates. Will we discuss these together or separately?

We agreed to examine headings A to G separately. If the Deputy wishes to comment on the Minister's statement, we will facilitate it. We plan to go through the Estimates afterwards. Perhaps the Deputy could provide a brief outline of the matters he wishes to raise and then we will get into the meat of the business.

There is no need for the Minister to reiterate her comments. I agree with some although not all of them, but there is no need to go over old territory. I will make some overall and some specific comments. Given the state of the country and the economy, why has the Department not reviewed it goals and programmes from scratch? They belong to a different time. The priorities should be issues such as retaining employment and reducing the cost of doing business. The political and economic context is very different from that of three or four years ago. However, the annual output statement is set out as if nothing had happened and as if we are in the same situation as two years ago. The same headings are in place along with the same priorities and programmes.

The Minister has been in office for more than one year. Why has the Minister not decided to start from scratch and decide on a whole new set of programmes and goals which would be a good deal more appropriate given the priorities before us? Matters such as science and technology and the knowledge economy are very important, but we face an economic emergency and the real priorities should be quite different. They should focus on retaining employment and supporting the existing real economy businesses. Why is the annual output statement a continuation of previous years as if nothing had changed and we were still in the middle of the Celtic tiger period?

I note the annual output statement as distributed to us by e-mail is different from the statement before us now. The former document contains tracked changes so that we can see the changes made from one draft to the next. It amounts to interesting reading for me because it seems there was an original output statement and then someone decided to delete the goals not achieved so that the statement would appear somewhat different. It clearly has all the formatting, deletions and sections underlined. An output statement was drafted that was somewhat more honest but was then redacted into a newer, heavily censored document. Several changes stood out.

The original draft refers to the processing time for statutory redundancy lump sum applications, payments of rebates to employers and payments of employee entitlements arising from termination of employment or insolvency. In the original draft the target is to pay lump sums within four weeks on receipt of a correctly completed form. However, in the second version following the redaction, the four week commitment is removed. Is it the practice of the Department after it establishes a target, but does not meet it, to then delete it? Is this the way in which the Department operates?

The next section refers to better business regulation for the consumer. The original version refers to the enactment of a companies consolidation and reform Bill in 2010. In the second version the target is changed to simply the publication of the Bill in that year. Is it the case that when a target cannot be met, it is simply changed? I refer to the employment law compliance Bill. The original document states an intention to progress an early enactment and operation of the Bill. This is removed in the final document.

A key strategy in the original document is to prepare an employment law consolidation Bill to update employment law in consolidated form. Legislation is currently spread across 20 enactments dating from 1946 and I am very much in favour of the measure. It is very difficult for employers in current circumstances to have to deal with 20 different employment acts. In the original draft there is a commitment to consolidate the legislation into one, but this is deleted in the final agreed document. Why has the target been abandoned by the Department?

I refer to the Bill for the regulation of employment agencies. It is referred to in the Minister's statement and the original document, but not in the annual output statement. Will the Minister explain why there has been no change or review of the programmes or goals of the Department given the new situation? Why were targets in the original paper subsequently removed when they could not be achieved?

The Deputy is usually good at trying to get highlights and making fleeting remarks. What exactly was the e-mail he received?

All members of the committee received the e-mail in question.

In that case the Deputy has the same document I have before me and the same annual output statement. Given that the press are present, it is appropriate to provide an answer. The Deputy is insinuating that we changed the draft to suit the Department, which is factually incorrect. I will deal with the other issues in due course.

I am unsure if the Minister uses Microsoft Word but anyone who does so is aware that it is possible to track the changes of a document. The document in question was e-mailed to all of us. I was not the only person to receive an e-mail with all the changes tracked, including what was deleted and formatted. The sections underlined are those added later. This is the document we all received by e-mail.

They are the 2008 targets.

This is the annual output statement for 2009.

The Deputy has the 2008 targets. We cannot have an output for 2009; the year is not over yet.

There are whole sections deleted from it and whole sections added. I referred to the key sections deleted.

The 2008 document forms a structure to ascertain whether the targets were reached. The course of 2009 will determine on the basis of those targets where one goes for 2009.

What is this annual output statement of 2009 that was sent to the committee with the deleted sections and the formatting? Whole sections have been deleted. It seems to me that the Minister took the 2008 annual output statement and all the targets which were not achieved were just deleted.

That is not true.

The Deputy should turn to the back of the output statement. He will see the headline, "Outputs", the targets in the annual output statement, the 2008 outputs achieved and the 2009 target. These are the facts.

In the copy I am looking at there are two blank columns. We have the 2008 targets per annual output statement, two blank columns for the outputs achieved and the 2009 target.

The Deputy should use the document that has been circulated. This point is superfluous.

It is not, it is what we are discussing. It is the agenda item for this committee meeting.

It is superfluous on the basis that it seems to be the Deputy's view that we should scrap all the programmes. Is that correct?

No, it is not.

He has stated we should review and scratch the programmes.

I did not say, "scratch". I would not use that word.

Scrap or scratch them all. He said that the issues of pertinence should be the retention of jobs and dealing with reducing costs for doing business — I do not have a problem with that. The programmes outlined and the reviews that have taken place internally within the Department, are all predicated on the new situation. It is on that basis, for example, that I have set up a specific group within my Department to look at competitiveness and all those issues. It deals directly with the economic recovery Cabinet sub-committee and reviews all the programmes pertinent to the particular circumstances. A clear reflection of this policy is the enterprise stabilisation fund. I would not disagree that the retention of jobs is hugely important and on the basis of €50 million this year and the same amount next year, the stabilisation of enterprises is hugely important. I am looking at the new programmes in my Department. We are talking about training for those who are unemployed. I have done considerable work examining how we can provide — without a dead-weight situation — a funding mechanism in tandem with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, to support those who are in short-term or short-time work by providing training for them and, in consultation with the social partners, how we can deal with vulnerable employment and how we can retain people within the workplace. This work is ongoing. It is not right to say that the programmes, 2007 to 2008, are exactly the same as 2009. They have been reviewed and revisited and will continue to be reviewed and revisited in the context of clear strategies and clear needs. We need to sustain as many people in employment as possible, maintain the stability of such employment and provide training for people who are unemployed. It is clear that the emphasis has moved from people in employment and training to people who now find themselves unemployed. There has therefore been re-focusing within the Department on the needs of the economy and the needs of people. There is clear focus on competitiveness — which is very important — and on reducing the cost of doing business and reducing energy costs. Targeted approaches are being taken by the Department and my Ministers of State and by all the agencies. Although I do not disagree with the Deputy's formulas to do with retention of jobs I am creating new job opportunities and reducing costs for doing business. The Deputy and I are ad idem. However, a complete scratching of the programmes set out in the annual output statement would be a retrograde step.

On a point of clarification, I did not say, "completely scratch". What I think I said and what I certainly meant is that these are the programmes the Minister had two or three years' ago when the economy was in a boom period. What the Minister does not have is prioritisation of those programmes or new programmes. I would have a programme on competitiveness because that is the number one job of her Department or the joint number one job of her Department along with job retention. They should be the programmes.

The Department has a new section dealing with competitiveness and competitiveness means reducing labour costs, energy costs, reducing the cost of doing business. All these matters are being dealt with by the Department. We are not responsible for several of those programmes but we are working collectively with other Ministers such as the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the Minister for Education and Science, and the Minister for Finance, to deal with the competitiveness issue. Competitiveness, innovation, science, technology, retention of people in employment, creating new opportunities for people who find themselves unemployed, those are the innovative initiatives being undertaken in the Department. It is not the case that competitiveness is not the key as it is absolutely the key and fundamental to our economic recovery. This filters straight into the Cabinet sub-committee on economic recovery chaired by the Taoiseach. This is happening within the Department, lest it be said it is not happening.

I will not get anywhere in this conversation. Perhaps I might get some answers on specific questions. There are two versions of a document, whether it is the 2008 version amended or the former 2009 document. Why have those previous targets been eliminated or abandoned? I will recap if the Minister wishes.

The legislation included the consolidation Bill.

Initially there was a strategic impact indicator saying that statutory redundancy lump sums — both the payments to the redundant workers and the rebates to employers — would be managed within four weeks.

That was in the 2008 targets. I indicated that because of the huge increase in the number of redundancies the Department has had to revise those targets. Unfortunately, our customer charter had to be almost thrown out the window because we could not achieve the targets on the basis of the influx. At the beginning of the year — and my Minister of State who has now moved from that section will agree — we had three girls opening the post every day because of the number of applications. We were forced to change our resources, put in new people, put all our overtime budget into the redundancy side because people had expectations of being paid quickly. We hope to return to those targets as set out in the customer charter. Contrary to what people think about the public service, many departmental colleagues gave of their time, free, after work, to help their colleagues in the redundancy payments section deal with the huge numbers of people. It is a 2008 target, it is a customer service target and it could not be attained through the tsunami of applications. We changed our resources and put in additional staff and used all our overtime budget to send the money to the people as quickly as possible. The system is not perfect but every effort is being made. We concentrated on those people who are vulnerable and who had particular reasons for needing the money as quickly as possible. I hope we will be back on an even keel fairly soon and attain the targets set out in the customer charter.

What is the new target? I accept the target for 2008 of four weeks was not achieved because of the high level of redundancies. Has a new target been set or is it just the case that when a target cannot be achieved, the Department abandons the idea of having a target?

