I welcome Mr. Dermot McClannon, president of the Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland; Mr. Gerry Goggin, honorary secretary; Mr. George Kennedy, executive secretary; and Ms Kathryn Byrne from Limelight Communications. Before asking them to commence their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, unfortunately, the same privilege does not extend to them. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. McClannon to make his presentation. We will then take questions.
Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland: Presentation.
Mr. Dermot McClannon
If members agree, I will ask Mr. Goggin to make the presentation.
Mr. Gerry Goggin
On behalf of the Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland, I thank the joint committee for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation today. The association was founded in 1960 and has almost 500 members nationwide, which represents 11% of all electrical contractors. The AECI is represented on a number of relevant sectoral bodies, including the National Joint Industrial Council, at which conditions of employment and wage structures for the electrical industry are established; FÁS, where conditions of training and the education of apprentices are established, and the Electro Technical Council of Ireland which is responsible for rules and regulations pertaining to the quality of workmanship and standards of safety. The AECI has two directors on the board of RECI, the Register of Electrical Contractors of Ireland, and E-PACE, Electrical Pensions and Conditions of Employment. E-PACE is the inspectorate body assigned by the ECA, TEEU and AECI, signatories to the NJIC, to police the electrical contracting industry for both pensions and conditions of employment. To date E-PACE has generated approximately €700,000 in fees, but has yet to function as an effective self-regulatory body. It has no statutory power to carry out inspections, but has carried out a nominal number of inspections of agreeable contractors.
The AECI is the only association in the electrical contractors industry to provide many services, including technical and business supports and other facilities, for its members. It also provides training for all electrical contractors and their employees. It provides training for members and non-members. It constantly reviews all its activities with a view to maintaining a constant up-to-date and professional business service for its members.
A number of issues are causing problems for our members who are legitimate electrical contractors. The first is non-compliance. There are a number of non-compliant electrical contractors who are not paying the correct rate to their employees in terms of wages, pension contributions and conditions, as lawfully obligated under the terms of the NJIC. I am talking about hourly rates, travel, subsistence and pensions. The number of electrical apprentices entering the trade on an ongoing basis is also an issue, as is the proliferation of contracting companies. Many electricians who are made redundant when large contracts come to an end must establish themselves as small contractors to earn a living. However, the only qualification they may possess is a national craft certificate, which means they do not have a business qualification. Some apprentices also find themselves in this situation. As regards the abuse of the apprentice ratio, contracting firms, particularly large firms, supplement their workforces with new apprentices instead of unemployed electricians. This reduces costs at the expense of health and safety where the ratio of apprentices to qualified electricians increases.
There has been an increase in the basic rate of pay of an electrician to the present day high of €19.72 per hour, plus the additional costs of employment to the employer. These rates of pay are being met by a compliant contractor as the base figure for the contractor's hourly charge out rate. This leads to a necessary charge out rate of €40 per hour. This basic rate of pay has increased by 96% since 1 July 1997. National wage agreements in this period have afforded increases of 40%.
As regards non-aligned contractors, there are in excess of 4,000 registered electrical contractors in the State, of whom almost 550 are members of trade associations such as the AECI and ECA. It is clear that approximately 3,500 electrical contractors are not represented by this system. That is a major part of the problem.
The consequences stemming from these identified problems for the small to medium contracting industry include the inability of contractors who operate legitimate businesses and meet the full obligations of the NJIC agreement to compete with non-compliant contractors.
Large numbers of electricians and apprentices are losing out on take-home pay and, in the long term, pension contributions. While the non-compliant contractor pays the legally obligated pay rates, he or she does not make the proper returns to the Revenue Commissioners and the Exchequer. Significant numbers of small to medium-sized electrical contractors are unable to run a legitimate business because they are incapable, in the absence of training, of calculating the true cost of employing electricians, even themselves. The practice of constantly dropping charge out rates to obtain work has a snowball effect, whereby contractors in competition with each other gradually drop rates at the cost of safety and quality of workmanship. The non-compliant contractor constantly drops charges at the expense of employees and the consumer, not of his or her profitability.
There may be an inability to calculate a proper charge out rate which encompasses the social costs of employing someone, overheads and profits. While the perception that electrical contractors make great profits may be true of non-compliant operators, this is not the case for the legitimate contractor who meets his or her legally obligated costs. The practice in some instances of having a workforce of one or two electricians supplemented by up to five to ten apprentices represents a significant health and safety concern.
