Vol. 619 No. 5
63 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the steps he intends to take to alleviate potential pressures on businesses and consumers caused by rising oil prices internationally and the knock-on effect on many other products, such as plastics and pharmaceuticals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18203/06]
I recognise that escalating oil prices affect the cost structure of all sectors of the economy, including household budgets. At approximately $73 a barrel, the price of oil on international markets is now at historically high nominal levels. No oil user, whether industrial, commercial or personal, is immune from the impact of higher prices. Neither do we have any influence over international factors which influence world oil prices. We are all price takers and this includes our competitors.
However, the economy has proved resilient to higher oil prices. Despite escalating oil prices over the past two years, we saw gross national product grow by 5.4% in 2005. A further growth of 5% is forecast for 2006 with continued expansion of many sectors, including those which are energy intensive such as pharmaceuticals, food and drink and construction. Despite elevated oil prices over recent years, there is no indication that high prices have had a marked impact on economic growth or employment.
Sustainable Energy Ireland has a number of programmes and initiatives available for industry aimed at reducing energy intensity, improving energy efficiency and more effective approaches to managing energy costs. The development agencies under my Department monitor the issue of energy costs and the impact of these on their clients. The principal effects of rising oil prices will be through indirect or knock-on effects. Our focus therefore must be on the long-term competitive implications of higher oil costs.
We cannot either avoid or put off adjusting to higher oil costs. Trying to micro-manage potential pressures on different sectors is not sustainable and will not properly address the needs of the entire economy in the best interests of our society. In this connection, EU Finance Ministers agreed earlier this month that distortionary fiscal and other policy interventions which prevent the necessary price adjustments should be avoided. Our response is most usefully advanced by using policy instruments we already have. For example, in the partnership discussions and elsewhere, we must agree and implement economy-wide adaptations. These must include flexibility and wage restraint as key components in managing our economy.
In the context of energy policy, my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, who has primary responsibility in this area, is preparing a national energy policy paper which will address key policy options for energy management. This will set a policy agenda for energy over the medium to longer term. It will set out policy on a range of issues affecting energy, such as market issues, energy efficiency, alternative energy and research with sustainable energy as a key overriding theme. Sustaining and strengthening the competitiveness of our economy is a front line concern and a priority for my Department and the Government. Our international competitiveness ranking has improved, and I wish to ensure we build on recent gains as a basis for sustainable growth into the future.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I hope he did not think I was inviting the current Government to micro-manage anything. It is not capable of managing its present job.
I will turn to macroeconomic management and offer two options which are not subject to international factors, over which the Government has no control. There are two issues of considerable concern currently. The first is the level of inflation, which informs social partnership talks. We have already heard Mr. Paul Sweeney and others for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions discussing compensation for increased inflation. We know from recent data from the CSO and the CPI that the major contributing factor to the current surge in inflation is the international price of oil, over which we have no control. I accept that.
The Government has control over the revenue, tax and VAT which is received from increased prices. Every time the international price of a barrel of crude oil goes up and is factored into the economy, the Government gets a slice of the action. The extra revenues the Minister for Finance gets is above and beyond what was budgeted in December of last year. Revenue incomes are way ahead of what would originally have been forecast. The Government does not need the extra tax revenue.
The surge in cost is putting pressure on inflation, which is in turn informing social partnership wage negotiations. The Government is therefore shooting itself in two feet at once. This Government does not have to depend on the international price of oil, and it could, if it was serious about controlling inflation, decide between now and the end of this year to reduce the revenue take, both in VAT and fiscal terms, in order to ameliorate the increase in price and inflation. Oil prices could subside slightly, as the problem with them is as much to do with refining capacity as supply from oil wells. That political choice is entirely under the control of the Government.
That is overly simplistic. There is absolutely no guarantee that any move on that front would find its way back to the consumer.
It could be enforced.
It could not be enforced, and the Deputy should not try to pretend it could.
It can be enforced.
With the bulk of our excise rates we compare very favourably with the UK. The ultimate sustainable position for the country with regard to competitiveness, in terms of responding to the global scenario, is to change behaviour and significantly shift policy. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, made very significant tax reliefs available in the last budget with regard to alternative motor fuels. They amount to over €200 million over the next five years to promote biofuels etc.