We do not have a new target. Our target is to get rid of the backlog of people and revert to the original target as set out for 2008. Electronic applications take a little less time to be processed. The Department's website advises that all information should be provided by applicants. It is almost a waste of resources when the departmental staff have to answer the telephones and deal with case work so we sent that work down to NERA which is now answering the questions from the customers. This allows the departmental staff to manage the cases. That has worked quite well.

It seems that the answer to my question is "Yes". If one fails to achieve a target, one deletes it.

No, it stands. It is part of the customer charter.

The Minister has said there is not a target.

The target is set down. There were targets for 2006, 2007 and 2008. We could not achieve that.

And deleted in 2009.

We did not delete it. How can one delete a target?

The Minister did delete it. That is why it says "deleted" in the formatting.

Every target will change. I indicated that we had a huge influx of people making applications for redundancy. Regardless of targets, what is most important is that people get paid as quickly as possible. That is the target set down by me, the Minister of State and officials in my Department for the management of a massive backlog, which I hope will be dealt with very quickly. There has been a huge increase in resources to allow that to happen. I never hoped to have a target in the redundancy section because I hoped never to have redundancy applications. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

Now the Minister has no target at all because she was not able to meet it. There was a target of four weeks. There is now no target.

The target is six to eight weeks.

Where is that in the annual output report?

Currently, priority is given to meeting payments to employees where the employer has been unable to meet the payment of redundancy entitlements. This is generally being achieved in a six to eight week timeframe. On-line claims filed by employers for redundancy rebates are being dealt with from December 2008 and manual claims filed from employers from November 2008. On that basis, we had to redistribute some of our resources and the backlog of claims in 2008, coupled with the increase in 2009, meant that we have had to take further time to yield tangible results. The most recent figures show that claims are now averaging in excess of 1,800 per week.

The target has been moved from four weeks to six to eight weeks.

If we can reduce that, we will try our utmost to do so. However, we have targeted and prioritised people who have received absolutely no money. We deal with other people after that. The people with no money need the money as quickly as possible.

There is no need to state the obvious. This is the enterprise committee and we are all au fait with these issues. We want to know about the specifics. The 2008 output strategy contained an important commitment to deliver an employment consolidation Bill. Why is that no longer a key strategy?

It has been set back on the basis that we have four other legislative measures on hand. One is before the House and is being dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher. I seek the Chairman's indulgence in that regard to ensure consideration of the Bill is completed before the House rises.

We are meeting next week on Committee Stage.

That is fantastic. Deputy Varadkar's favourite legislation, the Employment Law Compliance Bill, has also to be passed by the House. An industrial relations Bill dealing with employment regulation orders, EROs, has to be dealt with by the House and there is also an agency Bill. I am working to have the heads of a Bill ready in July on the amalgamation of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority. Then we must deal with the company law consolidation legislation for next year. We had to reprioritise the legislation. It was decided the legislation agreed with the social partners would take precedence over other legislation. The amount of work involved in that legislation is very significant, particularly the company law legislation. I consider it a significant priority and it will probably require a select committee. The reprioritisation of the legislation required that the other legislative measures had to be completed first, as agreed with the social partners.

The Employment Law Compliance Bill was not agreed by the social partners. Had it been agreed by them, we would not have wasted so much time. It was published more than a year ago. Perhaps, if the Minister had reprioritised earlier, we would not have wasted so much time in the House dealing with a Bill that does not have the support of the social partners.

The Bill is not agreed.

It is. The principle of the Bill was in Towards 2016.

The detail is also agreed.

What is agreed is what is in Towards 2016. The Bill is not agreed and IBEC is very clear about that. The Minister can look at the letters we received today. The Small Firms Association and IBEC clearly state they do not agree with the Bill. I accept that the content of Towards 2016 was agreed, but the Bill was not. On the other two points, the Minister is saying that due to her inability to get legislation through the House, because she did not properly talk to the social partners about it, other legislation has been de-prioritised.

I cannot accept that. That is hard to take from the Deputy who, of all people, has absolutely no support for social partnership. We published the Bill on the principles. It took some time, as the Chairman will be aware, to secure the agreement of both sides on the basis of taking the principle and transferring it into the legislation. The Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, spent a considerable amount of time and effort on bringing it together. That work is now being followed up by the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Calleary. It was not a question of our inability to bring legislation through the House, but our ability to listen to both sides.

As the Chairman will be aware from Second Stage, getting this legislation through the Oireachtas will take some time because there are diverse views within each party, including ours, the Chairman's and Deputy Varadkar's. In my view, while social partnership is very important, it is equally important that we, as legislators, listen to the Members of the House. I understand the select committee is trying to arrange a time for Committee Stage of this legislation. The reason the legislation is taking such time is not our inability to bring the legislation to fruition, but the fact that it is taking a considerable period of time and involves protracted negotiations, which have not been brought to finality.

The committee agreed a time but at the request of the Minister's Department, it was postponed until September or October. If the Minister believes social partnership is so valuable and important, why did she publish the Bill without agreeing it with the social partners? I am not a believer in the religion of social partnership but with a Bill of that nature, I would consult with the unions and the employers' bodies before publishing it. Would the Minister not consider that to have been the better option? We would not have wasted a year and a half if it had been done.

Even if the social partners agree it, the Bill must go through the Oireachtas. I have due regard to the Members of the Oireachtas and their ability to formulate the best legislation possible. One must listen to the views of the Members of the Oireachtas because they represent the people.

Perhaps we should have a free vote on the Bill. I expect most of the Minister's party colleagues would vote against it if they were allowed to.

Has the date for dealing with the company law consolidation Bill been pushed back? Am I correct in saying it will be published but not enacted next year? Is there are target date for publication of the employment law consolidation Bill?

I hope to publish and complete the employment law consolidation Bill within the year. It contains 1,200 sections and is quite complex. It is our aspiration that the Bill be published and enacted within the year. That is what I will try to achieve.

In her opening remarks, the Tánaiste said the last year has been a turbulent one for every economy in the world. That warrants some comment. All economies have experienced turbulence, but none as much as this State. This is the result of the failed policies of this Government and its immediate predecessor. There was an over-reliance on the construction sector and fair weather taxes from the huge consumption boom. No cognisance was taken of what was needed to prepare us for a possible eventual downturn. Several people warned of that but they were described as "loolahs" and no one listened to them.

The Tánaiste also spoke about taking a whole of government approach to improving competitiveness. Where is it? I do not see it. Is it in a strategy or policy document somewhere? There are words but no actions in this regard. In fact, one of the hallmarks of the past year has been a complete lack of cohesion, direction, strategic thinking and action on the part of the Minister and her Department. There is a testament to that; in fact, there are 400,000 testaments. A total of 200,000 have been made unemployed on the Minister's watch. The job creation agencies need significant overhaul but there is no evidence of that being imminent. The level of grant the county enterprise boards can provide is significantly below what is required. Consider the FÁS courses. Some of them are being compressed from ten weeks to five weeks in an effort to increase the numbers. Again, that appears to be paper work. I do not envisage any product from it, but I look forward to examining it more closely as the months pass to see how it is implemented. Front line training staff in FÁS who retire or leave are not being replaced because of the ban on recruitment to the public sector. How will that produce the training targets the Minister has set down?

There is an increase in community employment, CE, schemes but that increase could be absorbed by a single town in the State. Dundalk or Drogheda could happily absorb those numbers. Where is the review of CE schemes to ensure that there is proper output from them? This culture of standing around the parochial house must be examined. Some of the schemes are absolutely excellent and do brilliant work, but in some areas that is not the case.

With regard to competitiveness, we are not anywhere near dealing with it or efficiencies. What are we getting from the huge budgets that are provided? That has been unveiled in the past 12 months. There has been a gross lack of accountability on the part of Departments and agencies. It is time the Minister's Department took a hard look at what is happening in these agencies and tried to draw efficiencies and proper accountability from them.

We have had an interesting discussion. I will hold my fire until we get to the details of the Vote.

I am giving members an opportunity for an overview. As I have said previously to the Minister, and the Forfás report of a few years ago made the same point, the thinking must change in the Department. This is 2009, not 2002. The Department is facing an entirely new situation which has not been encountered before, even in the 1930s and 1980s. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment deals with X, Y and Z. I believe all enterprise, including sustainable enterprise, should be in the remit of the Department. The Department might even be given a new name. Visas are dealt with by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform while the Department of Education and Science is handling other matters. There are too many Departments handling matters that should be under the remit of one Department. There should be a one-stop-shop and it should be within the Minister's Department.

Forfás suggested this in a very clear recommendation. It is not my brainy idea; I am not being innovative but am plagiarising the Forfás report. At least I read it, which is good for Forfás. The report named five or six Departments in this regard. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs had responsibility for some areas, as did the Department of Finance. This is 2009, not 1909. Get all this under one roof. When information is diffuse and diverse, who pulls the strings together and says: "This is what should be happening here"?

We see that in this committee. We have met different groups. However, if you, Chairman, suggest that, making it happen will be another job altogether. We know from our experience on this committee that there are many challenges. The devil is in the detail. In fairness to the Minister, I do not think it would be any different in trying to bring different Departments together. Not to be party political about this but the unions, which have a strong affiliation with the Labour Party, would have strong objections. It is important to be fair, too.

I am not being unfair to the Minister.

I am just pointing out that the details——

In fact, I believe the Ministers of State and the Tánaiste would actually agree with me. If somebody is going to feel a little put out, so be it. The fact is that there are 402,000 people unemployed. I have spent six weeks on the road, night and day, with councillors. I would prefer to run in 20 general elections than run around with councillors ever again. In any event, this is the issue that is exercising mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts and grandparents. They are worried about jobs. Regardless of what impediment is in the way or whoever feels a little put out, we must get this right.

