Vol. 838 No. 1
98. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the measures he will take to implement the recent report of the National Competitiveness Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17569/14]
I apologise in advance for myself and Deputy Tóibín as we are attending a committee meeting at which the CEOs of the banks are appearing, so we will be running over and back. Hopefully it will work out. The National Competitiveness Council report issued serious warnings about the increase in business costs. I know that the Minister acknowledged the report and welcomed it, but I want to know what he will do about it.
The National Competitiveness Council published the Costs of Doing Business in Ireland 2014 report on 1 April 2014. The report compares Ireland’s cost competitiveness to a number of other regions across a range of key business inputs. It also contains some key messages on Ireland’s cost competitiveness.
The report finds that Ireland’s costs base has improved across a range of metrics over the last number of years, making Irish firms more competitive internationally and making Ireland a more attractive location for firms to base their operations. However, the report also indicates that despite these improvements, Ireland is still a high cost location for a number of key business inputs. The council points to upward pressures emerging in a number of areas, including labour costs, industrial electricity prices, transport costs and a range of business services.
The NCC emphasises the importance of Ireland’s international cost competitiveness remaining a key priority for the Government and cautions that further structural change is required to ensure that costs do not escalate and erode the competitiveness gains which we have made in the last few years. The report also emphasises the importance of improving productivity performance.
The Action Plan for Jobs in 2014 introduced a new arrangement under which the Cabinet committee on economic recovery and jobs will review the competitiveness agenda on a quarterly basis and identify follow up actions to be taken in respect of both the ease of doing business and the wider competitiveness challenges. In this context, the Costs of Doing Business report was submitted to the Cabinet committee on economic recovery and jobs for its March meeting. A number of specific opportunities for improvement have been targeted for attention.
The Minister mentioned that a number of areas have been targeted for attention. Can I suggest that he might take a look around the Cabinet table? The report suggests that health insurance has been one of the big drivers of cost increases in recent times. I suggest that is completely down to the inability of the Minister, Deputy Reilly, to manage that problem. The report also focuses on the cost of utilities. Irish small and medium-sized enterprises have to pay the fifth highest electricity costs in the eurozone. Large users of electricity in this country have to pay the sixth highest costs. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has been quiet on that. Reference should also be made to water costs in the context of the juggernaut that is Irish Water. The costs that are really affecting businesses are being primarily driven by the Government and its policies. The report identifies the impact that the potential shortage of office accommodation, particularly in Dublin city centre, will have on property costs and on job creation. That has been highlighted for two and a half or three years but very little has been done about it.
The Government has completely abandoned the commitment in the programme for Government to look at upward-only rent reviews. Many businesses are still paying Celtic tiger rents. That is another major cost. I remind the Minister that in response to the 2005 budget, he claimed that "the utilities, stealth taxes, rates and all the other burdens the State puts on ... companies have increased". He continued: "There is no tightening of belts when it comes to those delivering those services but the companies which have to compete ... are feeling the squeeze. Companies are leaving these shores to go to cheaper environments". The same thing is happening in 2014 on the Minister's watch. It is being driven by the Minister's colleagues.
I do not think that is a fair assessment. It is clear to those who have read the report that it mentions a number of areas in which we have improved our cost competitiveness. Indeed, we have improved our cost competitiveness in labour and property costs. We have reduced the rates burden. Most counties are reducing rates. As the Deputy said, the report alerts us to the need to make sure these gains are sustained and points to the fear that there will be an upward trend in costs when the recovery takes hold. That is why we will look carefully at specific areas in which we can make improvements. I have discussed this with my colleagues. I have asked the National Competitiveness Council to report each quarter on specific areas in which we could make changes with policy initiatives. Deputies are familiar with many of the areas in question, such as the question of access to credit, because we have discussed them here. The report provides us with a timely warning that companies should not push up their prices at the first sign of returning consumers.
Companies have no option other than to push up their prices in light of the health insurance increases that are being driven by the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and by the tax increase imposed by the Minister, Deputy Noonan. They have to increase prices when they are being faced with water charges. The Minister suggested that the rates burden has been reduced in many counties. The burden on small businesses has not been reduced. Businesses in Waterford that are going through the rates revaluation process are being absolutely hammered. Most companies do not have an inability-to-pay mechanism for rates. They get nothing for rates. They do not get any local services for the rates they pay. Companies throughout the country feel it is a little rich that they are being told not to pass on increases that are coming from the Minister and his Government colleagues.
