Vol. 609 No. 1
105 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the consumer strategy group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31600/05]
As I advised the House in my reply to Question No. 205 of 28 September, the consumer strategy group's report, Make Consumers Count, was published on 18 May 2005. The Government has already approved the report's core recommendation that a new statutory body, the national consumer agency, be established to advocate on behalf of consumers. Given that this will require primary legislation, a board has been appointed to act in an interim capacity until the new agency is established on a statutory footing. The Deputy will be aware that since its appointment the interim board has been active in terms of articulating the consumer's case on issues such as the groceries order. In addition to being a forceful advocate on behalf of the consumer, the interim board, as part of its terms of reference, will have a key role in preparing the way for the fully operational agency itself.
The other significant recommendation in the consumer strategy group report related to the abolition of the groceries order. The Deputy will be aware that following the publication of the report my Department embarked upon a public consultation process on the future of the order. In excess of 550 submissions were received in the course of the consultation process.
Will we deal with QuestionNo. 107 on the groceries order?
No, this is a recommendation of the consumer strategy group. I will deal with whatever issues the Deputy wishes me to deal with.
Those submissions have been examined and I met with various groups in the last month to discuss the groceries order. I intend to bring a report to Government detailing proposals in relation to the future of the order shortly.
In addition to the above mentioned recommendations, I have accepted a number of the consumer strategy group's recommendations relating to my Department, some of which have already been implemented. For example, the fines for breaching consumer protection laws have recently been significantly increased. The fundamental review of the existing code of consumer protection law, as recommended by the consumer strategy group, is already under way and additional resources have been dedicated by my Department to this task.
The consumer strategy group report contains more than 30 separate recommendations involving a variety of different Departments and agencies whose activities directly impact upon the interests of consumers. The scope and breadth of the recommendations required a co-ordinated response from Government. For that reason a high level interdepartmental committee was established to prepare a detailed plan for the implementation of the recommendations. The report of the high level committee is expected to be submitted to Government shortly.
I am confident the consumer strategy group's report offers the way forward in developing a robust and effective national consumer policy. Considerable progress has been made in implementing the report in the short time since its publication. I am anxious that progress continue to be made in this regard and I am confident that in conjunction with the interim board of the national consumer agency we will continue to make progress to the benefit of consumers.
God bless word processors. The reply is identical to the reply given the last time this question was submitted, in September. The Minister tells us again that the scope and breadth of the recommendations require a co-ordinated response from Government. God forbid there might be a joined-up response from Government.
What progress has been made in establishing the high level interdepartmental committee? How many meetings has that committee had? Has it submitted the report to Government that was promised "shortly" in September?
The work of the committee is virtually complete. We are preparing a memorandum for Government.
How many meetings has it held?
I do not know. That is not relevant because the report is complete. When it involves other agencies and Departments it is necessary to request consideration of and commitments on the various recommendations from outside my Department.
I ask because the phrase "requiring interdepartmental committees to co-ordinate" normally means long-fingering something. I am heartened to hear the committee's work is complete or virtually so.
Has the high level committee submitted its report to Government and when will the House have sight of the implementation procedures that will be agreed?
It will be submitted to Government shortly. The memorandum is in preparation.
106 Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of meetings of the better regulation group which have taken place; the action which has been taken arising from those meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31631/05]
I have set up the business regulation forum, BRF, with effect from today. I was very pleased to secure the services of Dr. Donal De Buitléir, General Manager, Office of the Group Chief Executive, AIB Group, as chairman. The members appointed encompass an excellent spread of business and regulatory expertise and this will be complemented by the addition of departmental representatives.
Establishment of the BRF is a key element in implementing the Government's commitment to better regulation and to address administrative burdens which can genuinely be identified as disproportionate. My intention is that the BRF will advise me, and that I, in turn, will advise the Government, on regulatory issues as they impact on business and competitiveness, in particular issues and problems arising from outdated, inefficient or disproportionate regulation.
The forum will work in parallel with the existing better regulation group of Government officials and regulators. It will take a strategic overview of the application of better regulation principles to new regulation and examine specific existing regulations on a problem-solving basis. As the business regulation forum should be a dynamic body which will identify, focus on and prioritise regulatory issues of concern, I do not want to be prescriptive about its work. The adoption of a detailed work programme will be a matter for the forum. My Department and the State enterprise agencies will assist the forum to carry out its task and I have requested other Departments and the independent regulatory bodies to facilitate the effective analysis and review of particular regulatory issues.