The Minister made a point with which I entirely agree. Irrespective of what is agreed elsewhere, 166 people are sent to the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a great honour to be one of them; every member at this meeting is one of them. However, it carries responsibility, and that responsibility is to legislate. This is the place where decisions should be made. That might be a little different from what some of my colleagues might think, but so be it. I am prepared to stand out. This is a time of unprecedented opportunity, as well as challenge, and we should grab it.

Forfás is a very respected body. It is under the remit of the Minister's Department. I ask the Minister to dust down the report. Deputy Chris Andrews is absolutely right. I might run into the first haymaker on the way in my own party, but so be it. If it wishes to knock down a fresh idea, that is the party's business. If it wishes to get rid of me as enterprise spokesperson, it can do so. That is the party's right. However, ultimately, I will not be hamstrung by anybody in pursuing what I believe to be right for the Irish people. I believe it is right to bring everything under the purview of one major Department. I am looking at it in another way and praising the Minister's Department. Bloody hell, how can the Minister know what is happening somewhere else? It is a huge task. If something happens, she must come to the House and I join everybody else in the shouting, roaring and wondering what is happening.

However, I do not engage in that type of politics. With this issue of political accountability, if somebody loses a marker, the Minister is blamed for it, and I have no interest in that. It is great for media talk; they love to blame somebody for losing a biro or something else, which is nonsense. That gets my goat. The 10,000 people in Longford-Westmeath did not send me here to worry about whether the Minister lost a calculator. People are worried about jobs. I have put down a motion on employment for debate in the House tonight. I did not do so to be embarrassing but because we fundamentally believe in this, whatever it takes. Old solutions are gone, so throw them out. New ones must be brought in. Do not put the old wine in a new bottle and pretend it is new. It must be new wine and a new bottle. If there are any impediments or obstacles, or if anybody's chin is a little put out, so be it. We are living in unprecedented times and we must take unprecedented decisions.

I intend to suggest to my party that all these issues should be brought under one umbrella so everybody can see what is happening. One cannot paint on a partial canvas, one must have the full canvas. The Minister must know what is happening in every corner if she is to make progress. It is a big undertaking; it is bigger than any single person. It behoves the 166 Members to put their shoulders to the wheel and get it over the line somehow. That is my belief. Perhaps it is highly personal, but so be it.

Regardless of where we are, we can be adversarial if we wish and there is nothing wrong with that.

I like to be constructive.

It is important to outline what actually happens within the Department. If we can improve it, that is fine. A Cabinet sub-committee on economic recovery has been set up under the chairmanship of the Taoiseach. It has set down serious strategies and targets that must be achieved. It is interdepartmental.

It set down very serious targets and strategies to be achieved. It is interdepartmental, chaired by the Taoiseach. The role of my Department is to supply all the enterprise and competitiveness elements and the majority of the activation measures. Within my Department I have what I term the "War Cabinet", comprising the chief executive of Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Forfás, FÁS, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Shannon Development, the Secretary General and me. That grouping looks strategically at the pertinent issues and at changes that need to be made in respect of immediate issues. All that work feeds into the competitiveness area of my Department, an over-arching group which takes into consideration all the necessary issues.

Forfás is the research agency. It provides advice, not only to my Department but to many others and carries out work other than for its own programme which had to be changed completely in 2008 to address the immediate issues of late 2008-09. It is very important to discover the key messages. The first and most important of these, about which I and all members hear, comes from business and concerns access to working capital. Its lack is currently the biggest impediment to business.

Absolutely.

Despite recapitalisation of the banks and the fact that the ECB has increased its lending to other banks we are not seeing traction in this respect. On that basis, and because of that frustration, I set up a clearing house to look specifically at what we can do. It comprises all the agencies, small firms associations, tourism bodies, everybody concerned and tries to discover the facts and how they can be articulated and dealt with. That is the most important thing that must be done for enterprise in this country.

The second issue is export credit insurance or credit insurance. As members know, we announced a format on how we can reduce the timeframe. We will put this matter out to tender to examine two points, namely, how credit insurance can be provided and how we can reduce the risk to the taxpayer. That is another consideration to take into account.

The third issue mentioned by all Deputies is energy costs and how we can reduce them. There have been reductions in these costs but we must reduce further. The 2002 level of energy costs is still too high, without mentioning those for 2007-08. That effort is being driven by the competitiveness section of my Department, working with the Minister for Energy, Communications and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, who has done a considerable amount of work. This is a key focus for all members of the Cabinet.

The fourth issue is a hobbyhorse for many people, and rightly so. Business people report that they are too busy doing their jobs and have no time to fill forms. They are right. We have worked with the Central Statistics Office and the high level group on developing better regulation to reduce that administrative burden. We have a target of 25% reduction at EU level and I want to achieve more than that for the Irish situation.

Those elements are key to competitiveness and the need to stabilise our economy. By sustaining people in employment through the stabilisation fund and other innovative ways of doing that work, we will find economic recovery and job opportunities. There is a formula or format by which we can feed into that effort. This committee equally has its role to play.

I appreciate that and we will play it. Unfortunately, there is a small interruption to be considered, a vótáil in the Dáíl. We will come back and get stuck into the programmes.

I am sure this point will be answered shortly or perhaps I missed it earlier. Where is the six-day week target mentioned? I cannot find it in the document.

The original target was six to eight weeks.

The original target was four weeks.

That was for lump sum repayments only.

Where in the document is the six-day week target?

We will find it for the Deputy when we return. I do not wish him to lose the vote.

When is it proposed to conclude this meeting?

Whenever we finish the business.

Are we to sit through the night?

We will go through the programmes, for which there will be a format.

Before we turn to the programmes I wish to make a comment and I hope the Chairman will allow some time.

Briefly, yes, although I had not intended to do so.

Sitting suspended at 4.45 p.m. and resumed at 5.05 p.m.

We will discuss the issues under the heads. I understand some Deputies are under time constraints and have other commitments, so if they want to stray into another head, I am sure the Minister or Minister of State will deal with several issues at a time.

We have just got another output statement. Do we need to discuss that separately?

No. The first head we will deal with is programme A, subheads A1 to A8 and subhead F, which deal with science, technology and innovation and the patents office. Pages 12 to 19 deal with the inputs. We start with subheads A1 to A8. Has anybody any issues to raise?

This deals with Enterprise Ireland and its proposed programmes for research and development. Notwithstanding what was said earlier in our meeting, I acknowledge that I know of many businesses and enterprises which benefit hugely from the work done by Enterprise Ireland. I intended to speak about Science Foundation Ireland at the start of this meeting, but did not. When the organisation attended our joint committee, I acknowledged that I think the investment by the Government in its work is a very gutsy investment. While it is risky investment, it is laudable. The risk goes with the territory. In tough economic times such as we have now, there is always a temptation to cut such budgets where productivity cannot be seen in the short term. It could well be four or five years before we see much of a significant output or, as it were, the cashing in of the investment being made now.

Commercialisation is mentioned in the document we have received. It is stated that Enterprise Ireland will focus efforts on increasing the commercialisation of public funded research. Will the Minister elaborate on what is intended by that?

The background to this has been both revolutionary and evolutionary. The smart economy document very much reflects investment in Science Foundation Ireland and the outputs from that. I agree with Deputy Morgan. In normal circumstances it would be seen as an easy target. However, it can be clearly seen that the commercialisation opportunities and new opportunities in Enterprise Ireland and the IDA and the attractiveness of research and development are such that we see good outcomes and outputs. The commercialisation of that activity is key and that is the reason a group within the Department is specifically looking at commercialisation opportunities. It is trying to ensure those opportunities and having an oversight of the investment taking place so that it reaps rewards. It is not investment in science, technology and research for their own sake, but it sees a commercial aspect to it.

Investment in research and development activity can be seen in innovation vouchers, which — at up to €5,000 — are small, and in the much larger centres for Science, Engineering and Technology, CSETs. We continue to see investment in Science Foundation Ireland and in science, technology and innovation as key to our economic recovery and very much a platform for the smart economy document. Perhaps the Minister of State would like to say something on the issue now.

Deputy Morgan made a significant point when stating that investment in this area is long-term investment. In the past ten years this country has tripled its investment in research and development. The private and public sectors combined have tripled investment in research and development to 1.66% of GDP. Our target of increasing this figure to 2.5% by 2013 is rather modest given what other countries are doing. South Korea is incrementally increasing expenditure on research and development by 10% annually, with the objective of investing 5% of GDP in research and development by 2010.

The Deputy is correct that this is not a short-term matter but one which requires incremental increases in investment in the long term. Ireland's case is unusual because we have secured some strong short-term results. For instance, in the period from 2005 to 2009, the number of patents and discoveries has doubled, as has the number of spin-out companies from the university and information technology sectors. These companies constitute the hard commercialisation of what we might describe as the intellectual work done in universities. These figures offer tangible evidence that the embedded investment made ten years ago is delivering results in terms of new discoveries, disclosures and patents. The difference between the number of discoveries registered by the third level sector and the number of patents fully registered with the Irish Patents Office in Kilkenny is accounted for by the fact that not all new discoveries, inventions or innovative products or services to emerge from the university sector are immediately realisable in commercial terms. Many discoveries are simply not commercial.