The report shows that consumer prices here have improved relative to Europe. That refers not solely to health insurance, but to the whole range of the package that workers have to pay. We are making improvements. The report recognises that we can make further changes in certain areas. As the Deputy knows, the Minister for Health has published a health reform document. There will be a widespread debate on how we can better configure our health services to get better efficiency and delivery. I think that is what the Minister is about. All the local authorities have taken out costs. They are passing on some of that in reduced rates. That is clear across the country. I do not have the data here. Virtually all of them have reduced their rate burdens. I recognise that we need to look at these different areas, identify areas that are within our control and make any possible changes that would improve efficiency. That is what the Cabinet committee will work on over the coming year.
99. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his views on whether it is acceptable for employers to reduce staff hours, place staff on temporary lay-off or make them redundant while at the same time establishing an identical company under a different name to employ workers on lower wages to provide the same services as their existing company, such as in the case of a company (details supplied) in Dublin and Wexford; and his views on whether the law needs to be changed to prevent employers from operating in this manner. [17739/14]
This question relates to the case of a qualified electrician, John Donnan, who was employed as an electrical fitter by a company called Jackson Power Systems Limited for approximately 15 years. He reached a wage of approximately €40,000. I have been told that as the recession hit his hours were reduced and he was put on temporary lay-off.
I have also been told that a parallel company was set up and that it started to employ staff at lower wages. Will the Minister seek to ensure companies cannot be used to constructively dismiss staff in sister companies?
Ireland has a robust suite of employment rights legislation. In addition, the State’s industrial relations machinery, which is voluntary in nature, can support parties in their efforts to resolve their differences. In this specific case, both sides availed themselves of this machinery in 2012 when the Labour Court issued a recommendation. The court recommended that the parties bring their issues to the Labour Relations Commission for conciliation, and that, if not resolved at conciliation, they could be referred back to the court under section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, by which both parties could agree to be bound by the court’s recommendation. I understand the parties attended the hearing of the commission. The matter was not referred back to the Labour Court under section 20(2).
It is not clear, based on the information available to me, that this is a position of the same employer doing as the Deputy describes. I note that, while there is one individual in common, there are differences in the directorships of the legal entity that has reduced staff and the separate legal entities the Deputy indicates have taken on workers. Under company law, a company has a separate legal identity from its directors and shareholders. Any concern regarding corporate compliance may be brought to the attention of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.
In the absence of specifics, it is difficult to ascertain which employee protections may apply. However, the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 and the Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006 contain protections in the area of transfer of undertakings. A complaint may be brought to a rights commissioner who shall determine whether there was a breach of the regulations. The Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act 2007 addresses the scenario whereby an employer seeks to replace existing employees with new employees working for lower pay or other less favourable terms and conditions. A complaint alleging a breach of this legislation may be referred to the Secretary General of my Department for consideration by the redundancy panel or the Labour Court.
Employees may be entitled to compensation pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2013, which include provisions regarding lay-offs. Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Social Protection that it is unable to pay the statutory redundancy to its eligible employees, that Department will make lump sum payments directly to the employees.
If a firm allows a person to have statutory redundancy on having let him go over a period and then employs another individual to replace him, it is generally regarded as grounds for a case of constructive dismissal and against the law. If the Minister does not want to refer to the particulars in my question, he might simply refer to its spirit. As the law stands, an individual can set up a company and employ an individual to replace a member of staff let go in a parallel company and who was on a higher wage. This is effectively constructively dismissing the person being replaced. If the activity in the first example is wrong, surely the use of company law is wrong in the second example. Does the Minister not agree with me that both sets of circumstances exploit the worker?
I would have to see the circumstances of any individual case. I cannot judge this matter without seeing them. This has not been brought to the attention of any labour relations bodies, such as the National Employment Rights Authority. I have not got a briefing on this. If there is a deficiency in our employment or company law exposed by this case, I will certainly examine it.