I am sure the Minister will not mind me stating that we have heard all this before. In January 2004 it was stated in a document issued by the Taoiseach that the Government had established a group on better regulation to promote better regulation across the public service and oversee implementation of the commitments and action plan arising from the White Paper. How are we now to believe the Minister on any announcement he makes on a new forum, group or committee established to deal with the same matter?
With regard to the bona fides of the Government on the issue of better regulation, how many regulatory impact analyses have been carried out across Departments since January 2004 in line with what was committed to at that time? Will the Minister comment on the company law reform group's report, which was to deal with a number of issues related to company law and which affect the regulatory burden on small businesses in particular?
In terms of the world of business, there was a requirement and a desire from business that there would be formalised dialogue on working relationships with Government on regulations in general. This is a good thing. During the summer, the Taoiseach announced that such a group would be established. It is important for business in Ireland, as there is a strong external perception that the Government and its process are agile and responsive to enterprise and business. We gain competitively on that point compared with other countries with which we compete. This is a strong view of Ireland. I see the establishment of the aforementioned forum in such a context. It clearly demonstrates that the Government listens to what people say on the impact of regulation on business and enterprise.
The company law review group was asked to carry out a specific task with regard to legislation pertaining to directors' compliance. It has completed this work, which is currently at Government. The Government will make a decision on the matter shortly.
I do not agree with the Minister's comment that the Government has an agile perspective of the matters that come before it. The approach is reactive rather than agile. The Government has been warned about these issues as legislation proceeded through the Houses. In particular, there were warnings that the directors' compliance statement in the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Bill 2003 would create enormous problems for inward investment in the country, with directors based in the US, for example, needing to sign off directors' statements for businesses and foreign direct investment here.
The Government and the Taoiseach in particular was warned about these issues and potential mistakes. The Minister is now attempting to disguise this with a forum report. Will the Minister comment on the small business forum that he felt obliged to set up recently? There is also a group to implement the enterprise strategy group's report. Another group is being announced today to deal with better regulation, some issues of which we are already aware and which we do not need a group to recognise. Does the Minister agree that what is needed is the implementation of the enterprise strategy group's report in a concerted proactive way? The views of people could be taken at that stage rather than now setting up another committee and waiting another year and a half to implement measures required to assist small business in the regulatory environment.
This is an example of typical cheap Opposition tactics condemning any group established. The bottom line on the enterprise strategy group is that the fundamentals have been implemented in terms of economic migration policy.
How many recommendations have been implemented?
The Employment Permits Bill 2005 is awaiting this House to pass it on to Committee Stage. The transport initiative unveiled yesterday is central to recommendations arising from the enterprise strategy group. Another example is work on and investment in research and development.
Why is another group needed?
I am dealing with the issue. The One Step Up initiative has been allocated an extra €40 million this year. It was used immediately to upskill the workforce. Whatever criteria are used, there is solid progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the enterprise strategy group. The reorganisation of Enterprise Ireland, taking into account its new strategic vision is another example. The restructuring approach is dealing with sales and marketing along with technology. This is a key driver of the recommendations of the enterprise strategy group.
The last time a small business task force existed was when Deputy Séamus Brennan was Minister for Trade and Employment, more than ten years ago. Most people would accept the outcome of that work was particularly significant for small business in terms of improving the environment for these businesses within the general economy. We must get away from the simplistic notion that we should not think strategically about the country's future.
This is a talking shop and the Minister knows it.
One of the great driving forces behind Ireland's transformation economically over the past decade or so has been the strategic approach taken on macro issues. These are significant fundamental issues in attracting investment and getting the overall business climate correct. This is why the country has been so successful, more successful than any other country, in attracting mobile investment. We should move away from silly politicking.
No new group is needed to cover up the mistakes made.
107 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to the public consultation process on the groceries order; when he expects to make a decision on the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31581/05]
133 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when he intends to take a decision on the groceries order; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31632/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 107 and 133 together.
The public consultation process on the groceries order generated more than 550 submissions which were received from a wide range of parties, including a significant number from the general public. The submissions have all been considered and my Department has now compiled a detailed report on the process. I have also met various groups in the past month to discuss the groceries order. The report is comprehensive and I intend to bring recommendations to Government shortly. Revocation or amendment of the order will require primary legislation.
The last line has at least been changed from the standard reply. A word processor was required to change the answer this time.
It is definitely changing.