Short-term results have been achieved. As the Tánaiste noted, 40% of IDA wins this year have been related to research and development. These are multinationals coming to the table and establishing research and development focused operations here. Last year, 43% of inward investment gains were in this area, thanks to the work of the IDA and the Tánaiste who travels around the world promoting Ireland as an investment location. The significant wins are coming in this area, as demonstrated by the fact that one can attribute 1,000 jobs directly to our embedded investment in research and development in 2008. We must maintain consistency in investment in this area while taking account of value for money in expenditure in the universities and elsewhere. We must get more from less in the years ahead in terms of research and development expenditure.

The Minister referred to the interaction between science and business. Members of the committee toured the commuter belt and visited a number of IDA centres and science and technology parks. We found a clear demarcation between the industry and science and technology sides. Some businesses are prevented from accessing shared facilities or technologies. This arises due to interaction between Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. Will it be possible to facilitate greater access and interaction between business, on the one hand, and science, research and technology on the other? Some of the technology parks prevent local businesses from gaining access to their technologies.

Is the Deputy referring to IDA technology parks?

No, I am referring to science and technology parks attached to universities and colleges. It would make sense to promote interaction between these parks and local business, particularly in the current climate.

The issue to which the Deputy alludes has been important. To be fair to the various agencies involved, however, the focus of all funding is on clustering groups in research and making research in the third level sector more relevant to the needs and desires of industry. This morning I visited Maynooth where, just a few weeks ago, the Taoiseach launched a major competence centre which will be based on the estate of Carlton House. This will be an interesting venture because 80% of the research done in the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, is industry related with the remaining 20% led by the university. There is a clear division in research and development expenditure between that which is industry-led and that which is university-led.

CSETs, applied research enhancement centres and competence centres have been established. We hope to create six competence centres in all. One has been established in Maynooth while a second dealing with functional foods and related issues is in operation in Cork. Competence centres are directly related to the requirements of industry. In other words, research is not carried out because a university professor decides it will be done but because industry has decided it wishes strategic research to be carried out in a particular field.

The competence centre in Cork deals with functional foods and the development of the food industry. Cork is naturally a good location for such a centre given its proximity to the Golden Vale and our strong agricultural production in the south. The competence centre in Maynooth concentrates on realising better value from the uptake of information technology in industry. A significant issue, both at international level and domestically, is the large number of private companies and public authorities which have found they are not making the most of the advanced technology available to them. The issue is not one of acquiring new technology but making the most of the technology options available to line Departments and private sector companies. The Department hopes to take a lead in this regard. The Maynooth competence centre is a direct partnership between the university and Intel, which is leading the process and is embedded in the university set-up. For its part, the university is embedded in Intel's requirements. While I am not sure if I have fully or satisfactorily answered the Deputy's question, he will have noted the distinction I have drawn.

As a result of the downturn, the focus is increasingly on ensuring that all forms of research and development expenditure can be demonstrated to be commercially valid. This is the reason for the ground-breaking agreement on high level co-operation between Trinity College Dublin and University College Dublin which the Taoiseach launched several weeks ago prior to the local elections. No one would have anticipated such a development five or ten years ago. The two universities have decided to pool resources to make more relevant the work they do in the area of research and development and ensure it is properly applied and focused on creating more spin-outs, that is, campus companies or firms that grow out of innovation in the campus and are then commercialised by private sector investors or companies.

The Deputy may be alluding not only to the large CSETs, which consist of major multinationals with the financial wherewithal to work with large research groups, but also small indigenous companies. Enterprise Ireland provides high potential start-up supports for this sector. Many such companies are taking a risk that no bank manager would consider, even in the best of times.

The innovation vouchers have worked well. I expect the institutes of technology to assume a greater role in addressing the needs of smaller indigenous companies which do not have sufficient financial capacity to innovate. The innovation vouchers have been highly beneficial in allowing small companies to come together. They target research and development and supports at a smaller scale.

Many larger pharmaceutical companies will not invest substantial sums in research and development and instead opt to work with the high potential start-up capabilities and capacities. For example, Wyeth interacts strongly with the high potential start-ups in Trinity College Dublin, thereby creating significant synergy.

One of the key functions of Enterprise Ireland is not only to stabilise companies but also to work on the issue of scale. Many Irish companies find it impossible to move beyond a certain point in terms of scale and are then taken over by a foreign direct investor. We have invested heavily, with Enterprise Ireland, in key chief executives in many of the companies, especially in the ICT sector, so that instead of there being mergers, the acquisitions are done in reverse or there is enough capacity in these people to scale up. It is important that our indigenous industries do not end up being eaten up by many of these companies. That is why the high potential start-ups and the work that is being done with the institutes of technology and university are important.

There are other issues. I have always indicated that there is no room whatsoever for a silo approach between any of the agencies in this country. That is not what we want to see. We take on board Deputy Brady's view, that we continue to ensure that such investment is also provided for our indigenous SMEs.

The Minister mentioned the advent of six new competent centres. The Minister of State spoke of two already up and running. The six new centres coming on stream will be excellent, particularly for the agricultural sector to tap into the bioenergy needs. Farmers are looking for a new way out. If we create a culture of lowering energy costs, as the Minister stated, but also of promoting bioenergy in tandem with Teagasc, which could create one of these competence centres, that would give significant incentive for further research, and particularly by tying in companies which would be able to get involved in these centres.

Ireland is the only country in Europe that does not have a Solitaire school, which involves the training for installers of solar voltaic panels, geothermal heat pumps, etc. We should have one of these schools. Every other European country has one and it sets the standard for training for installers, fitters, electricians and plumbers, many of whom are out of work. If such a school could be tied in to an institute of technology it would be a great fillip to those who have lost their jobs who could get a European certificate of training. We could advance that. It is something that should be looked at.

On the inputs and outputs, I note the estimate that pay on administration support will increase marginally. I accept it is only an increase of 1%, but it seems strange that payroll costs will increase. I take it this relates to the same section.

No. It relates to enterprise.

It relates to science and technology.

We hope to move on to that.

Deputy White mentioned a Solitaire school and I support her on that. The Sub-Committee on Job Creation Through the Use of Renewable Energy Resources will be sending the Minister recommendations. The sub-committee is trying to be helpful. Not everybody covers in detail the work the committee is doing. However, we have an important sub-committee set up and I believe the Minister would be interested in it.

Deputy White is correct. The Minister can take it that the sub-committee will make a recommendation in favour of a Solitaire school. My colleagues would endorse that because we already have had six months of internal debate here, as well as presentations from various groups. What Deputy White stated about getting people to upskill to take advantage of the opportunities arising is important.

The aspect of most interest to those in the media seems to be what class of travel we availed of when we went to Brussels. We travelled overnight, and I suppose they were disappointed. We worked approximately 12 hours more than people who go to meetings. We did a great deal of work and met three or four of the Commissioners.

One of the points we impressed upon the Commissioners was that we would be looking for money to set up a Solitaire school and we asked what is available. We are alerting the Minister that we are in the market for this, and that this will come from the sub-committee as one of its recommendations along with a number of other matters. I am not prejudging but I am signalling this to the Minister. Will there be any money available in that regard?

In addition, all of our colleagues set out the details to all of the local authorities. We are not doing this off the top of our heads. This has been firmly rooted. I note that some of the local authorities are taking an intensive interest in this, so much so they want to make further presentations which we must curtail because we want to submit this to the Minister by November. In any event, the local authorities have an opportunity until 17 July to make submissions.

The committee is looking at alternatives such as how to create employment in those areas. We will be putting forward our views. I emphasise to the Minister that this committee rarely, if ever, uses a consultant. The language might not be as nuanced as Shakespeare but it is important that what we say is taken on board. We have made proposals on the commuter belt. There is a half a dozen proposals. Members worked hard here for many hours making these recommendations and proposals for the Minister. I hope she takes them on board.

Without prejudging the matter on which we have already spent six months, there are worthwhile projects coming through in the alternative energy areas and we want to be at the vanguard of them. We want the Department, which I acknowledge has a great deal of ongoing work, to be at the vanguard of it as well. Perhaps that is what lead to my idea of gathering everything together so that we can have a good look and see where we are. I support Deputy White's submission in this regard as strongly as possible as she and I are Vice-Chairman and Chairman, respectively, of that sub-committee.

Under Mr. Joe Harford, as chairman, we have a high level action group on green enterprise which has a short timeframe in which to report. On the basis of collaborative work between myself, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, it is looking at where are the new opportunities within the green economy, and at the educational and training systems, the research and development, public procurement, environment, legislation, incentives, start-up, growth finance and collaborate business networks. We are looking at renewable energy, energy efficiencies, eco-construction, waste management, recovery and recycling, water and waste water, and environmental consultancy and services. That is a vast area where we see considerable potential for training, convergence of training, taking people and giving them a different skill base, and also using opportunities from our indigenous perspective.

If the sub-committee is at a stage where it could make a submission, if it wishes, I would be more than happy to tell the chairman of the group that the sub-committee wishes to do so. It is a small tight-knit group which has a short timeframe in which to bring forward proposals, but we would be more than happy to facilitate that. In any case we can articulate those issues on the sub-committee's behalf to the chairman of the group. The Chairman is correct in saying there are new opportunities that cannot go without being exploited fully by this country.

I smiled when Deputy White raised the issue of a competence centre because she has a personal interest in one part of the country, known as County Carlow, where she consider there would be opportunities in bioenergy. She has discussed this with me and with Enterprise Ireland. Everyone would like to see a competence centre in every constituency. Unfortunately, that will not happen. However, we take on board the views of Deputy White and we can follow them through.

We intended to report in November, but if need be we might submit an interim report to the Department.

Or even a few ideas.

Yes. We do not want to be left out of this loop because the sub-committee has been working on this since November last.