A number of factors have been identified by the AECI as the cause of the practice of not joining an association. A common perception among contractors is that joining an association such as the AECI will force them to be compliant and pay proper rates. Retaining a low profile allows them to remain unseen by the authorities. While there is also a perception that it is prohibitively expensive to join an association, our membership fee is, in fact, €250 to €650 per annum.
Awareness by construction and large industrial companies of the above practices allows them to play one contractor off against another to reduce overall costs. A number of significant electrical contractors employ non-compliant contractors on their projects. While being fully compliant themselves, they are under no obligation to be responsible for the non-compliance of those to whom they subcontract work. Non-aligned contractors can claim to be ignorant of Labour Court decisions and NJIC agreements, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for non-compliance.
Unfortunately, the consequences have been felt in local government and the practice of non-compliance has infiltrated Government contracts. We can identify a local authority which in April 2004 accepted a quotation from an electrical contractor of €18 per hour, which rate was 98 cent lower than the correct and legal pay for an electrician at the time. Obviously, the figure failed to account for allowances, including pay, PRSI, pension contributions, profit margin, etc. The Revenue Commissioners were cheated of moneys from a proper return on the contract; the Department of Social and Family Affairs was cheated and the employee was cheated in his or her wages and pension while a legally operating contractor lost a contract. We leave it to the imagination of members to decide who gained. Government agencies may be inadvertently complicit in law-breaking by awarding contracts to non-compliant contractors as there is no clear certification method to demonstrate compliance by contractors. We are fully aware that while leading questions are asked and responded to in the affirmative, there is never a check on a contractor to ensure his or her pay rates are in order.
In our submission we have presented a sample of complaints and evidence received in support of our argument and request the joint committee to examine them carefully and help us correct the wrongs of our industry.
As our time is limited, we will not have time for dialogue and interaction if we go through the whole submission. I think we have the salient points.
I received the submission in advance.
We have had a chance to read it. Questions and answers would be better than a reading of the document in front of us.
That is agreed.
The association has suggested to the joint committee in its submission a number of solutions, including certification and a greater labour inspectorate which it illustrated with an example from the south east where €2,000 accrued to the State following an investigation. The association estimates that approximately €60 million would accrue if every one of the errant contractors was brought to heel. The committee could invite representatives of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make them aware of the submission and to request a report for a future meeting to determine methods to police the circumstances the association has identified.
What form of certification is suggested and how would it manifest itself in respect of a contract to ensure everything was above board? Would current obligations in law on health and safety form part of the certification process or would it be separate?
Mr. Goggin
Health and safety considerations should probably form part of a separate process. E-PACE makes a certificate available to contractors whom it has found on investigation to be compliant in all areas. While it is the only certificate currently available, further certificates have been mooted in other quarters. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has suggested an expansion of C2 certificate provisions to provide that it would not issue to any contractor unless he or she could prove he or she was paying the full labour rates associated with the industry, including pensions.
Is E-PACE a sufficiently robust mechanism of certification?
Mr. Goggin
I am happy that if it had statutory power to inspect, it would be capable of fulfilling the function. I point the joint committee to a recent examination by a consultancy body supported by the Department into the operation of the CIF pensions scheme. The consultancy body indicated that the inspectors of the Construction Industry Monitoring Agency which deals with the industry apart from the electrical sector which has always been considered separately should be given statutory powers. E-PACE is the corollary of the CIMA, for which also we seek statutory powers for its inspectors. If inspectors had statutory powers, they could determine whether companies were fully compliant.
We will certainly bring these matters to the attention of the Department, request a report and invite officials to attend on a future occasion.
As I had the opportunity to meet the association previously, I am familiar with the issues its representatives raise. I welcome the broadening of the debate as I am sympathetic to the association's arguments on quality of standards, proper rates of pay and undercutting in the industry which will ultimately have serious consequences for construction. I am mindful that in my own county construction represents a disproportionate volume of economic activity. While I am not sure if the delegates will be pleased to hear it, I had the occasion on Monday to attend a presentation, at which 350 apprentices received their certificates. It was a very positive occasion in County Wexford.