The last answer the Minister gave the House on this issue stated that findings would be considered and recommendations would be brought to Government by the end of October. That date has come and gone. When will the Minister make the decision, and what will the decision be? The Minister has consulted widely and there were 550 submissions, so what is so difficult? The Minister's public utterances convey a very clear view on what he wishes to do, regardless of submissions. When will we witness the decision and relevant legislative proposals?
The Deputy will see those very shortly and I look forward to his support.
It is difficult to support something we cannot see.
What does that mean? In telling this House for months that the decision is coming shortly and then providing a specific date, the end of October, it is not good enough to be glib and state that it will come shortly. The livelihood of interested parties depends on this decision and it is a matter to get right.
The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has had detailed discussions with all interested parties. I was aghast to hear the Minister dismiss all this on a radio programme as being irrelevant, and that the work done on a cross-party basis by the joint committee was of little concern to him. When will the Minister appear before the joint committee to hear the views of all members, including members of his own party, on the issue and reach an accommodation? The joint committee is agreed on change that will drive forward an agenda to best protect the consumer and present choice, accessibility and proper spatial planning.
I have made no glib response. I have given detailed consideration to the issue, as is appropriate. The Government will make the decision before it is brought to the House along with legislative proposals.
When will this happen?
The Deputy should allow me to respond. I was somewhat surprised that originally, there was a knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to oppose any change to the groceries order, even before the consumer strategy group reported.
There was no such thing.
However, I am glad to see there has been some amendment of that position.
Has the Minister read the reports? There are two of them.
I have. While it is extremely carefully worded on a number of fronts, I have made it clear that the retention of the groceries order is not a tenable proposition in the future. However, the Department received 550 written submissions on this matter. As I have stated, it was only fair to give those concerned about the issue an opportunity to discuss it with me verbally. This has taken place over recent weeks. I was not being glib about the issue and it was unfair of Deputy Howlin to suggest that. It is important to give that opportunity to people——
When will we see a result?
——from different sides. Consequently, as I have stated, I will go before the Government shortly and will not pre-empt its decision. I will come back before the House when that decision has been taken.
Does the Minister believe there should be a retention of the ban on predatory pricing and below cost selling?
As I have stated, the existing order is not a ban on below cost selling but is on below the net invoice price——
The Minister should answer the question he was asked.
In the first instance, I will bring my recommendations to the Government. It will make a decision on the issue and I will then revert back to the House. In time honoured fashion, I am going about this in the proper manner. First, I will go to the Executive and then I will bring the matter back before the House.
The Minister has stated he is in favour of abandoning the groceries order. He has just stated he will bring his views on the groceries order to the Government first and then before this House in an orderly fashion. He has already made his views known.
That is the Minister's conclusion.
Does the Minister agree that the bans on predatory pricing or below cost selling should be retained? I know this is not easy for me to understand.
The Deputy should define what he means.
The Minister is being quite arrogant.
Does the Deputy understand what he has just asked?
Yes. The Minister should answer the question.
The groceries order is not a ban on below cost selling and is not a ban on predatory pricing.
I did not ask the Minister about the groceries order. I asked him another question.
Existing legislation already covers that.
I asked the Minister a different question. That is not a shared view.
Can the Minister clarify the supplementary answer he has just given? He stated that existing legislation deals with the issue of predatory pricing. What section of the Companies Act deals with the issue of predatory pricing? Is it not a fact that one must be a dominant player and that in the grocery trade, the criteria are laid down by the courts? No one has reached the 40% threshold for being a dominant player in the market. The Minister has now told the House that a law exists which would protect against predatory pricing. Where is it?
The Competition Act deals with the issue. I sought advice and views on this matter and it deals with the issue of predatory pricing and abuse of dominance.
It does not.
The issue of jurisprudence is separate. However, I do not accept the proposition which the Deputy has just articulated. As I stated earlier, I will bring the full range of proposals and recommendations on this issue to the Government shortly. I will then make a full presentation of those recommendations to the House. Comprehensive work has been carried out on the issue by officials within my Department and I ask Members, when they get time, to read them——
Has the Minister read the report by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business?
I have read the joint committee's report and have had discussions with its chairman.
In that case, the Minister is fully briefed. Deputy Cassidy will have briefed him fully.
It is an interesting report.
As a brief and final supplementary matter, there are two reports, so I am unsure whether the Minister has read both. He has referred to a single report when there are two reports.
I know that.