Deputy White asked about the competence centres. To date, there are two, one in Cork and the emerging one in Maynooth. There are other areas. The area of energy efficiency and manufacturing and bioenergy-biorefinery are part and parcel of the six areas that have been identified. There will be an open competition to select the location. SFI has already funded a strategic cluster in UCD in this area but I hasten to add that does not mean UCD will be the focal point for this in the future because the competence centres are industry led as opposed to academic led. If, for instance, one was to locate it in Carlow, it would revolve around how strong was the industry involvement in the institutions in the area and the industry's desire to have it located in that place.

On the other point about installers and fitters, Sustainable Energy Ireland, through Skillnets, is creating networks of people who are in the business of manufacturing these solar devices of various kinds. There is an element of training involved because of the registration process and the requirement to become a recognised supplier, so some element of work has started there.

One of the weaknesses in Ireland is that there are no companies manufacturing solar devices. Most of the companies involved in producing solar devices are bringing in and assembling the work of manufacturing outlets outside this country. One of the targets in the years ahead must be for us to develop the manufacturing of renewable energy. It will be one of the issues confronting a competence centre and the Minister, in terms of focusing on promoting businesses that manufacture here.

One issue we have met on our travels is that people working on farms and others who tried to get into the electricity grid faced significant costs. Figures of some €1.7 million were mentioned. The costs are prohibitive. Can anything be done to ameliorate the situation? The ESB has its own grid, but is there any way we can incentivise it to try and make it more attractive for people to embark upon alternative routes?

It is a matter for the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister, Deputy Ryan. There are two issues. We subvent alternative energies and as a consequence we are paying for it, on the basis that we made a strategic decision that we want more people using renewable energy and to reduce the reliance on other types of fossil fuel.

Access to the grid is a significant issue. There was an undertaking to create access to it which was completely oversubscribed. The Minister is anxious we continue to invest in the upgrading of the network and as politicians we know that will not be without its difficulties, from planning and political perspectives. As the Deputy knows, he is anxious to proceed with the division of the ESB between network and supply. His view is that we need to continue that investment. We all know when there is a storm in the UK, ESB employees must go over to repair the networks because it has not invested in its networks for a considerable period of time.

Our investment in renewables will not proceed without immediate costs and subventions. However, access to the grid is a key issue which has been raised and will be one of the recommendations arising from the capacity of renewable energy. It will not be without other difficulties. In the midlands and my part of the world, where we do not have capacity and network capability, we have been stymied. As Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I know access and good capacity are very important if we are to have an attractive offering.

It is an issue which should be raised as a difficulty because of the significant costs involved to the supplier. The fact we have invested so much in the network means we must see a recompense for it. If energy and energy policy were as easy to make decisions about as everyone thinks they are, the matter would have been sorted out years ago. It is a fair point.

I am sorry for getting my numbers wrong on the inputs and outputs. The 2009 Estimates for pay expect a 1% increase in payroll costs and subhead F has a similar figure of an increase of some €600,000 in current pay, which is 4% or 5%. I would like an explanation. I understood it was Government policy to freeze or reduce the cost of public sector pay. Why is it going up?

Ten additional staff were appointed to SFI in 2008. The overall departmental Vote will show a much greater reduction in pay and, particularly, in personnel within the Department by the end of the year. It was carried over.

I refer to the difference between the 2008 outturn and the 2009 Estimate. It must mean additional people were hired in 2009.

The provisional outturn for civil servants in 2008 was 98 and 132 for other public servants.

The provisional outturn is based on 98 civil servants and 132 public servants, but the Estimate for 2009 states more will be spent on pay than in 2008. I do not understand why that is the case.

The carry over of the ten staff in the SFI is because the appointments were made late. They were hired in October, November or December and were carried through because it would not show up at great cost in 2008.

The additional staff connected with the projects we discussed in the last sequence of questioning will be monitored by the SFI's research clusters and arrangements in universities and industries. That is what they are there for. They will drop out of the picture in next the year or two because now they are in, there will be cost savings on the employment side.

The enterprise, development and competitiveness area is referred to in the note. It covers Forfás, InterTradeIreland, IDA grants to industry and building operations, Enterprise Ireland grants, grants to industry, grants for capital expenditure, Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited grants to industry, county enterprise development, monitoring and evaluation of INTERREG and the National Standards Authority of Ireland. There is a significant amount of material in this section. I ask colleagues to focus on what they want to do regarding the Estimates for 2009 and outturns, as set out in appendix one and the pages I referred to.

I have the same question. There is a 1% estimated increase in payroll costs, but what is different in this section is that the number of civil servants and public servants have fallen. Why is the Department estimating a 1% increase in the cost of payroll to the Exchequer when the number of staff is falling?

If one breaks the figure down for agencies, the enterprise boards will spend an extra €768,000 on pay, Enterprise Ireland will spend an extra €368,000 on pay and InterTradeIreland will spend an extra €110,000 on pay, to name just three agencies. I find it strange that estimated payroll costs to the taxpayer will increase in 2009, even though the number working in the programme fell in 2008. It does not make any sense to me.

Costs are rising despite falling numbers.

What costs are rising despite falling numbers? That is what I want to know.

If the Deputy looks at page 23 of the 2008 Estimates, the authorised numbers are 94 and 1,573. The actual numbers are 92 and 1,529. As the Deputy knows, in the middle of July last year we had to examine where we could create savings that would be part of the December budget and the supplementary budget that was introduced.

A Labour Court decision was made regarding the county enterprise boards to provide a certain amount of money for, I understand, pension purposes for country enterprise board CEOs. That was attributable to the CEBs and was something the Government was legally bound to do. It was an old claim over a considerable period of time and will be a once-off cost to be carried over.

Do pensions go into current pay? I understood they were separate.

They will be part of pay.

Subhead G shows the current pay for county enterprise boards. Does that include pay and pensions?

Subhead G in the Estimates, which would be reflected in this.

It is Appendix 1. It contains all the enterprise development——

County enterprise development.

On the 2008 provisional outturn, the current figure is €16,642 million, capital is €17,537 million and the total is €31,179 million. On the 2009 Estimate the current figure is €13,583 million, capital is €14,229 million and the total is €27,812 million. There is a reduction of 11%.

No. I refer to subhead G — county enterprise development.

Is the Deputy using the document I have?

No. The Minister mentioned——

I recall there was a Labour Court decision made against the Department as a result of which a top-up — not a huge amount — had to be paid to the county enterprise boards. I am trying to find the document the Deputy is using. Is it the one I have here?

Yes. Subhead G — county enterprise development. The change in 2009 over 2008 is minus 11%.

That is the overall percentage but the Minister is cutting capital. She is cutting the grants to business but she is increasing pay. It seems strange to me that the Minister is spending less on grants to business and more on paying her Department.

The only reason the current pay figure is up is on the basis of the Labour Court decision to which I referred.

Is it a pension aspect?

I cannot remember whether it was pay or pension. I know a Labour Court decision was made against the Department on an old claim that was in existence for a considerable period. I did not want to give the money but I was compelled to do so. My view is that money is better spent giving it to businesses and through grants as opposed to otherwise, but I was compelled to pay that. That is where one would see the increase. It is on the basis of a lump sum that had to be paid to those people.

I do not want to mention the war——

——but I used to be cross-examined, for want of a better word, by the former Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, in the Dáil on the county enterprise boards. I am of the view, which is probably not shared by the Minister's Department, that it is time the county enterprise boards were let off the leash and given additional freedom and discretion. The former Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, indicated he was of a like-minded view to us ordinary mortals asking the questions. We picked up that issue from people when we canvassed the commuter belt. Deputy Morgan made an oblique reference to county enterprise boards in his overview, particularly about grants.

A number of issues arise in regard to county enterprise boards. Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, which is concerned with foreign direct investment, have a huge job to do which they do extremely well. We compliment Frank Ryan, Barry O'Leary and all their staff for the work they do in tremendously difficult circumstances. I am aware there are time lags and time leagues to be dealt with, and we acknowledge that, but issues are falling through the net and as the Minister said earlier, and I concur with her view, our job is to focus on those. We believe it is time to take the shackles off the county enterprise boards and give them a little more freedom.

Deputy Morgan was getting revved up when he had leave to vote in the Dáil but one of the annoying problems we heard about on our travels was people having to pay back the start-up grants. The Minister referred to that becoming a cyclical fund, and I understand the reason, but if that €20,000, €25,000 or €30,000 has to be paid back the Minister might as well pull the plug. Many people complained that this might be the measure that might break them. The Minister might say that is nonsense because they are up and running two and three years but banks are refusing to give money to some of those small SMEs. The Minister is aware of that, and she set up a clearing house to try to deal with the problem. That is the issue we met with on the road, and every member here was on the road canvassing. When banks will not give €10,000, €15,000 or €20,000 to a small company employing three, four or five people in the back of beyond, including in my own area, then it does not add up that county enterprise boards are looking for €10,000, €15,000 or €20,000 to be paid back.

The second issue the Minister will have to try to get a handle on is the development levies of which there are different levels in different counties. Some are high in the east coast, others are reasonably low as one moves inland and so on but they are an obstacle to people starting up business because, as the Minister is aware, they often have to find €100,000 or €110,000. In our recommendation we propose a phased system of payment. We recommended first, that the levies would not be allowed increase ever again. I do not believe they will. Second, we recommended that there would be a phased system of payment of those levies.

Third, and the Minister will have to speak with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, about this aspect, we believe that in regard to the rateable valuation and so on the straw that could break the camel's back is the imposition of rates on small units about to start up because the first thing that arises is the Valuation Office, which is followed by a bill for €10,000, €15,000 or more, depending on what is involved.