If a person lives in Cork they cannot get those fuels.
That is an example of the creative fiscal measures that ultimately add much more to the competitiveness of the economy.
The Minister is dodging the question.
Where in Cork could one get those fuels?
It is a more sophisticated response——
It is like draining the Shannon.
——to the issue of global difficulties in terms of oil supply and refining than a measure suggested by the Deputy, which has no guarantee with regard to follow through or downstream impact.
There is a competitive market out there.
On the surface it sounds popular and simple, but in reality the Deputy knows it is very different.
Does the Minister's party and its partners in Government believe in the sanctity of markets? If markets work, if there are half a dozen different forecourt oil suppliers, and if the Government announces it will reduce the price of a litre of petrol by as much as 15 cent, does the Minister seriously believe the oil companies will collude and not pass that saving on to the consumer?
The Deputy is a former Minister——
Is the Minister stating the companies will not do this? It was done with interest rates in 1993.
I will speak of a simple item, the price of a pint.
Yes.
For a decade, year after year——
How many Guinness breweries are there?
The Deputy should hear me out. Year after year there was no increase in the price of a pint in the budget, going back to when the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance. Did that stop the price of a pint going up? It did not. The Deputies know this.
I call Deputy Catherine Murphy. We have exceeded the time for this question.
When Deputy Rabbitte put the maximum prices order on it, the price stopped going up. The current Government removed it.
Before an election, for three or four months, there was a maximum prices order.
It stopped it going up. We had an election and the Government removed it.
When we had maximum price orders in this economy, inflation was at its highest.
It is not there now?
It was at its highest when the notion existed in the 1970s and early 1980s of fixing matters by putting price orders in place. These prices very quickly became the floor. Thankfully we have moved away from the idea of intervening in the marketplace with price orders, which did not have the impact people believed they would have. In essence, they had the opposite impact.
How did the maximum prices become the floor? It stopped the price going up.
I support the points raised. The Sunday Business Post, not a particularly left-wing leaning paper, had an article last Sunday on an employers’ group meeting with officials of the Government, making exactly the same points.
I am glad the Deputy is reading it.
They expressed serious concerns about this issue. What did the Minister tell them, as the group stated the matter would be seriously considered in the context of the national partnership talks and its ancillary aspects?
Which group is the Deputy referring to?
What did the Minister tell IBEC when it looked for the issue to be addressed in the context of the negotiations which are ongoing? IBEC is clearly flagging this as a serious issue for it in terms of competitiveness. There will be consequences for job security etc.
There is no question but that rising oil prices have an impact, and nobody is arguing that they do not. With regard to the social partnership talks, the objective from our perspective is sustainability and competitiveness.
As well as low inflation.
The social partners have other issues, which they have raised. The first issue relates to labour law compliance etc., and there have been substantive talks and progress on that matter. We are moving into a new phase of those talks, which have been under way for some time. In that context, competitiveness is of course an issue. Employers are looking for restraint with regard to pay awards. The unions have a different perspective.
What of the energy issue?
I call Question No. 64.
With regard to the energy issue, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is producing an energy paper which is considering the wider issues pertaining to the energy market——
What is wrong with reducing the tax take?
We must proceed as we have exceeded our time on this question.
——and how we can restructure it to get a better long-term outcome. We are after sustainable outcomes rather than short-term knee-jerk reactions.
The Government could do both.
Such reactions may not impact to the degree that people want.
The Chair has called Question No. 64.
If we are looking for knee-jerk reactions we are looking to the wrong Minister. He is giving no reaction at all.
64 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the work programme of the unit established to monitor and evaluate EU programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18213/06]
There are two units in my Department with responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of European Union co-financed programmes. These are the European Social Fund policy and operations unit and the productive sector operational programme management unit, which has responsibility for the European Regional Development Fund moneys in my Department. These units also incorporate the managing authorities for EU programmes and they are supported by the internal audit unit and the ESF financial control unit. The work programmes for these two units are set out in their business plans and they are reviewed and updated annually to reflect the status of the programmes.
The key monitoring tasks include the provision of the chair and administrative support for the European Union operational programmes monitoring committees under their remit. Meetings of the monitoring committees are held at least twice annually and they actively monitor expenditure and activity under the programmes. The monitoring committees include the social partners and relevant Departments, as well as regional authorities, among their membership. The units also carry out checks to ensure that sufficient financial and management systems are in place in other bodies using EU funds under the programmes. Such bodies include FÁS, Enterprise Ireland and the Department of Education and Science.
