Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Dec 2008

Economic Outlook: Discussion with IBEC.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome Mr. Pat Delaney, IBEC director of sectors and regions, and Mr. Pat O'Donnell of Allergan Pharmaceuticals Ireland and IBEC president of the western region. I thank them for attending. Mr. Delaney's opening statement was circulated to members by e-mail yesterday. I advise him that we expect him not to read through everything but to outline the key points. I am sure he is well accustomed to addressing the key issues, as he is a well known public speaker on the topic.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. With that caveat which must be given, I call upon Mr. Delaney to make his opening statement and summarise his detailed submission which we have received.

Mr. Pat Delaney

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation to it. As the Chairman indicated, last evening I sent it an economic overview. Even since then, the position has changed and taken a bad turn.

Let me introduce Mr. Pat O'Donnell whose reason for being here is to take the opportunity to advise members on the importance of a specific piece of infrastructure in the Mayo region. He is managing director of Allergan, a company which employs 800 people in County Mayo. He will speak on behalf of a group of companies which, collectively, employ 3,000 people directly and a further 6,000 indirectly in the region. Together, they account for a sum of approximately €1 billion in contributions to the State.

As of this morning, we are faced by a significant crisis. A currency crisis has taken over from all of the other distractions in the economy. The old Irish pound exchange rate is £1.10. If we thought earlier this week that the economy was facing a threat from the United Kingdom in shopping baskets and that it was something we had to deal with as a priority, the position has changed significantly in the past 24 hours.

As members are aware, Ireland is unique among eurozone countries in that most of its trade is with the UK and the US. We export 84% of everything we produce and the UK is the largest market for our goods. The UK is engaging in competitive devaluations in order to assist its economy in becoming more competitive in export markets. The difficulty for Irish exporters — not just those exporting into the UK — will be in circumstances where they will be obliged to compete directly with UK companies in third markets. They will not survive if the exchange rate stands at €1.10 to £1. In the early 1990s, when we were last obliged to deal with a situation of this nature, the Government of the day introduced a fund which provided an extremely useful accommodation to companies that had exposure to sterling. I do not believe it will be possible to introduce such a fund on this occasion.

I wish to highlight for the committee the stark choices we face. There are two major crises with which we will be obliged to deal. The first of these relates to the exchange rate and the second to employment. If there is one thing that is paramount, it is the protection of every job that exists in the economy. When a job is lost, we do not know when the opportunity will arise to create a replacement. Some 4,000 jobs are being lost each week. The figures for notified redundancies, which were issued this week, indicate an increase of 52% on the position last year in this regard.

In the past three weeks I have spoken to representatives from 16 sectors in the economy. I must inform members that while it has been widely reported that economic conditions are difficult, the reality is that the position is far worse. Early next year the retail sector is going to shed a significant number of jobs. Consumer confidence is declining, as is our ability, as a nation, to believe in ourselves. Action must be taken. It is important that the body politic be involved in this regard. It is fine to state that we are going downhill. If, however, everyone believes that to be the case and is of the view that we cannot do anything about it, then we will end up in dire straits. I hope, and am confident, that the committee and the Oireachtas will do everything possible to get us through these difficult times.

At the beginning of the year, I indicated — perhaps at a meeting of this committee — our hope that the economy would continue to expand this year and that there would be some level of economic growth of perhaps 1% or slightly less. However, we are ending the year in negative territory, with a contraction of approximately 2%. The outlook for the next 12 months is far worse. Our projections indicate that the economy will contract by a further 4% next year. These figures are significant. If we are very lucky, average unemployment next year will stand at 10%. However, that may be a conservative estimate and the figure could be as high as 12%.

As already stated, we now face a further crisis. Difficulties with the public finances are keeping the minds of members exercised. This the first matter with which we must deal. The Minister for Finance quite rightly stated yesterday that we are living beyond our means and that a response different from that we have seen heretofore is required. In my view a collective, national response will be needed. Under this, we will all be obliged to face up to our responsibilities. At an individual level, it may be someone's neighbour who is losing his or her job this week but the former could find himself or herself out of work next week. We are losing companies, entrepreneurs and, most of all, the spirit that brought us through the past decade and a half to where we currently stand.

There are some positives and we possess some important tools. However, such tools — one of which is corporation tax — will no longer be adequate. The global downturn has highlighted the fact that Ireland's is a small open economy. Being part of the eurozone and the EU is extremely important. In that regard, one need only consider the example of Iceland, the economy of which did not have the same protection as that afforded to ours, to see what can happen. We will be obliged to deal with the Lisbon treaty and our position at the centre of the EU. I know that this matter will be dealt with in 2009 but it is vital that people understand the importance of the EU to our economy.

The position with regard to sterling is becoming intractable. Last week we were concerned with regard to the number of Irish consumers heading north of the Border to buy goods. People have a huge propensity to spend every extra euro they earn on importing goods. If we continue to behave in this way, we will create jobs but those jobs will be created in the UK economy. As a result, the contraction in the employment market here will continue unabated.