We made a recommendation in our brief report, which was written by the ordinary lay individuals in this committee. I emphasise that. I am not giving out to the Minister about consultants but I have an aversion to them in so far as I can save money, and this committee will have very little consultancy input if that is possible. We are trying our best to produce reports for the Minister without the input of consultants. The Minister might say they will not be great reports but they might be as profound.

We want some sort of small business rate relief. We travelled to the North to examine pricing and so on across the Border and the first thing we read was that small business rates relief — I believe Sammy Wilson was the Minister — was being introduced. That was last February. Am I correct?

I believe I am. That was last February. Small business rate relief should be introduced based either on turnover or size but something must be done. The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of FDI, Enterprise Ireland, all the incubation units, centres and so on but be it in Killybegs or elsewhere, the three, four or five person businesses trying to get off the ground are all indigenous. The people involved are natives in the area and they will fight to the bitter end to survive. Why should we not give them a kick start? We were considering zero rates from year one up to year five when they all become payable. We recommend a staggered small business rates relief scheme or something of that nature. Deputy Morgan might want to speak on that.

There are not many gaps in the Chairman's contributions. The level of grant payment per job created is €7,500.

In the county enterprise boards.

In the county enterprise boards. I realise we must always be careful of what are called "scammers" and people who will try to con the public purse but at the same time——

Are we talking about the Deputy's county now?

No, we do not do it but at the same time to keep somebody on unemployment benefit costs well in excess of €20,000 a year. Somewhere between €10,000 and €12,500 per job created would be a much more realistic figure because that would allow small entrepreneurs get their businesses off the ground. It would get those people into productivity and earning their keep because there is no doubt that when people first come into a position they do not earn their keep. Those small garage industries, as I call them, cannot carry the can on that and for the sake of a difference of about €5,000 in the grant ceiling the committee believes it would make a huge difference.

Does the Minister have that report?

Yes. I believe in the county enterprise boards. They are of huge benefit. Unfortunately, I probably have less money in my CEBs than the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, has in his Leader boards but between us much work has been done to try to use the scarce resources we have to produce better outcomes for everyone. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, is moving ahead with identifying where we can create greater synergies and focus within the county enterprise boards. I signed off recently on a proposal allowing increased grant aids to be admissible for CEBs.

To respond to Deputy Morgan, we have one advantage in that we have the International Fund for Ireland, which has been able to create an enterprise fund. Such grant assistance is not available other than in the Border regions. This fund is a good idea.

Having regard to the difficulty businesses are experiencing in accessing capital, I would favour such a measure whereby one could be granted a loan for a certain period. In that way a person would get a grant from the county enterprise board and a loan from the county enterprise fund. I am aware that Donegal County Council put an additional €100,000 into the fund to top it up. and using its own resources, it can move forward in terms of that fund. That is a good idea. If such a measure were introduced, it would mean that the CEBs would have a greater opportunity to fund those operating small micro-businesses who banks do not want to see come in the door. We are examining how we can roll out such a measure. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, is working on that.

On the issue of increasing grants and the jobs issue, we will have to decide fairly soon whether it is better to use the money and try to support more jobs with less money or less jobs with more money. We will have to fundamentally examine that. If more funding could be allocated to the CEBs, we could do it. An aspect of the CEBs is that a penny is never wasted in them. If a person is not in a position to draw down money before the end of the year, there is a list of other people ready and able to move ahead quickly. Not a penny has been lost in that respect.

We will have to proceed with another matter from a policy perspective. There is a ganntasas — I cannot think of the appropriate word in English — a differential in provision between companies employing ten people and for those employing 20 people. Some of our indigenous industries will not develop to be internationally traded services and they will lose out when they develop and employ larger numbers and they will not be eligible for Enterprise Ireland support. Work is being done on the small business side of the Department to examine how we can deal with that legacy issue and close that gap. Without a doubt those one or two issues are fundamental if we are to see further improvements and investments in CEBs. Some people do not accept them as being important, but all of us within the Department believe they are hugely important.

A less rigid ceiling for the CEBs would be an answer, for example, if they were allowed to support companies employing 14 or 16 employees, even if that was only done in exceptional circumstances.

To provide some flexibility.

They are pretty curtailed as matters stand. That is what we heard on the road last year and this year. That is the view.

I gave the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, this job.

I am sure he is pragmatic.

There is a more fundamental issue at stake here. We have to accept that the role of CEBs first and foremost is to assist companies starting up to get to commercial financial viability. There is the issue of how long companies should be kept on the apron strings as such. Another issue is that if one introduces flexibility, we will be in here every day of the week defining what the ceiling and flexibility in this respect should be. That is a difficulty. When companies grow to employ more than ten people, they are cut loose from support and have to cope on their own. Often they fall between the stool of CEB support and Enterprise Ireland support and many companies cannot make that leap of faith. Probably the introduction of a gradual scale of support that would taper out to allow them fly on their own, so to speak, is what is required.

The budget allocation for CEBs is approximately €20 million this year. As the Tánaiste said, we have to come to a conclusion at some stage as to what way is the best way to support employment. Is it to support long-term commercial viability or to subsidise employment in the short term? However, that is a different argument.

County enterprise boards cannot be seen to be supporting employment. They must support the set-up and the commercial feasibility of a business and then let those business cope on their own. Longer term support for employment is a different debate from what is the charter for the county enterprise boards.

On the issue of small business rate relief, the Department would welcome any assistance from other Departments in that context. It would probably have to apply to profitability as opposed to turnover or number of staff, etc. That would be another great debate. The CEBs are doing a good job. Approximately 33,000 people are employed in various in companies that have been set up that are supported by CEBs. Most fundamentally of all, even though we do not like to admit it, some of these companies move on, achieve the status of being eligible for Enterprise Ireland support and develop further. There is great potential among small companies. In west Cork, for example, companies can be engaged in food production and in other parts of the country companies may be engaged in developing software. The product being developed varies geographically. I will be travelling to west Cork next week to visit some of these companies. They are mainly engaged in the production of foods and crafts. In other parts of the country, companies are engaged in the development of software or energy production.

The business in which companies are engaged depends on the natural base and interest of industry in the area. That is an aspect we may have to examine as well as geographical flexibilities. In areas where companies are engaged in the development software, companies might have a different requirement than a person setting up a business involved in the production of yoghurt or cheeses down in west cork. It might be useful to have a debate on this issue when I have completed a tour of all the county enterprise boards throughout the county.

We would be glad to facilitate the Minister of State.

Ours is an open Department and we take account of the recommendations of reports that come forward, bearing in mind the budgetary constraints that always exist. We are open to innovative thinking as we are the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

We are the enterprise committee and we have——-

The Chairman raised the issue of development charges and rates. I have raised that issue with the County and City Managers Association. Most of us have served in local government. That in itself is creating a problem. The Chairman was right in saying that in normal circumstances some of the development charges outrank the amount of a grant aid a company received. There has been a huge reduction in the revenue accruing from development charges, which makes the delivery of services difficult for county councils. If we expect people to reduce their fees by 10%, we will have to reduce costs by 10% to 20% and this will have to be part of an overall package. The representatives of the association were not particularly enamoured with my perspective, even though I very much appreciate that local government funding is a difficulty for them.

Under the existing legislation, IDA companies can get a holiday on the payment of rates as agreed by the county councillors. It is a reserve function of theirs. I do not know of a case where such a request has ever been refused. There is the possibility of a setaside in that respect for small companies or incubation units. Such revenue would not have been received in the first place as opposed to it being money foregone. Perhaps it should be left to local government to make a decision on the basis of the Act under which county councils can provide a setaside in terms of IDA investment.

I suggest that by the time the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, has toured all the county enterprise boards, he might be coming to us rather than us coming to him.

I would not presume anything.

Leaving the politics aside——-

I intend to work out the summer.

Very good. As one who has served on a local authority and believes in local government, it is a great shame that the county enterprise boards, when established, were not set up within the local government structure. Will the Minister agree that there is some merit in reintergrating the county enterprise boards into the councils, which would result in they achieving a considerable cut in their overheads? For example, there are empty offices in Fingal County Hall and yet the county enterprise has its own show and building literally across the road.

The same is the case in Louth.

Having done that, the local authorities could be allowed to decide, within parameters, their limits, rules and flexibilities bearing in mind that the cost of creating a job in the telecoms business is different in Fingal from that in Louth or Carlow. I am sure there are pluses and minuses to this proposal but it might be an approach worth exploring.

It is another perspective that may well be forthcoming from this committee.

I want to speed up our consideration of the next programmes because I as well as my two colleagues are due to speak in the Dáil tonight.

We are all due to speak tonight.

I also have to leave shortly as the Financial Services (Deposit Guarantee Scheme) Bill is being taken in the House.

I propose to take the labour force development programme and the employment rights, industrial relations and occupation health and safety programme together. I should be obliged if colleagues would sharpen their questions. I admit I am the biggest culprit of not doing that, so I will not say anything on these matters.

Which ones are these?

We are taking programme C, labour force development, and programme D, employment rights, industrial relations and occupational health and safety, together. Programme C covers FÁS, Skillnets, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland and Shannon Development. Funding is channelled through training and development programmes operated by these agencies. The labour force development programme covers training funds, future skills needs FÁS's skills, the labour market research unit and Skillnets. The other covers the LRC, the Labour Court, NERA and various matters that have been alluded to in some of the discussions with Deputy Varadkar. However, that does not prevent one from raising an issue here again.