Under general law, a company can close, for whatever reason, such as adverse trading conditions, and its owner can start a new business. There is no blanket ban on people involved in a company starting another business on its closure. It is quite right that there should be no such ban. Without seeing a case and determining whether there are weaknesses in legislation, it is very hard to judge.
We discuss general law here all the time without discussing the specifics of individual cases or concrete examples.
I have given the Minister a concrete example but he does not want to refer to that. I am just giving him the example of a staff member being let go and the same owners opening up a parallel company employing a person to do exactly the same job for half the wages. Is that exploitative or not? In my view, it is extremely exploitative. If the logic of protecting the worker's rights is there in the first case, then the logic of protecting the worker's rights is there in the parallel company also.
We had the Companies Bill go through the House. Over and over again, I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, to ensure that the Companies Bill was built in such a way as to protect employees' rights but he said employees' rights can be dealt with elsewhere. Absolutely not. This House should ensure that we proof every piece of legislation when it comes to employees' rights. If the Minister agrees with me that there are potential situations for employees to be exploited in the example of a parallel company, will he commit today to creating legislation to prevent that from happening in the future?
The situation is that if a company ceases trading, it has certain obligations to meet as result, in that it has to meet its Revenue obligations, its obligations to pay redundancy payments to workers and so on. If the company is unable to pay, it can apply to the Department of Social Protection to have its responsibilities to workers met from the redundancy insolvency fund. However, there is no general provision that, when a business gets into difficulty and closes down, the person cannot open up a fresh business. There is no such ban and there should not be. Companies can get into trading difficulties and are unable to continue, as has happened.
That provides for a loophole.
That is what I am saying. If it is being used as a loophole, let us look at the circumstances. However, under existing law, such an employer has an obligation to meet the redundancy payments and meet its obligations to the workers under all headings. If it transfers the business to a new unit which is doing the same business, that would be a transfer of undertakings and it has to maintain the same conditions. It hinges on what has happened in the individual case.
100. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will implement Social Justice Ireland’s part-time job opportunities programme that could create 100,000 part-time jobs. [17469/14]
With regard to the issue of job creation, will the Minister implement Social Justice Ireland’s part-time job opportunities programme, which could create in the region of 100,000 jobs? Is the Minister open to new ideas in regard to job creation? This is very important because there seems to be a mindset in this country at present that focuses on high quality, high education jobs while many of the long-term unemployed are being left behind.
In May 2011, Social Justice Ireland outlined a proposal for a part-time job opportunities programme in its pre-budget policy briefing. It envisaged that placements for the long-term unemployed, which do not fall within my area of responsibility, would be made in the public sector and the community and voluntary sector. However, my colleagues, the Ministers for Education and Skills and Social Protection, have introduced a number of new programmes, including Momentum and Gateway, which complement the traditional community employment and Tús programmes. Together, these schemes provide capacity for almost 40,000 persons who are long-term unemployed.
As the Deputy will be aware, this Government has made job creation a key priority since it came into office. We have introduced the Action Plan for Jobs with the objective to support the creation of 100,000 net new jobs in the economy by 2016. I am glad to say we have seen an improvement in the employment situation since Social Justice Ireland made its proposal in 2011. The most recent employment figures published by the Central Statistics Office showed a year-on-year increase of 61,000 people in employment at the end of 2013, net of reductions in the public sector. This was the fifth quarter in succession where employment grew on an annual basis and almost 90% of the jobs created were in full-time employment.
Unemployment at the end of 2013 was down 41,400 over the year and 60,000 over the past two years. The number of persons who are long-term unemployed fell by 40,000 over the two years. However, we cannot be complacent. We will continue to tackle long-term unemployment through the twin strategies of Pathways to Work and the Action Plan for Jobs as we continue towards our objective of supporting the creation of 100,000 extra jobs in the economy.
To answer the second question, we are certainly open to new ideas. Each year, the action plan evolves new proposals relating to suggestions or submissions made to us.
I am glad to hear the Minister say he is open to it because we all agree that job creation is a key priority. My question concerns the long-term unemployed. We must accept the reality that these 100,000 people have been forgotten. Market-based initiatives will not deal with many of the long-term unemployed. It is great to see jobs coming in, particularly for highly educated people, but we cannot take our eye off the ball in respect of the 100,000 people who are long-term unemployed.