All bodies using EU funds are required to provide comprehensive and detailed financial and programme progress reports on a regular basis to the monitoring units. In addition, the managing authorities participate in ongoing reviews of the programmes with the European Commission and engage in a formal annual implementation report process, required by EU regulations, to monitor progress on the EU programmes in general.
With regard to evaluation activity, the managing authorities arrange for ex-ante evaluations, mid-term evaluations and final update evaluations for the respective EU programmes under their remit. In the current programming period of 2000-06, other evaluation work has also been the responsibility of the Structural Funds central evaluation unit in the Department of Finance and this has covered some individual measure evaluations for the programmes managed by my Department. Further, some bodies receiving EU funds for their measures have carried out evaluations of their own measures.
In my view, these units, the ESF operations and policy section and the ERDF productive sector management unit ensure a strong, comprehensive and proactive management structure for EU funds that are managed by my Department.
I am sure these units go across all Departments, and the response would probably be the same. I have a question relating to Mallow sugar factory. The Department of Agriculture and Food negotiated a comprehensive deal for the producers. Does the Minister intend to make a case for the workers who lost their jobs? Would the Minister argue for a common industrial policy, to deliver the same benefits to workers that the Common Agricultural Policy has to farmers? I hear that the workers are very dissatisfied with the deal they have been offered, yet they are as much victims of the restructuring of the sugar industry as the producers.
The question has nothing to do with the question that was tabled. I met Greencore to urge it to keep the Mallow sugar factory open and specifically asked that it be as generous as possible to the workers in any redundancy package to emerge. We have already met representatives of the workers and instructed the State agencies to do everything in their power to be of assistance to them. FÁS has been active in meeting workers, interviewing them and assessing their needs and endeavouring to place them with alternative employment in the region. I have asked Enterprise Ireland what it can do to generate further activity among its clients in the location and IDA Ireland to explore how it can attract companies to replace the jobs that have been lost in the sugar factory.
The Common Agricultural Policy has been in existence since the European Union was formed. That had an impact on the decisions Greencore took, though people differ as to the extent. Further restructuring aid is available and various claims have been made on it. Ultimately they will be decided on in another forum and the Minister for Agriculture and Food will make announcements on the mechanisms that are put in place to allocate it. There are guidelines from the European Commission in that regard. I have reservations about a common industrial policy because our industrial policy has been far more dynamic than that of the European Union. Low corporate tax rates, a strong emphasis on education and skills and the agility and responsiveness of Government to investment and pro-enterprise policies have been key factors in attracting many jobs to this country, to the extent that our unemployment rate is the lowest in Europe. We have good macreconomic policies and the economy is managed very well in that context. We will continue to work to help the workers in Mallow in every way we can. They are my priority.
In the context of joined-up Government and Cabinet responsibility, the deal under the agricultural compensation package was maximised on the conditions that Greencore's Mallow plant be shut down in its entirety and its sugar processing refinery capacity be eliminated. If any capacity remains the compensation package is reduced. Whose responsibility is it in Government to suggest to Greencore that it lease or sell the plant to another State agency or company to produce ethanol, so that we can reduce the level of CO2 emissions? Is that the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the ESB or the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? Is it the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food or the Taoiseach? Why ask State agencies to invite IDA Ireland to seek inward investment when we have the capacity to do it ourselves?
The decision on an alternative use of the plants at Mallow and Carlow is one for the company. It would be very foolish of me to commit the Government to purchase such a facility for the manufacture of a product on which significant research and preparatory work needs to be done. There has been much superficial talk about how wonderful an ethanol factory would be——
From the Minister for Finance.
——but from the assessments I have received there are serious questions about its viability. We need strong evidence that we can develop such an industry in Ireland. I have worked with a number of small companies, not necessarily in Mallow, on alternative fuels. We do not own the facility.
It is for sale.
It is important to get the science right. Other countries have significant advantages over us in terms of crop yield, among other things.
Nobody is responsible.