I know people and organisations that have been involved with Skillnets. The capacity and efficiency of the system are extraordinary. I am concerned that Skillnets will take a significant hit in its budget allocation. It has brought efficiencies to organisations. In the case of the Associated Craft Butchers of Ireland, for example, the butcher shops are small concerns and usually owner managed. The people concerned have come through the system, invariably left school early and do not have the professional skills to manage the business and expand and achieve its full rich potential. Skillnets is an outstanding scheme which provides capacity and for upskilling in a real way, not in bland blather, for such businesses. The reduction concerns me greatly. Will the Minister discuss it?

I have had to reduce the amount of money because there is a huge number of unemployed people and Skillnets is for people in employment. There is a sum of €16.5 million this year for Skillnets and the money will be used to meet our contractual commitments. There is also a services-to-business support mechanism within FÁS. I have asked the Department to examine the most efficient way to deliver these services. I like the Skillnets model which has been quite efficient and brought together much of the skills base required by industry. FÁS also needs some flexibility, particularly to move training programmes into vulnerable companies to help them to work and trade through the difficulties. I have asked for this work to be done, to see how we can amalgamate both of them and consider the best options.

There are some skillnets which, in this day and age and given the economic difficulties, may not be what we require, which is functionally to support key industries and generate results. The Deputy had a particular interest in a skillnet and the people concerned met me in County Donegal. We are working through the issues. There are nice, flouncy, fluffy skillnets which would be grand if we were in a different position. There are also very practical things being done by skillnets, particularly in vulnerable areas such as the retail sector, the ICT sector, craft butchers and so forth. Where new skills are needed which would be very expensive for the companies to provide, good training programmes can be provided by the industry coming together and using the skillnet. That formula is being used, but the money, the €16.5 million, has been provided to meet contractual commitments.

Naturally, I looked at how I could raid the national training fund, but, unfortunately, that has an impact on our borrowing requirement. It was another one of these things that would put the entire economy out of kilter. However, the figure is still €16.5 million which is a huge amount of money. I am anxious to see how it will be best supported. Many of the people who were in the Skillnets programmes last year and the year before are now unemployed, unfortunately, and that training would be best served to them. We are also examining, within Skillnets and where people have found themselves unemployed but heretofore were part of a skillnet programme, how they can still participate in the programme to allow them to develop their skills. A great deal of work is being done in that regard. If members have ideas, I would be more than willing to examine them. However, I must deal with the two aspects, how we can provide training for people in work and in business. The Deputy is correct that the formula of Skillnets and much of the work done are quite good. It is a bottom-up approach and does what people say needs to be done.

In the case of the few schemes with which I am familiar, I happen to know the evaluators involved. They are very diligent and will take no messing or nonsense. They are very forthright in their comments and unless something stacks up and is efficient, they will not tolerate it.

There is great diligence. We will see how it goes, but I am disappointed the budget was cut. As the Minister said, it was an extremely efficient way of bringing a group of business people together and dealing with IT, management and so forth. The quality of some of the courses was top class.

The Minister is absolutely right that the Skillnets model is good and efficient. I would be inclined to move the money from the FÁS budget to Skillnets. I accept there are a number of fluffy skillnets that belong to a different time. They are not all the same. That matter probably needs to be evaluated first.

Page 29 indicates the number of training days. There is a significant increase in the number of upskilling training days and employment programme days. What is the definition of a training day and has the definition changed in any way? Given the fact there has not been a major increase in resources, how can the increase be achieved?

My second question relates again to pay. I see an increase across the board. NERA would fall under this programme. In its case there is an increase in current pay from €6.29 million to €6.437 million, despite the number of staff falling. The position is similar in the case of FÁS. There is an increase in current pay from €11.34 million to €11.35 million; there is also an increase in the FÁS non-pay budget. That is all contained in the administration section. I see this theme across the board and it is very strange. What is the explanation for the fact that the current pay subheads in all these agencies are estimated to increase in 2009?

Chairman, I must leave it in your capable hands to prosecute the Minister while I go to the House to deal with the financial services Bill.

We will not be too long behind the Deputy. We are under pressure, too. Deputy Varadkar is trying to find out if NERA is the cause of the increase.

I just do not understand why the current pay bill for all these agencies will increase in the 2009 Estimates.

On the FÁS side, it is due to pensions and, on the other, particularly NERA, there was recruitment in the middle of the year and there is now a full year cost in the 2009 Estimates. The provisional outturn for 2008 was €6.294 million and the estimate for 2009 is €6.437 million. All of this could change in the morning on the basis of the VER available to personnel. Next year we could be looking at the 2009 outturn against the Estimate and see quite a variation in the overall pay and pensions figures within the Department. We do not know what the outcome of the VER will be in the civil and public service.

On what is the estimate based?

It is based on the number of appointments made from the beginning to the middle of 2008. That is the full year cost in 2009. The people concerned would not have been working for a full year. It is a full year cost.

NERA has gone from having staff numbers of 130 in 2008 to 128 in 2009. Why is there an estimated increase in current pay? I do not understand who in NERA would have pensions.

FÁS has made provision for pensions.

I accept the Estimate for FÁS but do not understand the estimation for NERA. There is a decrease of two in the number of staff, yet payroll costs are increasing and there are no pensioners.

Are increments involved?

No. I will come back to the Deputy on the matter.

Throughout the Estimates there are increases——

What has happened is that people were employed in the middle of the year and we are now talking about the full year cost. As there is now an embargo, many posts will not be filled. We do not know what the outcome of the VER will be.

On the issue of the training days, I had to move funds from training in employment to training the unemployed and as a result I was in a position to increase the number of training days shown. The target is 4 million in 2009 and the output for 2008 was 3.575 million. I had to take 2008's budget, strip out of it as much money as was humanly possibly and transfer that money to people who have found themselves unemployed and introducing new programmes, in particular, working with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Hanafin, where we can see the social welfare payment being used in some way to keep people in employment, and/or training, and/or graduate placement. Where there are vulnerable companies in which jobs could be lost without intervention, presently I am working with the social partners on a scheme, which is not a work fare scheme, I do not like that scheme, involving a subvention to the employer to keep those people employed. I only have so much money available. On that basis, I took that money and I put it into this. This is where the additional training days are available. There is no secret formula involved.

On that programme, there is €1.2 million in grants to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to provide training for union officials and activists. Given that the trade union movement receives €11 million in tax subsidies already which, in fairness, the Labour Party has proposed to abolish, is it appropriate that €1.2 million of taxpayers' money should go to training trade union officials and activists? Given that it is taxpayers' money and the trade union leaders pay themselves more than everyone in this room except the Minister, is it appropriate that we should use taxpayers' money in that way?

The same may be said of the workplace innovation fund, into which €805,000 is being put. That will go to IBEC and the Construction Industry Federation. Surely IBEC has enough of its own money and if the Construction Industry Federation does not have any money, it is its own fault. The €2 million in those budget lines would have vaccinated every girl in Donegal against cervical cancer for 20 years. Why are we giving money to these organisations?

The funding goes to ETS, which is the education, training and advisory service, and it covers up to 80% of expenditure on training and advisory services for unions, officials and activists. There has been a decrease in the amount of money being made available on the basis that I did not have all of the financial wherewithal to support it. I reduced it by approximately €300,000.

Is that a good way to spend taxpayers' money?

It forms part of an agreement, that great view which the Chairman and I support but which Deputy Varadkar definitely does not, which is the issue of social partnership.

It is this kind of thing that would lead me not to support it. Trade union leaders pay themselves several million euro, not each but collectively. They pay themselves at least €140,000 each and then they expect the taxpayer to pay for funding for shop stewards. That is wrong. Does the Minister not agree?

It is not just for shop stewards. It would be in the context of health and safety. In legislation, for example, under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Acts, the worker representative is mentioned on a statutory basis. The unions provide training.

The employer should pay for that. It is the employer's obligation to provide that.

It is not. The employees' representative would normally be a union representative as well. If the Deputy goes to visit the unions' college, which I would advise him to do, he will see the type of training it does.

I have been there, in Parnell Square. It is mostly training shop stewards.

His argument is an ideological one as opposed to an argument about value for money.

It is not an ideological argument. It is about how the Minister spends taxpayers' money. There are better ways in the Department to spend money.

It is good value for money.

In fairness, the Labour Party would cut the €11 million subsidy for the unions. That would make me happy.

Given the electoral outcome, I might have to change my mind next year.

There was reference to the workplace innovation fund, to which I have a tangential connection. That is designed to introduce labour market flexibility in the main because change management is a significant issue for companies which are either downsizing or cutting back hours. The choice employers face is between cutting back on working hours as opposed to laying people off. That element of spending to teach management and workers to innovate within their own workplace is money well spent in the current circumstances.

Why give the money to IBEC, the CIF and ICTU?

It is given to the centre for partnership which represents all of the social partnerships. It is not confined to one or the other. I understand Deputy Varadkar has a bug-bear with money being given to the trade unions. It is not being given to the trade unions. It is given to all partners and as he will be aware, the centre for partnership conducts this work through businesses at ground level around the country.

That excludes the majority of businesses and the majority of workers in the country who are not part of these organisations.

I would support ISME and such organisations becoming part of the partnership processes.

What about non-unionised workers? What about me and my staff?

It is important that they are recognised as well.

They are excluded by this policy.

They are not excluded by this policy. Enterprise Ireland is spending quite a deal of money on innovation issues at company level as well.

I refer to this particular programme.

This particular fund is obviously going to the centre for partnership and, by definition, it is for partnership participants.

By definition, it excludes most workers and most businesses.