In view of the importance which the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has attached to these matters and the fact that it has spent a great deal of time and public energy on them, will the Minister come before the joint committee with his comprehensive proposals to discuss them in advance of working out the mechanisms for a final decision? In other words, I ask him not to pre-empt the Government's decision but to discuss mechanisms, as far as the specific legislation is concerned, with the joint committee before reaching a final immutable position.
First, the Government makes decisions on these issues. This is the position.
Under the Constitution, law is made by the Oireachtas. I know that comes as a shock to the Minister.
I have not finished and the Deputy does not appear inclined to give me an opportunity to do so.
It is the Oireachtas and not the Government which makes law.
The Government makes decisions on whether to introduce legislation to the House. Such legislation is then published and it is then open for all Members to have an input into it.
Does that mean the Minister will not come near the joint committee?
The Deputy should allow me to finish. This will require primary legislation and all Members will have the opportunity to contribute to any legislation. In addition, I have no difficulty in discussing the report that I will produce and publish with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. The joint committee members will require time to discuss the report. However, under no circumstances can the committee itself take on board the executive function of the Government to decide what legislation may be brought before the House. In the ordinary course of legislation which passes through the House, Deputies may table amendments to it. This is the context in which they normally make their views known on any issue.
It is good that the Minister may accept the Members' views. If he had accepted them on the issue of directors' compliance, he would not have walked into that problem.
108 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his concerns regarding the impact of levies being imposed by local authorities on the development of small to medium-sized enterprises; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31529/05]
The framework for development contribution schemes was agreed under the Planning and Development Act 2000 to update the long-standing development levy system. That system had applied since 1963 and is a means of funding capital projects to service land for new development. The operation of these schemes is primarily a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Nevertheless, from an enterprise development and an employment perspective I am concerned about issues that affect the competitiveness of companies operating in this country and the jobs they sustain. I am aware that some enterprises have voiced concern about their experience regarding development contributions and the manner in which they are applied. This is of particular concern to manufacturing companies and those facing international competition.
Consequently my Department recently wrote to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to explore how these issues can be considered. As a result, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has agreed to chair an interdepartmental group to examine the matter.
This examination is particularly timely as all local authorities have indicated they will review their schemes in the next year or so. If the Deputy or others in the House wish to contact me about the operation of development contributions from an enterprise perspective, I will ensure that these views will be taken into account in the context of this review.
I thank the Minister for his reply. All local authorities were obliged to have adopted these levies by March 2004. I have recently become a fan of the Minister and read his Ard-Fheis speech in which he criticised what I believe he referred to as the alternative Government when he expressed concerns about the councils and the high level of levies they had imposed. Does he agree that these high levels were imposed when the councils were, in the main, controlled by his party colleagues?
Can the Minister indicate what might be a reasonable levy for these councils to impose on potential development? Does he agree that the reason we have these development levies, be they residential or commercial, is because the Government does not fund local authority projects as it did in the past?
I do not accept the Deputy's points because a range of new revenue opportunities have emerged for local authorities in recent times, not least these development levies. The economic growth and buoyancy of recent years must have added significantly to the revenue generating capacity of local authorities.
I have been around the country meeting the various——
Fianna Fáil Deputies.
——sectors involved in the productive side of the economy, particularly on the manufacturing side as well as the chambers of commerce and so on. The variation between local authorities emerged as a factor. There can be quite sharp differences between the levies imposed by some local authorities as opposed to others, which illustrates the strong local control over the schemes adopted by any particular local authority.
We must be careful, particularly in respect of export-oriented manufacturing companies, to examine the overall picture in terms of retaining indigenous companies' manufacturing capabilities in this country to avoid the inadvertent creation of disincentives to their expansion here, given the global cost bases involved.
Was the Minister in Government at all during the last two years?
Local authorities must take due note of this in future and I hope they will examine their schemes in that respect. I understand there is no differentiation between the commercial, manufacturing and retail sectors in many of the schemes. That is another factor which should be taken on board.
While these levies have been in force since 1963, updating them has been taken as an opportunity to ramp up some of them. The Deputy has asked a simple question and I have a concern about this matter from an enterprise perspective. I have articulated that concern to a number of managers.