The Government works on a collective basis. The Taoiseach has personally taken an interest in the situation in Mallow and has, with a number of Ministers, met interested parties at the plant. We are interested in real solutions for the future of Mallow.
65 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action he intends to take to improve Ireland’s export growth of only 1.8% in 2005, which the ESRI describes as disappointing in its latest quarterly report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17871/06]
The reference by the Deputy to a 1.8% increase in export growth for 2005, from a report published by the ESRI, refers to the total volume growth of Irish exports in 2005. Figures published by the Central Statistics Office show that the total value of Irish merchandise exports for 2005 increased by 5% on 2004 export figures. This follows a 2% increase in the value of Irish exports between 2003 and 2004.
It has become common practice internationally to regard the value of exports, rather than volume, as the key measure of export performance. In an increasingly sophisticated economy, such as ours, where production is moving up the value chain towards higher-tech, higher value added products and services, the value of Irish exports is a much more appropriate measure than the volume of exports.
On that basis, the increase of 5% in the value of our exports in 2005, relative to 2004, continues the upward trend, which, with the exception of the global economic slowdown which occurred around 2002, has been a feature of our export performance since the early 1990s. I am heartened by the continuous improvement in our export performance against a difficult background of continuing low growth rates in the European and US economies in recent times. Given the very difficult economic circumstances in certain of our key export markets, any increase in export performance is a significant achievement and a rise of 5% is, therefore, admirable indeed.
The Irish Government is strongly supportive of Irish exporting firms seeking to increase their level of exports on world markets. My Department, through its agency, Enterprise Ireland, is active both nationally at developmental level and, through promotional activities carried out from a range of locations abroad, in assisting Irish indigenous companies to find new markets for their products and to increase their existing level of market share. Through its network of 33 international offices, Enterprise Ireland creates and implements successful strategies for market entry, development and growth in overseas markets. The activities of this network include arranging access to international buyers and increasing in-market trade promotion activities; increasing the number of overseas missions, raising the level of participation at trade shows and increasing the number and quality of incoming buyers; seeking to ensure increased international media coverage of the range of product and service providers in Ireland and the benefits of doing business here; and continuing to increase the number of incubation centres in key overseas markets, thus providing a low-cost market mechanism for clients with strong potential.
In this work, close co-ordination is maintained with other export promotion organisations, such as Bord Bia, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and non-governmental bodies such as the Irish Exporters Association. Enterprise Ireland is also assisted by our Irish Embassies abroad in facilitating the development of export markets for Irish exporting companies. In addition, the Taoiseach, my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with special responsibility for trade and commerce, Deputy Michael Ahern, and I have been active in leading trade missions and will continue to do so, in conjunction with Enterprise Ireland, to existing, long-established markets and to the new EU member states, as well as to Asia, with a view to increasing the share of exports by Irish companies worldwide.
I acknowledge that the Minister and the Taoiseach are doing everything possible to advance new market opportunities for indigenous companies as well as for our foreign direct investment in the country, and that should continue. Whether one accepts the increase in value of 5% or in volume of 1.8%, as appears in the ESRI report, which I would expect the Minister to accept, the Irish Exporters Association has been signalling for some time the worries it has over our competitiveness and how we can best get our products quickly and cheaply to the European mainland. We touched on these matters recently when discussing energy.
Has the Government taken a comprehensive overview of the ESRI report? Will it take new initiatives to ensure businesses have the best possible opportunities to export the maximum volume of goods, particularly in the food sector where current efforts are concentrated? Companies such as Dairygold and Glanbia have concerns about the need to get Irish products to the market more easily and quickly to counter their current dependence on foreign facilities in the United States or United Kingdom.
It is important to secure agreement on the issue of value versus volume because the former is a better index. While figures can always be used in different ways, I would prefer a lower volume of much higher value goods in the technological and pharmaceutical areas than a high volume of low value exports. It was somewhat unusual for the ESRI to focus on the volume aspect of the equation because it is the norm and also the common sense approach to continue to work on the high value side.
Notwithstanding that argument, the enterprise strategy group report which we are implementing, particularly in re-organising and restructuring Enterprise Ireland, has pointed in the direction of enhancing our skills in sales and marketing and internationalisation. Enterprise Ireland views this as a significant agenda item and is re-organising its footprint across the world vis-à-vis location and so forth, with a view to ensuring we have available to us the best skills and are best placed in the emerging markets to assist Irish companies to access these markets. The results achieved by Enterprise Ireland since the new strategic vision was announced last year have been very encouraging in terms of securing greater volume and value of sales overseas for its client companies.