I agree entirely with Deputy Hogan that we should formally raise the association's submission with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Presumably, in talking about statutory regulation, the association refers to powers of inspection and the right to enter premises for E-PACE. However, there is no point in having such powers if they are not accompanied by sanctions. Has consideration been given to the powers of sanction E-PACE should have and for what the Oireachtas should legislate?
My second question relates to apprentices. Mention was made of important electrical jobs being undertaken by one qualified electrician accompanied by several apprentices. What is the required ratio in a properly managed system? I am aware this situation is not confined to the electrical sector. Consultancy firms such as Deloitte & Touche have been known to use the services of untrained people while charging top dollar.
They too get it wrong.
This type of virus is affecting a range of activities in our economy. I am interested to hear the delegation's views on a matter of concern arising from its presentation. The implication is that the AECI, almost like lawyers, is seeking to control entry into the profession by regulating the number of people who can train as electricians, thereby reducing the number of apprenticeships. Is AECI suggesting the committee should examine that proposal?
Mr. Goggin
I will deal with the last question first, following which the Deputy might remind me of his other two questions. On the intake of apprentices, there once existed within the agreement a ratio system which provided that the number of apprentices taken into the trade related to the number of existing electricians in a company.
What was that ratio?
Mr. Goggin
It was a ratio of 2:1. However, at some stage — I was not with the company at that time — that clause was removed, allowing for free intake.
Unlimited intake?
Mr. Goggin
Yes. There has been an intake of 17,000 electrical apprentices into the industry in the past ten years. This we believe, though I cannot state it to be categorically accurate, is pretty close to the total number of apprentices taken into every other trade. Based on the information available to us, this indicates abuse of the system.
On the question of how the trade can be regulated, it may be necessary to return to the ratio system. Such a system might not be bad inasmuch as it would provide for at least a relation between the intake of apprentices and the number of electricians available to train them rather than a system which provides that two electricians be required to train ten apprentices.
My second and third questions are interlinked. Is Mr. Goggin proposing that intake be regulated to provide that the ratio of qualified electricians to apprentices be reduced to 2:1 or something close to that?
Mr. Goggin
I am not putting that forward as a proposal. I would rather that the intake of apprentices related to the workload required.
What is the opinion of FÁS on that proposal?
Mr. Goggin
FÁS was of the opinion that the ratio of 2:1 was still in place and was surprised that this clause had been removed from the agreement. It does not believe a situation should prevail whereby there can be more apprentices than electricians in a company. However, based on the information available to us, that is the situation.
What type of statutory power would be given to E-PACE?
Mr. Goggin
The statutory power required by E-PACE would be such as to allow it to enter a company and to verify from its books whether it was compliant in terms of rates, conditions and pensions and to refer any matters of non-compliance to the Labour Court for decision. Another issue worth examining is the Labour Court's ability to handle such situations at this juncture.
What is meant by that statement?
Mr. Goggin
The view is that the Labour Court would not be capable of handling the workload required in terms of examining all the complaints referred to it.
I would like to ask some questions relating to C2 certificates. I asked a question relating to C2 certificates of a person employed by Government for a considerable period as an economic adviser and that person did not know what I was talking about. Most people who know anything about the building industry or any of the trades are aware of C2 certificates. It is quite unusual nowadays to encounter people who do not have such certificates. I am concerned that we are sitting on a timebomb in terms of pensions. C2 certificates are not being properly operated and are like virtual safe-passes to access sites.
What in Mr. Goggin's view is the solution to this problem? It is difficult to suggest to an entire industry that the system be changed to safeguard its future in the long term, even in terms of sickness benefit and so on. I believe the industry needs to take this matter far more seriously than is currently the case.
Mr. Goggin
Prior to the introduction of C2 certificates the industry used C35 certificates which were operated by labour-only sub-contractors. However, they were abolished last year by the Revenue Commissioners owing to abuses in the system. If a C2 certificate is subjected to proper inspection no problem should arise because the person purporting to be the C2 operator would be a true contractor or employer operating as such, paying the rates and conditions applicable to the industry and supplying the relevant materials as required by the Revenue Commissioners.