The proposal is for real employment at the going hourly rate. A total of 100,000 people are available. It would be a major step in the right direction and create in the region of 100,000 part-time jobs for unemployed people who would be paid at the hourly rate and work up to a maximum of 19.5 hours per week. Access would be on a voluntary basis only. The jobs would be created in the public and community and voluntary sectors. I asked this question because the voluntary and community sector is often excluded and the focus is on all the highly educated whizz kids out there. We cannot forget the 100,000 people who are long-term unemployed.
The Deputy is missing the point. As I stated in my reply, we created 60,000 jobs. The live register came down by 60,000 in two years and 40,000 or two thirds of those people were long-term unemployed so the long-term unemployed are not people who do not respond to market opportunities. We are seeing a very significant reduction in the number of long-term unemployed people who are getting real jobs in the economy. Of course, we recognise the need for other measures for people who find it difficult which is why MOMENTUM, which is a part on-the-job and part off-the-job programme, was introduced. It is the reason why Gateway, which gives opportunities in local authorities, has been introduced and the reason why Tús has been expanded very substantially by the Minister for Social Protection. All of these programmes are targeted at people who are long-term unemployed but our objective is to get people back into the market economy.
My focus is on the other measures. I accept the Minister's point. This experiment was tried in 1994 in areas like Finglas, Blanchardstown and Clonmel. It ended up creating in the region of 1,000 jobs in the community and voluntary sector. At the end of it, more than 500 people got real jobs and exited long-term unemployment. These are the other measures and we must focus on these issues. Additional funding in the region of €150 million would be required. Funding currently spent on social welfare payments to participants on this programme would be switched to their new employer. Participants would be paid principally through the reallocation of social welfare payments. I am encouraging the Minister to look constantly at new ideas about job creation and to keep his eye on the ball regarding the long-term unemployed.
I agree with that. However, the OECD produced a report on activation in the Irish labour market that came out very strongly against the kind of programme the Deputy is advocating and instead advocated in favour of the kind of programmes Ministers have introduced such as MOMENTUM and Gateway which have a very clear focus on activation and getting people back into the labour market. That is the direction policy is seeking to develop so that people are moved permanently into real jobs for the long term. That is the focus of the effort. As I said, 40,000 people are involved in community employment programmes that are not dissimilar to what the Deputy is advocating.
101. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the progress being made to establish the local enterprise offices, if they will have a role in respect of the promotion of women entrepreneurs and local tourism projects; the way their role can be enhanced over and above the work done by county enterprise boards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17570/14]
The transition period from county enterprise boards to local enterprise offices, LEOs, is under way. I want to tease out the role of the LEOs. What will be their remit? I tabled a Parliamentary Question on 25 March 2014 and the response was pretty poor.
Today is a milestone as 31 local enterprise offices, LEOs, throughout the country are open for business. The LEOs represent a transformation of the support structure for micro and small enterprises across every county. The new service means that national enterprise policy and local business supports have been brought together to strengthen the local business culture and environment combining the best of the former county and city enterprise boards and the local authorities overseen by the centre of excellence in Enterprise Ireland.
The new service means that national enterprise policy and local business supports have been brought together to strengthen the local business culture and environment, combining the best of the former county and city enterprise boards and the local authorities, overseen by the centre of excellence in Enterprise Ireland.
The 31 LEO offices are now the local hub for enterprise support and will deliver not just the existing range of supports that were available from the city and county enterprise board network, but in addition will provide the following: an enhanced advice and guidance service embracing all other local and national supports, backed by protocols relating to information exchange, mutual contacts and client referrals with other key agencies, including the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Protection and the Credit Review Office; seamless progression of clients to Enterprise Ireland; direct referral to the Microfinance Ireland and loan guarantee schemes; and direct advice and guidance on local authority rates, procurement and regulations affecting business. They will have a particular mandate to promote entrepreneurship among groups who represent untapped potential including both women and young entrepreneurs.