Research and development is critical on the food side. Given the strong link between the marketplace and innovation and research and development, we want research and development to be informed by the needs of the market. In the past year, considerable work has been undertaken with Enterprise Ireland and the food industry in re-investing in and assisting research and development capacity in companies such as Dairygold, Glanbia, Kepak and, most recently, Dawn Farm Foods, all of which are moving into the higher value area of nutriceuticals, health enhancing foods and so forth, which have significant growth potential. Software is another significant area. I agree with the Deputy that we must consistently examine our approach to ensure we can continue to increase market share.
It is a pity we did not have a calmer debate on the services directive as it would have allowed us to discuss the wider trade implications of the directive for Ireland in terms of access to European Union countries, particularly on the services front. Many of our indigenous services could also benefit from the removal of some of the ridiculous barriers to access in place in several other EU countries. In any event, the debate has concluded. Nevertheless, this discussion highlights that on a calm day such as this the House can debate——
Most Deputies took a constructive approach to the services directive.
I refer to the wider debate on the issue.
66 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on possible job losses at a plant (details supplied) in County Cork; the discussions his Department has had with the plant on the matter; the steps he intends to take to safeguard those jobs; his plans to bring other jobs to the area in the event of job losses going ahead at the plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18204/06]
Last month, the company in question informed IDA Ireland that it was entering into a consultation period with its staff with a view to seeking up to 150 redundancies at its Cork facility. While the company started consultations with employee representatives on 3 May 2006, it was also seeking alternative business for the Cork facility. Fortunately, I understand there is scope for redeployment within the facility and this option has been communicated to the employee representatives.
The Cork facility is part of the company's networks business, one of the parent company's four business segments, and the potential loss of jobs is directly due to falling sales in the networks business area. In the event that there are redundancies, it is expected that they will commence in June and continue into July of this year and I am satisfied that they will be kept to a minimum. I understand that, as of now, a significant number of opportunities have been identified in the form of redeployment.
The industrial development agencies continue to promote Cork for employment opportunities. The strategy of IDA Ireland to create employment in Cork is to progress the development of a knowledge economy in order that the city can compete both nationally and internationally for foreign direct investment. The agency is also working with its existing client base to expand its presence in Cork as well as providing modern property solutions with supporting infrastructure in the area. New investment announcements made this year include Amgen, Citco, AIB-Bank of New York and Amazon. These four projects alone will create some 2,000 jobs in the next few years. A number of job announcements for the city and county were also made at the end of last year.
Enterprise Ireland is also actively involved in assisting its client companies to expand their businesses. To date this year Enterprise Ireland has approved grants totalling €5.2 million for County Cork, with four new companies approved in the first four months of 2006 and a strong pipeline ahead. Two of the approved new companies are located in Mahon. Since the beginning of 2005 Enterprise Ireland has made payments of over €10 million to its client companies in County Cork. This investment was primarily to support new business employment as well as research and development, capital investment and staff training. I am confident the industrial development agencies will continue to bring sustainable investment and job opportunities to the Cork region in the foreseeable future.
Like me, the Minister is aware that while it is not the largest employer in Cork, Motorola makes a substantial contribution to Cork in terms of employment and access to the rest of Europe and the knowledge based, networks business sector in which it operates. While I do not expect the company to provide specific information on internal redeployment given the fears it may have about competitiveness, it is worrying that a company such as Motorola is even considering redundancies. Cork did not catch up with the rest of the country in employment and infrastructure terms until five years after significant economic growth commenced. Now that parity has been achieved, I would hate to see any slippage. Will the Minister indicate a timeframe for the complete roll-out in Cork of broadband infrastructure, on which Motorola and similar companies depend? Will he ensure that such companies are given every encouragement to remain in the Cork region and that direct communications and the necessary infrastructure will be provided quickly?