Deputy Hogan referred earlier to the inspectorate of the Department. We are aware from the situation which arose with GAMA that there are approximately ten to 17 inspectors in the Department. It would be impossible for so few inspectors to inspect and ensure the number of companies involved were operating legitimate businesses. They would have no possibility of success, which is one of the reasons we suggest E-PACE be given the task. CIMA is also in agreement on that point. Were E-PACE given the task it would be able to link the number of inspectors required to do the job with the actual workforce in place.
I know for a fact that a person cannot get a job in this sector unless he or she is the holder of a C2 certificate. We must do more than ensure people are compliant, even though it is in their best interests to be compliant. We must address the issue of sub-contracting major contracts. To get a sub-contract a person must employ himself or herself in order to gain access to a site and that can only be done through obtaining a C2 certificate. Such a situation brings about a surrendering of responsibility on the part of the State in terms of social insurance, pension contributions and so on. This issue is far more fundamental than an inspector seeking to find out if the holder of a C2 certificate is a compliant employer. The issue should be why the person concerned is the holder of a C2 certificate when he or she might not necessarily wish to hold one. I note from the submission that such people often do not have business acumen or experience in that regard. I know people who do not want to be employers but are forced into that position.
Mr. Goggin
In that case, the person issuing the C2 certificate to a single individual is in error. The C2 certificate was intended to be issued to somebody operating a legitimate business, employing people and transacting purchases of major pieces of equipment. If it is suggested the C2 certificate is being issued to somebody who is an employee, we recognise this. It is also recognised in the pension document that there are individuals operating with C2 certificates who are not employers.
My point is they have no option.
Mr. Goggin
Why should they be issued with C2 certificates if they are not employers?
It is their only way of getting employment. That is what is happening.
Mr. McClannon
The reason it is happening is that the contractors who are employing C2 certificate holders are avoiding their responsibility as major employers to pay holiday pay. In the past there were builders' holiday close-downs in the summer. We never see them now. The key operators go on holiday but the sites continue to operate with sub-contractors who are not afforded the benefit of holiday pay or, in most cases, the benefit of a pension scheme. The majority of guys working for sub-contractors will never be able to afford to take time off for holidays. Builders have avoided these responsibilities by employing C2 certificate holders. Builders carry out major contracts with perhaps only four of their own key personnel on the job. This goes all the way down. One C2 certificate holder works for another C2 certificate holder and it goes all the way down the line until even the sweeper has a C2 certificate and is self-employed. That is the kernel of the problem in the industry.
It may be saving the initial contractor money, but ultimately it will cost the State a huge amount of money.
Mr. McClannon
There is always an overall cost involved in a contract at the top level, given the charge for the main contractor, and that is always paid. If it is a Government contract, the Government ends up paying out a huge amount of money, given the big overruns. However, by the time it gets down to the bottom, the rates of pay are so small that, from a tax point of view, the Government is not going to get a good return on the amount of labour that goes into the projects. The Government must see that it is losing out big time. If it is paying €700 million for a project, there should be a major clawback to it in terms of tax. Where is that money going if it is not coming back to the Government?
My main concern is that, of its nature, the building industry does not provide life-long jobs. Most masons are ready for retirement at 45 years of age. The same applies to plasterers. That is because of the nature of the job. It is cold, wet and hard work. Workers get arthritis. They have accidents and so on. The contribution the State makes to them is ultimately greater because they are usually infirm at a much earlier age. My concern is that they will not receive the benefits that will be necessary for them to have some quality of life and something must be done about it. I am not suggesting everyone who is self-employed should be brought into some kind of commune and forced to work for the common good. What I am saying is we must take a serious look at the fact that people are being forced into this position and that we must ensure they are protected in the context of the State benefits the rest of us enjoy.
I welcome the members of the delegation, particularly Ms Byrne. I now want to play devil's advocate. On one reading of this presentation what the delegation wants is a totally protected industry with full collusion between all the players in it and the complete elimination of competition.
The delegation has mentioned that some people have to start up a business — the delegation admits they have to do this — with no business qualifications. However, that is the situation throughout the country in various areas of life and various professions. People with no formal qualifications often start up businesses which turn out to be very successful, despite their lack of qualifications.