The Minister was very disingenuous when he said we always had these levies. A total of €250 million has been collected in levies arising from the Planning and Development Act 2000, at which time the Minister sat at the Cabinet table and allowed the 20% cut in capital expenditure of local authorities to be funded by another stealth charge to communities in the form of development levies. The Minister is crying crocodile tears if he talks about the threat to the manufacturing sector imposed by these levies and other costs when he presided over stealth charges and taxes set by his Government in order to make up the shortfall in local authority funding. He should ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to review these levies, the related legislation and the state of capital funding to local authorities in light of this imposition.
Hear, hear.
First, I object to the Deputy's comments. It is about time we accept responsibility at local level.
The Government must accept it.
With the greatest respect, Deputy Hogan's party made a big song and dance about gaining control of local authorities the length and breadth of the country. We will now see how——
The Government complained.
——pro-enterprise and responsible it is in terms of managing these levies at local level.
If the Minister read the legislation, he would see the levies cannot be reviewed for two years.
The legislation is no excuse for the wide differentiation between local authorities vis-à-vis these particular levies. Why is it that in one county it can be at a certain level and at a much higher level in another county? The Deputy cannot keep blaming the centre.
The Government imposed the levies.
When we give enabling powers and authority to local authorities, we in this House should accept that the responsibility then lies——
Will the Minister accept that the Government imposed the levies?
It took away capital funding.
The Government took away the authorities' capital funding.
——with that particular body. The amount of funding allocated to local authorities has been increased year by year by consecutive Ministers.
The Minister is out of touch. He should survey the country again.
I am not out of touch and am very insulted.
The Minister is totally out of touch.
I hope that, from Fine Gael's latter day control of local authorities, we will witness some response to these types of issues.
The Minister should not worry about that happening.
What about stamp duty on commercial properties?
I look forward to engaging with that party. I hope the matter rates enough of Fine Gael's attention in the forthcoming election at local authority level.
We are not afraid.
109 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the details of the recently established Donegal interdepartmental group; its terms of reference and membership; if any meetings have been held; when it is due to report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31550/05]
111 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action that is to be taken to deal with the high rate of unemployment in County Donegal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31638/05]
151 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the unemployment rate in County Donegal and the measures being adopted to redress the imbalance in respect of the national average unemployment rate. [31549/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 109, 111 and 151 together.
The House will be aware that there have been significant job announcements in County Donegal recently with over 210 new jobs announced by Zeus Industrial Products, Letterkenny and PowerBoard, Burnfoot, which are being supported by the Industrial Development Agency and Enterprise Ireland, respectively. This was in addition to 423 jobs I announced earlier this year for the north west region. I assure the House that the State development agencies under my aegis, namely, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, FÁS and Donegal County Enterprise Board, are fully committed to supporting and promoting job creation and job retention in the county.
In addition to recent job announcements, this commitment is also evidenced by ongoing development and support by the agencies for a number of business parks and enterprise centres in County Donegal, which include the completion of the IDA Ireland Letterkenny business park, the provision of a 25,000 square foot advance office building at Windyhall, and the completion of site development work at Ballyshannon for a new facility and a development at Buncrana, where IDA Ireland is working with a local developer to provide new manufacturing and office buildings. In addition to providing support for nine community enterprise centres in County Donegal, Enterprise Ireland has provided substantial support for the expansion of the Letterkenny Institute of Technology business development centre and the development of a marine biotechnology centre.
While the Central Statistics Office does not provide information on unemployment rates on a county by county basis, the quarterly national household survey shows an unemployment rate of 4.9% for the Border region in the second quarter of 2005. Bearing in mind that unemployment in 1995 stood at 11.4%, this represents a very significant positive development.
How much?
The figure was 11.4% in 1995 but it is now 4.9%.
What is the current figure for County Donegal?
However, I recognise that there have been significant job losses in County Donegal in recent years, which is why I have visited the county a number of times since becoming Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I have met many groups and companies on these visits to discuss the county's difficulties and its positive developments. My colleagues in Government recognise the particular difficulties in the county and we will work together to assist in improving the overall environment to increase the attractiveness of County Donegal as a location for enterprises.
In this context, I have established an interdepartmental group on County Donegal to be chaired by the Secretary General of my Department. I have asked the group, which will hold its first meeting this week, to report back to me as a matter of urgency. The group's terms of reference are to identify the various local issues posing barriers to the establishment and operation of enterprises, take stock of relevant projects and actions already under way or planned and identify measures that could be taken by the relevant Departments and agencies to support the environment for enterprise development and quantify the resources required. I assure the Deputies that support for job creation in County Donegal will continue to remain a priority for the State development agencies under the auspices of my Department.