The Deputy's questions pose some dilemmas for me as I am wearing both a national and a Cork hat. I assure her, however, that the proposed job losses are not, under any circumstances, due to deficient infrastructure or any issue of that nature. Cork city was, for example, one of the first areas to develop the metropolitan area network infrastructure. Unfortunately, the issue facing the company is that its global network business is the only one of its four business segments showing a decline in sales, having recorded a drop of 14% in the first quarter of 2006 compared to 2005. The company faces cost reduction pressures from which Cork will not escape.
In its consultations with employee representatives Motorola has agreed to seek alternative business in the global company for the operation in Cork. This could create jobs elsewhere. A significant number of redeployment opportunities have also been identified in the facility and these have been communicated to employee representatives. This development may reduce the number of staff eventually made redundant.
The decisions by companies such as McAfee, Citco and Amazon to invest in Cork speak volumes for the quality of skills and communication networks available in the area. Although these companies are reasonably satisfied with skills and infrastructure, Ireland will always be open to the vagaries of commercial life, trading patterns for individual corporations and shifts in the global economy. That is what we are witnessing here. Different issues apply to different companies. As regards the Deputy's overall point, competitiveness is important. It is also important that both management and the workforce realise the world is changing rapidly and there are no real guarantees down the line. We must change as well. Fortunately, in this situation management and employers are working to resolve the issues in the best interests of all concerned. That is the way we want to see it. We will certainly be of assistance to Motorola in any way we can through the State agencies to help it in its attempts to achieve competitiveness, which is ultimately important for all of us.
I fully accept that the situation in Motorola is still fluid and the introduction of other companies is very welcome. We were all there for the announcement. Politicians, whether local or national, are always conscious of ensuring that people feel welcome and needed in any area. I understand the broadband programme but I still ask questions about it. New companies come into an area because the Government and its agencies have presented certain specifications. We all do that but all I want to know is whether promises were made and whether the expectations of these companies have been met. I have a major worry about broadband and the related infrastructure, particularly concerning companies like this. They need such infrastructure and if they do not find it here they will not stay, no matter what the tax breaks are. I am worried about that.
On that score, the feedback from the companies I have mentioned has been positive. Some of the companies I mentioned have been established recently and the feedback has been strong in terms of their perception of the ease of establishment in Ireland, including Cork, and the availability of skills in particular. So far, so good in that respect.
Broadband is a competitive issue for the country and we have not made the kind of progress we would have liked. Hence the State had to intervene directly in the metropolitan networks programme but progress has been made. The other side of that coin is stimulating greater demand for and utilisation of broadband. A more competitive scene is emerging and we are keen to increase availability, access and use of broadband.
67 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason there was a 20% increase in the grant to the Competition Authority for 2006; if such an increase will lead to an increase in activities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18215/06]
The Competition Authority's budget allocation for 2006 was increased primarily to provide additional resources for the cartel enforcement division. Seven new posts were approved and a staff recruitment campaign is currently under way. This will result in a doubling of the authority's staff for investigating cartels.
I expect that once the new posts are filled, the authority will be in a position to build on its recent successes in the criminal courts where, in one cartel case alone, it has secured 15 convictions to date through prosecutions brought by the DPP, with further trials pending. These are the first criminal convictions on indictment ever secured in Ireland, or indeed in the European Union, for competition law offences.
68 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if Ireland is acting against the promise of a development round by, together with the other Members of the EU, the United States and others, pursuing aggressive market opening in developing countries in industrial market access and services. [18469/06]
72 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on the status of the World Trade Organisation negotiations on the liberalisation of world trade; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17892/06]
75 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if, as he has stated in the Houses of the Oireachtas that least developed countries should not be asked to take on additional commitments as part of the current WTO negotiations he will communicate to the European Commission the view that the EU should not request that least developed countries increase their tariff bindings as part of the current talks. [18470/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 68, 72 and 75 together.
The European Union is seeking a balanced and ambitious outcome across all core areas of the Doha development agenda. The EU believes this is the only way to deliver economic growth and development gains for all participants. Ireland fully supports the EU objective.
The position has now been reached in the negotiations when all WTO members need to aim at a realistic outcome. The final package must be politically and economically attractive and sustainable for all members of the World Trade Organisation, not just for some. In particular, it must include a comprehensive and meaningful outcome on development issues.
All participants should contribute to the process according to their means. The EU believes that developing countries should do less than developed countries and that the poorest and most vulnerable should make no market access commitments at all. Emerging economies, however, have to make some contribution by offering real new market access and business opportunities for industrial goods and services.