It was mentioned that a local authority somewhere had accepted a tender which did not fit exactly into this little basket. However, it is quite common in different professions, including the profession represented here today, for contractors to quote different prices depending on the situation at the time. If a contractor has a certain number of employees and wishes to retain them and work is becoming scarce, the contractor may do the work at a lower rate and may be able to carry the loss without necessarily paying a lower rate to his or her employees. Is the delegation stating we should address this situation by creating an artificial system in which everybody would be equal, or is it suggesting all clients should contact the Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland when they want an electrical contractor to do a job and that the association will provide the contractor and stipulate what the rates of pay should be? Is it suggested there should be total protection, total collusion and no competition? If that is what the delegation is stating, I cannot agree with it.
Mr. Goggin
Let me make it clear to those around this table that under no circumstances are we afraid of competition. We welcome competition in the industry and will accept it from wherever it comes. However, it must be on a level playing field. On occasions we go into a contract at cost price in order to retain employees, as the Deputy suggested. That is accepted, provided the contractor is applying the legitimate rates of pay and conditions for the industry, but that was not the case in this instance and it gave an advantage.
In regard to training, we came from a position of not having any formal training in business. We learned as we went along. At that juncture there was a closer relationship between the contractor, the electrician and the union, and everybody knew what the rates and conditions of employment in the industry were. That knowledge has been dispersed during the years. In terms of the laws brought forward with respect to how a business should be operated, we are suggesting that before people set up to operate in an industry, they should clearly understand their legal obligations in an industry that must otherwise put up with their interpretation of the law. This can present problems in that a new contractor may not be familiar with the rates and conditions because his or her employer may not have paid them to him or her. He or she will then undercut an employee who is undercutting the legitimate contractor, giving rise to another problem for the industry. We have entered discussions with FÁS to determine whether a course could be provided for those who want to operate legitimate businesses in order that they will be aware of the fundamentals of operating a business and the proper rates of pay and pensions for employees. We are not looking for advantage but for contractors to operate legitimately.
Mr. George Kennedy
I wish to return to the issue of training. Many have been successful in various areas of business. However, the definition of "efficiency" is the ratio of input to output. In the past 18 months we have offered 12 or 13 programmes, one of which is a formal managerial development programme comprised of four modules. It is approved by FÁS and in the process of receiving FETAC approval. It takes an electrical contractor through the process of managing a business. It address matters in addition to finance such as the role the businessperson should serve as a responsible employer and the culture within which he or she must operate, while not forgetting the customer. The businessperson's understanding of how to motivate and deal with people is also addressed.
As a qualified FÁS tutor with many years of business experience in Ireland and internationally, I was frightened to discover the lack of managerial skills among electrical contractors. While I accept some have been successful, their work has not been particularly efficient. We have regularly taught courses on costing jobs for electrical contractors. I was again frightened to learn that successful contractors did not have basic knowledge on pricing and tendering correctly. In the past 18 months we have only touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of this requirement.
We have trained approximately 1,000 people in basic managerial skills. This is an ongoing programme which has already been taught in seven centres. We will conclude in Kilkenny tonight, after which instruction on the second module will continue until mid-December. We have provided costing programmes and organised information evenings on modern technological changes, which are also frightening. If electrical contractors and electricians are unaware of new technologies, they will become more inefficient. This will ultimately affect the customer.
We hold the largest trade show of the entire electrical contracting industry, a show which is moving from success to success. More than 500 attended the show in Athlone this year. Three side conferences were held to educate contractors in marketing, regulations and ongoing developments in FÁS.
We distribute a newsletter three or four times per year to update the knowledge and skills of members. I ask committee members to visit our website to see what is available. We do not neglect safety issues. We hold several safety courses, including Safepass and the managerial training programme as required by law. I hope this answers questions on management training.
How can the association ensure contractors are up to speed in the ever changing world of modern technology? Mr. Kennedy touched on this issue. What is the nature of the relationship between the association and the Commission for Energy Regulation?
Mr. Kennedy
The answer is simple, we do not have a relationship. This is causing problems because, by definition, regulatory bodies are not business bodies. The association is a business body which looks after business interests in each of the areas I outlined. This can include package advantages such as good banking services, better insurance premiums and industrial relations advice. That is our primary role and the stated objective of the AECI which exists to make electrical contractors more professional. As it is not a regulatory body, we do not enter that area.
Therefore, it is not necessary to liaise with the commission.
Mr. Kennedy
If interference from regulatory bodies prevents the industry from doing business in the way it wants to, there must be some liaison with them.