They are not excluded because elsewhere in the Enterprise Ireland Vote they are dealt with in terms of innovation issues.

It is for workers in non-unionised areas. If decisions are made in the context of work-life balance, etc., that flows into the broader workplace as well.

How would they benefit from the ETS fund or WIF?

I am afraid this is an ideological argument.

It is not. The Ministers are taking a practical, simple straightforward point about how taxpayers' money should be spent and trying to turn it into an ideological argument so that they need not address the facts.

I am sure we will not resolve it here.

We will not resolve it here because there was an agreement made, and that is that.

Was that like the agreement the Government broke on pay? The Government was happy enough to break the national wage agreement, and was right to break it. Why would the Minister not break this agreement too and state that the €1.2 million should be spent?

We will not die in the ditch over €1.2 million this year but we might die in the ditch over €1.2 million next year. Is that okay?

Okay. We can see the signals going up all right.

We will move on to programme E — commerce, consumers and competition. The National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority received a bit of a blasting before the committee and the Competition Authority will come back in to meet us.

I take issue with the Competition Authority. It is advocating competition all over the place. Mention was made of ideology. If one was to take to their logical conclusion the ideological arguments made by the Competition Authority, through Mr. Prasifka and all those who come in here, the Darwinian theory would stand because only the strongest would ever survive. There is no account of social implications in the model the Competition Authority articulates at every corner.

Consumers are interested in many of the arguments the Competition Authority makes, but yet consumers are also parents whose sons and daughters are looking for jobs in some of the areas. In all of this there is a balancing act, as the Minister stated earlier.

If one was to take everything in isolation, there would be only one big store of 64,000 sq. ft. That would be the shop with everything in it. Eventually, some of what happens nowadays would occur where even some Irish produce would not be able to get on the shelves. That is obviously of concern to all of us here because that, ultimately, affects jobs as well.

This is my issue with competition. I have argued about section 4 of the Competition Act here and the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, has heard me speak of it in the Dáil. My party put forward an amendment Bill and the then Minister, Deputy Martin, could not see his way around it. I understand the Minister is carrying out a review and I hope she will give consideration to section 4. The Attorney General, Mr. Paul Gallagher, should be invited to provide advice in respect of it. I fundamentally disagree with the advice that was previously given. We brought forward a Bill which we felt was correct. We are of the view that what happened did not reflect the view of the Oireachtas at the time. Artists and others were excluded.

There was also the difficulty that the Irish Pharmaceutical Union could not negotiate on behalf of its members. That was a complete nonsense. Everyone present knows what happened.

Is the Chairman referring to Irish Actors Equity?

I have resolved that matter. I do not disagree with the Chairman and the argument he puts forward has been around for some time. When I first entered the Dáil in 1987, there were difficulties involving Irish Actors Equity.

A number of matters arise. First, there is EU law relating to competition.

Second, I am in the process of amalgamating the NCA and the Competition Authority. I am of the view that there will be a greater synergy between both and a new corporate structure will be put in place. At present, one has a board but the other does not. I am working on a framework to put in place a board for the amalgamated body.

My predecessor, Deputy Martin, instigated a review of competition law. That has been completed and I have taken on board the issue relating to media mergers and the recommendations of the high level group established to carry out the review. Even if it will not be possible to establish a partnership, I want to deal with the issue of Irish Actors Equity once and for all.

There is also the IP issue and further deliberations will take place before I bring that matter to finality in the competition law. There are other issues relating to competition which will have to be taken into consideration in the context of the position we want the country to occupy in the next ten to 20 years.

Exactly.

When it comes to indigenous industries, there must be a sense of scale. I do not want to create monopolies. We must bring companies together in order that they might sustain themselves in the economic climate within which they must operate internationally. We are working with Enterprise Ireland in respect of considering how we might marry what we are attempting to do with competition law. I accept that we tend to vilify the Competition Authority but it does a considerable amount of good work in the area competition.

I appreciate that.

I wish to categorically state that the matter to which the Chairman refers will be reflected in my amendments to the competition law.

One of the issues I found most annoying was the fact that the recommendations of the Competition Authority were not being implemented or otherwise. It sometimes does not really matter whether these recommendations are accepted or rejected. However, at least it is the case that the work which has been done has moved matters on. I gave an undertaking and work in respect of it has moved ahead. I have instructed Departments to revert to me and the Competition Authority in respect of a number of the recommendations to which I refer. Whether they are accepted or rejected is one thing, but they should not be allowed to sit on the shelf gathering dust.

I previously spoke to the Chairman about the fact that this committee is going to have a key, if parallel, role in ensuring that consumers obtain value for money while also seeing to it that the food industry is sustained. I will be publishing the report relating to the Competition Authority's investigation. This report will categorically show that there is still a vacuum of information regarding the real costs of doing business North and South and of bringing goods to market. Those involved in the food industry are screaming at us in respect of the impact these matters are having on them. I would be happy to make the research carried out by the Competition Authority available to the committee.

I would also be happy to pursue some of the issues raised by the Chairman in the House. I found myself in a position to be able to progress a number of these and what he said in respect of them proved extremely helpful. It is not necessarily the case that when I invite people to meet me, what is said is made public. In addition, some people never get the opportunity to articulate that which they wish to say. I am of the view that a considerable amount of work remains to be done in order to achieve a balance in this regard.

It cannot be the case that profit is the only consideration. Regard must also be had to sustainability. I know the Chairman had a bee in his bonnet with regard to that matter. Perhaps I have now removed that bee and relieved the stress he is under.

I am glad of that.

I look forward to hearing his views when the new legislation emerges.

The Tánaiste could nearly write them herself.

I will be interested in being informed about the mechanism with which the Tánaiste has come up in respect of dealing with the situation relating to Irish Actors Equity.

Sometimes when we do not go to bed at night, we do a great deal of thinking and working. The legislation is more or less drawn up and we hope to have the heads of a Bill quite soon. I hope no one will suggest that we should throw the legislation out. Decisions were made in respect of banking and the IMO and that needed to be done. We are legislators and if we are of the view that it is for the public good, then we must legislate. There is a provision in the competition law which relates to the public good.

I was of the view that we had thrown out the public good and that we had concentrated on the theoretical aspect of matters. That was the difficulty I had. I read the competition document and came to the conclusion that it did not reflect the reality.

We should not be so naive as to think that these organisations' primary interest relates to the public good. It is their members' incomes that are paramount.

If it is the public good as represented by the State, there is nothing wrong with that.

We come now to the delivery of strategic goals, value for money and policy reviews and change and modernisation within the Department. Do members wish to ask questions on the subheads relating to these matters?

The Department's advertising and information budget was €250,000 last year and is projected to be €350,000 for the current year. Is the Department planning on engaging in any particular advertising campaigns?

The salaries of the Tánaiste, the Ministers of State, the secretariat and departmental staff are to increase from €30.7 million to €31.79 million. What is the explanation for this increase of more than €1 million in payroll costs?

The 2008 Estimate for advertising and information resources was €515,000.

That amount was not spent.

There was a saving of over €250,000. I reduced the budget considerably on the basis of the review carried out last July.

However, it is now being increased.

The Estimate is €351,000 but we may not necessarily spend that amount. The way things are going we will not spend it. Part of it relates to the Official Languages Act and we will be obliged to spend some money on that.

On the Official Languages Act.

That is an ideological consideration.

The amount provided for in the 2009 Estimate relates to the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the Department.

Sin an fáth go bhfuil muid ag iarraidh sin a dhéanamh.

More money well spent.

Cé go bhfuil neart Gaeilge ag an chuid is mó de na hAirí, caithfidh muid sin a dhéanamh ar son ní amháin muintir na Gaeltachta ach ar son na daoine a ba cheart agus ba chóir go mbeadh na seirbhísí ar fáil i nGaeilge dóibh.

I should have spoken in Irish for the entire meeting. It would have been much easier.

We would have understood what the Tánaiste said; we just might not have been able to pose our questions as Gaeilge.

The Donegal Irish might have been a problem.

The figure for salaries is merely an estimate of what it is going to cost, particularly on the basis that there has been quite a seismic change within the Department. People have certain entitlements and different Ministers decide as to whether such entitlements should be used. There is also an element of cross-cutting in respect of some of the staff. The figure is an estimate and does not necessarily represent what will be the final amount. We have seen a reduction on the Estimate in 2008 because we kept things tight in the Department. The allocation is €351,000 but that will not necessarily be drawn down because we are carrying out a review on whether services can be shared between the Minister and the Ministers of State.

It is a target the Minister hopes not to achieve.

Yes.

During the division, a document that was circulated was brought to my attention but it is gobbledygook. It is a draft working document based on the 2008 outturn. Unfortunately, members of the press are not present to listen to what is being said. This document should not have been circulated, as it is a working document belonging to the Department. The document circulated subsequently is the final document and work is being done on the basis of the 2008 outputs, which cannot be changed. Targets from last year will change in 2009. There was no amendment of the 2008 targets whatsoever. The first document was a work in progress with bullets, numbering, formats and ways in which the work was to take place. I will ascertain why a working document made its way into the Oireachtas. The document that should have been made available was the output document that was circulated. I refer to this in case anybody says changes were made in an underhand way. The final document was based on the 2008 output statement, which did not change, but the 2009 targets could change.

I thank the Minister, the Ministers of State and their officials for attending the meeting. I also thank Deputy Varadkar, who is still standing after more than three hours, and all other Deputies who contributed. It is a difficult time but the Revised Estimate had to be considered today and I thank everybody for their co-operation.

Top
Share