New market access is the contribution of trade policy to the EU Lisbon Agenda of promoting growth and jobs which all EU member states have identified as the top political priority.
Progress requires real commitments in areas like services and the strengthening of WTO rules in the area of anti-dumping, for example, as well as in agriculture and industrial tariffs, if this round is to succeed in the time available.
The EU will continue to negotiate in good faith. All governments must now agree to negotiate in the realms of the possible. Every effort should be made to conclude the negotiations by the end of this year and I am confident the EU will play its part towards that objective.
I wish to ask supplementary questions on behalf of my party colleagues Deputies Cuffe and Gogarty.
While the Minister may believe the approach of the European Commission and the European Union to the Doha talks will be based on fairness, that view is not shared by many representatives of the least developed countries. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a dichotomy between what he has already told the House — that the least developed countries should not have to pay a price for whatever agreement is reached — and the views and activities of the EU Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Mandelson?
Does the Minister recognise that because of the unhappiness among the least developed countries, there is a real chance that many of them will act in concert to ensure the Doha round does not reach a conclusion? They will use a blocking mechanism to prevent the round from happening because of what many of us feel are justifiable causes for complaint about trade.
Obviously, the situation is there to play for. We are clear about the development agenda. For example, at the last round, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, accompanied the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister of State with responsibility for trade, Deputy Michael Ahern, to those talks to make clear the broad-based approach we were taking. The words "balance" and "ambitious" are important from our perspective. For example, Europe has made significant concessions in agriculture but one could argue that they have not necessarily been reciprocated in terms of services or industry.
Earlier, we spoke about the closure of the sugar factory. Ireland is paying a price for the reforms that are under way. The European Union has made concessions and we would prefer a greater opening of trade and services to facilitate Irish companies that want to trade overseas. We have moved to a significant degree in the agricultural debate but given the current EU mandate there is not much more room for us regarding agricultural market access. There are difficult issues involving a number of different parties. Agriculture is one of the areas concerned and, as I said earlier, trade in industrial goods and services is the other aspect. It is Ireland's sincere position, and the EU's belief, that we do not expect the poorest to have to make concessions.
I accept what the Minister saying, particularly about agriculture. Everyone who was associated with the Doha round realised that what was agreed was bad news for farmers and agriculture in the least developed countries, as well as in the developing world generally. As regards trade based on normal industry and commerce, there still seems to be a huge difference of opinion between what the Minister represents as the Government's position and what the EU Commissioner for Trade is saying at the trade talks. What influence is the Government trying to bring to bear on Mr. Mandelson in order to reconcile those two positions? Is Mr. Mandelson negotiating on our behalf something that seems to be the total opposite of what the Minister is saying in this House?
No. There are 25 EU countries. Mr. Mandelson's task is to bring a fairly broad range of opinions into a coherent negotiating position with regard to other trading blocks. Ultimately, this issue will be resolved between the key players — the EU, the US, Brazil and a number of others. Even if they arrive at a consensus, it must to be acceptable to the wider membership of the WTO.
I am not understating the significant challenges that exist. Ireland's position is that we would like to see the round successfully concluded because, from our perspective as a country that exports the vast majority of what it produces, access to a more liberal world trade environment would be to our benefit. Equally, we want to see the WTO talks come to a conclusion that is beneficial to developing nations and countries. I do not accept that there is the chasm between our position and the EU position articulated by Commissioner Mandelson, as the Deputy suggests.
69 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a demonstration took place on Friday 28 April 2006 outside the offices of the Health and Safety Authority to commemorate workers memorial day to draw attention to the unacceptably high level of people who were killed while at work here and abroad; if his further attention has been drawn to the fact that the HSA facilitated a commemoration and a minute’s silence and that ten fatalities have occurred to date in 2006 while 73 people died in 2005; the steps he proposes to take to ensure that the number of fatalities is reduced and where accidents happen there is a responsibility on all concerned to preserve the scene of the accident to facilitate a proper investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18214/06]
A demonstration to mark workers memorial day took place outside the Health and Safety Authority on Friday, 28 April. The centrepiece of the event was a minute's silence to honour the memory of those killed in the workplace. The event was supported by BATU and the construction branch of SIPTU. Key organisers of the event were the family of Mr. Justin Foley, who was killed in a workplace accident in 2002. I met Mr. Foley's parents and sister recently to tell them that I fully support their initiative for an annual memorial day for victims of workplace accidents.