How difficult is it to become an electrical contractor? What must be done after completion of the apprenticeship or is it possible to immediately become a contractor?
Mr. Goggin mentioned a figure of 4,000 non-aligned contractors, approximately 3,500 of whom are non-compliant. This appears to be a huge number. Is the customer not better off to pay the lower rate? The issue of keeping down prices is widely discussed. If everybody was a member of the association, what increase would there be in the cost of an ordinary job? What is the likely cost to the Exchequer of non-compliant contractors? Is there a register of qualified electricians?
Mr. McClannon
There is no register of electricians, although I would like to see one introduced. I would also like electricians to be graded as A, B or C in terms of experience and qualifications. They should also carry their own insurance costs to make them more accountable. At present an electrician is not registered or responsible for any concerns caused to employers or clients. The employer carries the can for any costs or problems that arise.
Some years ago I discussed the register and grading system with a senior union executive who thought the ideas were worthwhile. When we discussed the matter in more depth, he wanted to grade a C electrician at the higher rate of pay and grade B and A upwards. I wanted the higher grade to go to the grade A electrician and grade down to C.
As a good employer would.
What is RECI?
Mr. McClannon
It is a register of contractors for the safety and standards of installation work carried out on premises. It is not a register of electricians but of contractors who are participating in the electrical industry. The regulatory body sees that the installation work is carried out.
Does one have to be qualified to become a member?
Mr. McClannon
Not necessarily. One just has to be an electrical contractor. To become an electrical contractor the only qualification required is to have a national card certificate. This is achieved by undertaking a FÁS training course and a four year apprenticeship. Once that is done, one can get one's van on the road and be a contractor.
One must be a qualified electrician to become a member of RECI.
Mr. McClannon
There are many electricians in the market. If one looks at the apprenticeship scheme, many companies let apprentices go in their fourth year and replace them with first year apprentices. FÁS is delighted to issue 30 first year apprentices to a company. However, it does not understand why 30 fourth year apprentices have been let go. Many of these may not have their national card certificate and find themselves with no job. They then find themselves a van, join one of the associations and become a contractor without qualifications. It is easy to become a contractor. We would like to see a register of electricians set up in order that one cannot become a contractor without being a registered electrician.
I thought membership of RECI was for the protection of the public. Is RECI simply a waste of time?
Mr. McClannon
We have two regulatory bodies. Without discriminating between either of the bodies, I find that one of them requires that a registered member has qualifications. Unfortunately, I believe the other body does not ask for qualifications and one can be placed on the register immediately.
What is the other body apart from RECI?
Mr. McClannon
ECSSA. I do not intend to name the regulatory body which takes on people who are not qualified to become contractors. Unfortunately, it is allowing a situation to continue where contractors are working without being qualified.
Mr. Goggin
If the Government wants the consumer to pay a small amount for electrical bills, it should release us from the NJIC agreement. We would be able then to enter into competition with those who are not paying the rates and it would be fairer competition at the lower end of the market. We would be pleased to enter that arena.
Deputy Callanan asked what was the cost to the Exchequer through the operation of non-compliant contractors. In our estimates, it stands at €60 million per annum. Either the Government supports the legitimate contractor and the concept of NJIC agreements or allows us to operate outside of those bounds in a free market. If the latter choice is taken, I guarantee the consumer will get a cheaper job. It will remove any complaints we have. That decision must be made.
Who is responsible when an electrical job is done, say, on a house, but some item is faulty?
Mr. Goggin
It depends on which period the problem occurs. Normally an electrical contractor will give a 12 month guarantee on his or her work, providing that it has not been interfered with.
Am I better off employing an individual from the Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland rather than a non-compliant contractor?
Mr. Goggin
I expect so. As an organisation, we expect the best business practices from our members. However, non-compliant contractors, of which there is a high proliferation, some 3,500, are not committed to offer post-work services.
I suggest the committee invites officials from the Department to attend and that the report from the electrical contractors is sent to them.
I agree.
Yes. I thank Mr. McClannon and Mr. Goggin, Mr. Kennedy and Ms Byrne for attending the committee.
Mr. Goggin
I thank the committee for its time. However, I impress upon it that this important issue must be corrected soon. We would appreciate if the committee would go to those who make decisions to rectify it for our industry.
The joint committee adjourned at 10.40 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 October 2005.