The new model of enterprise support offers new ways to enhance the service. Guidance and direction will be provided by the centre of excellence in Enterprise Ireland to develop best practice ideas for the LEO network and to promote innovation among LEOs at local and regional level. Individual service level agreements between Enterprise Ireland and each local authority will offer a framework for periodic review to ensure that impact and value for money are being optimised via the LEO network. The partnership with local authorities offers the opportunity to use the considerable scale and reach of the local authorities to promote entrepreneurship. A larger LEO system supported by 170 dedicated staff as well as a further 40 local authority liaison staff will provide enterprises with very practical opportunities. Additional funding of €3.5million will be provided and a new graduate recruitment programme will take place shortly.
While the existing eligibility criteria for direct financial assistance - micro-enterprises with 10 employees or fewer - will carry forward to the LEOs, the availability of soft supports such as training, mentoring, advice, aiding access to finance and so forth will be expanded and will include local tourism projects.
Will the LEOs continue the work of the county enterprise boards, which were pioneers for encouraging female entrepreneurship? Will they be able to roll out programmes and grant-aid specific programmes aimed at attracting female entrepreneurs? The early-stage rate among men is 10.3% compared to 4.2% for females. The county enterprise boards were the leaders in that area for many years. Will the new LEOs be in a position to do that or will that be in the remit of Enterprise Ireland?
At the end of his response the Minister briefly mentioned tourism. What will be the specific role of the LEOs with regard to tourism? Will they be in a position to offer training or to grant-aid tourism projects? Will they be in a position to work with communities in economic units in the same way the county enterprise boards did?
In response to the Deputy's last question on tourism, the answer is "Yes". Fáilte Ireland is the State agency charged with supporting the tourism sector but having said that, any viable business proposals, including those connected with the tourism sector and which fulfil the normal eligibility criteria for financial aid or soft supports, may have access to LEO funding. The LEO functions will rest legally with Enterprise Ireland, incorporating work with both women and young entrepreneurs, which is the key. The bulk of the 61,000 new jobs created in the last year were generated by companies which are less than five years old. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will retain responsibility for policy. The LEOs will operate as part of the local authority structure in terms of administration, code of conduct, management and financial management. An evaluation and approval committee will be established in each LEO consisting of a chair, city or county manager, a representative of Enterprise Ireland and five local individuals with specific areas of business expertise. This will be very much a one-stop-shop for business, incorporating every aspect of business. It will facilitate female entrepreneurs and others. There will be clear evaluations for businesses on how they can deal with rates and the stacked-up costs of business. They will have autonomy from June next with the local authorities.
To focus again on my question - what role will the LEOs specifically have with regard to female entrepreneurship or will that be the remit of Enterprise Ireland? Will the LEOs be able to roll out programmes and give grant aid and training? On tourism, the Minister of State mentioned Fáilte Ireland which has moved away from training provision. We have a shortage of chefs in this economy. Will the LEOs be in a position to offer training? I ask the Minister of State to focus specifically on female entrepreneurship in his response.
Currently the issues of women in business and female entrepreneurship are receiving a lot of attention through the European network office. I have attended several functions on women in business. Women are entitled to get the same support from the local authorities as anybody with a business idea.
For the first time ever, we have a seamless approach from Enterprise Ireland, including expertise which will be embodied in local authorities. As the Taoiseach has said, this is about jobs. We are not distinguishing between men and women in business. We are talking about jobs and entrepreneurship, which are the future. To answer the Deputy's question directly as to whether there will be supports for women entrepreneurs in each local authority, yes, there will be.
102. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation what is the euro per jobs ratio with regard to the Government’s research and development and innovation budgets for each of the past five years; the way this compares with other EU countries for the same years; and if he will detail the level of research and development and innovation spend per county for the past five years. [17716/14]
It is generally understood that research, development and innovation are necessary for all companies. Large companies are great at ensuring all elements of the whole product life cycle are not left to chance. The effect of research and development on small and medium enterprises, and its use by them, is another question. Like everything else, we need to analyse the output obtained per euro invested. This question seeks to understand how our output compares with other European countries.