The Health and Safety Authority offices were the location for the event rather than the target. The authority agreed to co-operate fully with the commemoration, shutting the office throughout the duration of the demonstration and respecting the minute's silence. On a longer term basis the authority also indicated its willingness to mark workers memorial day in an appropriate way in the future.
The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, which I brought into operation on 1 September 2005, updates, repeals and replaces the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 and provides a modern legal framework to guarantee best international practice in regard to health and safety in Irish workplaces. There are more than 200,000 workplaces in Ireland and to make best use of its resources, the authority is once again in its programme of work for 2006 prioritising a number of sectors for attention. These include the high-risk sectors of agriculture, construction, and mines and quarries.
Key actions in these sectors will include a major national road show which will visit a minimum of 5,000 construction workers, the development of a farm safety village at the world ploughing championships, the publication of codes of practice tailored to those employing three or less in the agriculture, quarrying and construction sectors, an effective inspection programme targeting key risks and research into the issues involved in the employment of non-English speaking workers.
With regard to the construction sector specifically, the authority in 2006 is committed to the finalisation of proposals for updated construction safety regulations, which are currently with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; carry out a focused programme of 7,500 construction site inspections covering appointment of duty-holders and assignment of responsibilities, safety and health plans and welfare and training arrangements; develop and implement a major promotional campaign; enforce and publicise the new construction and the work at height regulations; deliver a national road show on the new construction regulations; hold industry information briefings on the construction regulations targeting managers and designers, and including vibration, noise, work at height, underground services, roof work and the lifting equipment regulations; prepare draft guidance on construction-specific aspects of work at a height and progress draft codes of practice on pre-cast construction, concrete anchors and client best practice; develop an online notification form for new construction projects; continue the development of the innovative safe system of work plan, an initiative aimed at simplifying the safety message for both English speakers and non-English speakers; and run a hard-hitting campaign to change attitudes to construction safety.
With regard to agriculture specifically, a farm safety project was launched in late 2005 as a joint initiative between the Health and Safety Authority and Teagasc. The project will support the national farm safety plan objective of cutting farm accidents by 50% and will run for a three year period. The initiative aims to ensure that farmers with three or fewer employees complete and implement a new comprehensive but user-friendly farm risk assessment, as required under the legislation. Currently, fewer than 30% of farmers have completed any form of safety risk assessment.
This joint Health and Safety Authority-Teagasc initiative will involve the provision of training on risk assessment at specially convened health and safety courses for farmers and the provision of follow-up advice. It is being piloted among dairy and tillage farmers in counties Cork, Clare, Donegal, Meath, Tipperary and Wexford. An evaluation of the implementation of safety measures by participating farmers will guide the future implementation of the initiative at a national level.
With regard to preserving the scene of accidents, all deaths are initially investigated by the Garda Síochána and the following is the process for preserving accident scenes. First, gardaí notify the authority of a workplace accident or fatality. Second, the authority asks gardaí to maintain the scene of the accident. Third, the authority then investigates the accident.
Deputy Quinn should be brief.
I will be brief but I will return to this issue on another occasion. I compliment the Minister of State on all of the initiatives he suggested and all the activities he outlined in a comprehensive reply. However, why did he choose, with his colleagues, not to accept one of the main recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, namely, to legislate for the crime of corporate manslaughter? Construction employers and their sub-contractors should be faced with the prospect of a crime of corporate manslaughter, which was recommended by the Law Reform Commission, which is not noted for its radical or off-the-top-of-the-head proposals, yet it was explicitly rejected by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Until we get the kind of specific instruments that will wave not just a carrot, which is what is proposed, but also a stick, we will not achieve a reduction in the number of fatalities occurring in the industry at present.
As the Deputy is aware, the issue was debated when the Bill was going through the Dáil. The matter is entirely appropriate to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but there are penalties under the new legislation that are considerably stronger than those provided for previously. The issue of the corporate manslaughter debate is one for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
No, it is not.
The Minister of State is kicking to touch. It is a matter for his Department.
It is for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