As part of the Forfás annual employment survey, the overall cost per job sustained is calculated each year by reference to the cost of jobs created in companies supported by the enterprise development agencies during, and sustained to the end of, a seven year period. This is calculated by taking into account all direct agency expenditure on all agency client companies in a seven year period, and it is not possible to disaggregate the research and development element. The latest figures available show that the cost per job sustained by IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland was €13,475 and €12,597, respectively.
It is not possible to disaggregate the levels of research, development and innovation spend per county. For example, the Science Foundation Ireland large-scale research centres and the EI-IDA technology centres involve collaboration between several higher education institutions, linking scientists and engineers in partnership with academia and industry across county boundaries to address crucial research questions.
In comparing our research, development and innovation spend against that of our EU partners, the most useful measurement is the research intensity target which is calculated as our gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of our gross national product and gross domestic product. This has been confirmed for 2012 at 2.13% of GNP or 1.72% of GDP. The EU average, according to the recently published innovation union competitiveness report, is 2.02% of GDP.
The annual European Commission’s innovation union scoreboard provides a comparative assessment of the research and innovation performance of the EU member states. It was most encouraging to see that the 2014 scoreboard, published in March, showed Ireland increasing its position from tenth to ninth in the overall ranking of 28 EU member states. It is particularly encouraging to see that Ireland is the overall leader in the indicator of the economic effects of innovation. This captures the economic success of innovation in employment in knowledge intensive activities and other areas. The evidence shows we are investing smartly in innovation and that our investment is delivering jobs.
I am supportive of research, development and innovation, which are important elements of the economy. There is an understanding that investment in research and development allows foreign direct investment to be tied closer to the local economy. In addition, it allows for the development of products and services in future which are most likely to be created locally. I understand that research and development is used to a lesser extent by SMEs, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage to the FDI sector.
I am opposed to the Government's nebulous understanding of research and development. One cannot manage if one cannot measure. I have asked about the jobs ratio per euro invested in research, development and innovation, but the Minister said he does not know. That is quite shocking given the hundreds of millions of euro the Government is giving in grants and tax breaks for research and development. Surely the output of every euro spent should be known.
This is a challenge that bedevils virtually every country in trying to measure the impact of research and development. I can give the Deputy a few measures, although I will not give them all together. We compare countries that do research and development with those that do not. Those that do research and development fare much better on exports and employment growth. Where SFI invests in research and development, we measure, as an indication of its relevance, the extent to which it can attract private funding to match research and development investment.
We also look at the participation of SMEs in technology centres and the number of IDA projects connected to our research and development spend. Approximately 50% of IDA projects in recent years have been won on foot of the research and development cluster or base which we have created. It is not a simple matter of running a slide rule and saying every €1 invested creates a specific number of jobs. We must consider a range of measures across, for example, licences, patents and spin-outs. There is a suite of measures and we can provide the Deputy with details of them. It is not a simple matter of a single number measure. We would all like that but it eludes every country.
The application form for a research and development grant or tax break should require companies to identify, in a logical manner, supported by information, the number of jobs and output they expect to deliver. When the investment is subsequently made, companies should have a responsibility to communicate to the Department the number of jobs created and the turnover increases which have resulted. Those types of slide rule are used in many grant funding application forms.
I have regularly been in the House to discuss the regions. A two-tier economy is developing in the State. Of all new IDA investment last year, 70% was in County Dublin, which has 25% of the population. Everyone agrees that research and development and innovation investment kick-start an economy. If we cannot measure the amount of research and development investment in the regions and the resulting outputs in job creation and turnover increases, it puts us at a significant disadvantage in the context of proper strategic spatial development nationally.
The IDA and Enterprise Ireland look at the impact of job creation proposals, which is where the €12,000 per job statistic comes from. It refers to jobs sustained. One cannot pull out the research and development element from the Lean management development programme and other elements of the package that is put together. One cannot relate research and development spend to job impact on its own. Usually, a suite of measures is put in place to assist a company to develop.
The 70% statistic refers to Dublin and Cork, to correct the Deputy. I can send the Deputy material but note that it is not a simple matter of being able to say that a particular innovation voucher or plan created a particular number of jobs. Generally, such measures are part of a broader company development programme approved by Enterprise Ireland. I note, however, that according to international rankings, our research and development spend is having a greater economic impact than that of our European counterparts.