I have had a great deal of experience representing small companies for many years. These companies are finding it extremely difficult to cope with the credit conditions relating to working capital. In the 1980s, financial institutions would diminish the overdraft facilities of small businesses and eventually convert them into term loans. Due to the fact that small companies are price takers and not price makers, those supplying such companies would limit their credit terms and seek cash payment in respect of the delivery of goods. Customers always sought to extend the credit they had taken. This type of scenario will come into play in the coming months and many small companies, particularly those in the domestic traded sector, will not survive. The pressure on such companies will be immense. For small companies, it is often not the cost of the funds but rather the availability thereof which becomes an issue. In my view we are going to witness a return of difficulties in this regard. Small companies are in an extremely precarious position.

There is no silver bullet as regards the support side and I am not making a special plea to the committee. There is, however, a clear message which everyone must take on board, namely, that we can hopefully get through this together. Hard work will be required. Every opportunity and advantage we have should be maintained. A great deal of debate is taking place with regard to pay deals and changing circumstances. I must state in the strongest possible terms that this country has never needed social partnership more than it does at present. Social partnership is the greatest advantage we still possess.

Forfás is due to publish a report on retail issues in the near future. This report will show that operational costs in the economy are approximately 32% greater than those which obtain in the UK. The cost of energy is just one of a raft of costs that must be considered. The indication from the CER earlier in the week was that the second tranche of energy price increases will not take place and that there will be a slight reduction for some consumers. Our energy prices are far beyond those of our competitors. We take account of the fact that we are overly dependent on fossil fuels. We also take account of the need for investment in and the construction of new infrastructure. However, in the current climate, we cannot allow the price to be king. The price of electricity in Ireland is and will continue to be much higher than that which obtains in competitor economies.

Where do we go from here? In the short term, all of our energy and focus must be directed towards maintaining employment. I will now ask Mr. O'Donnell, who is the manager of a company that employs 800 people, to address the committee. The company in question is a foreign direct investor. It makes world-class products but it now finds itself in a difficult situation, particularly as it appears that most areas outside that in which it is located in Ireland have done well in infrastructural terms. Mr. O'Donnell will outline his story and that of other companies in the region in question. He will also indicate the importance of a specific item of infrastructure for that region and the need for the project in this regard to be advanced with increased speed.

Mr. Pat O’Donnell

I thank the Chairman and members for providing me with the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee. I am the managing director of Allergan Pharmaceuticals in Westport, County Mayo, which employs 800 people. I am here to represent both IBEC and the Mayo Industries Group. The group represents a number of companies in Mayo, including Baxter in Castlebar, which employs 1,000 people, and Hollister and Coca Cola in Ballina, which employ 600 people. As Mr. Delaney mentioned, 3,000 people are directly employed by these companies and another 6,000 are indirectly employed. The employment base is, therefore, 9,000 people. The value of sales for the companies, of which in excess of 90% are exported, is €3 billion while their tax contribution is €350 million and the total spend of the companies in Ireland is €600 million. This is a significant group not only for Mayo and the west but also for the national economy.

The MIG has worked for the past six or seven years to upgrade the N5. I refer to the impact and quality of this infrastructure. My colleague in Baxter competes with other company plants around Europe and before he starts, he is €400,000 in the red because he must spend this amount on packaging in order that the goods will survive the trip between Castlebar and Longford. This has been proven by the company, which has done all the tests. Reference is made to the importance of cost competitiveness in Ireland and this is a good example of somebody starting from a negative position spending €400,000 on packaging costs per annum.

Allergan employs 800 people and we are trying to move up the value chain. We realise we will not remain in the country if we engage solely in manufacturing in the long term and we are trying to move up in the development space. We need access to do that for people visiting the region and the plant from the US. People get off a 12-hour transatlantic flight in Dublin from Los Angeles and then must get into a car and travel to Westport. While the road to Longford from Dublin is reasonable, the last two hours of the journey is hell for them. The perception of accessibility is a problem for us. I try every day to make sure jobs are retained in Allergan and to ensure further investment. We need to move up the value chain to do that. Allergan is a good example because it has a plant in Wicklow which is being closed with a loss of 350 jobs. All the jobs are moving to Costa Rica. This is a good example of how important it is to remain cost competitive and to move up the value chain.

A total of 60% of Coke concentrate for the world is transported via the N5 from Ballina while 70% of renal dialysis solution is transported from Castlebar and 100% of Botox for the world is transported on it from Allergan. The N5 is, therefore, an important piece of infrastructure. This is not only a question of employment, retaining jobs and attracting further investment because over the past ten years during unprecedented growth in the country, Mayo and Roscommon have suffered a net loss of jobs. Furthermore, no company has come into the Mayo region and created more than 100 jobs over the past ten years. We are holding on to what we have and it is a struggle. We need this infrastructure to encourage our American corporate offices to invest further in the region.

My own boss in the US commented that if the N5 was improved, it would be an ideal opportunity for Allergan to consider further investment in Westport. The global sourcing director for Hollister has said the road between Longford and Ballina is worse than any road leading to the company's plants around the world, including in India, and similar comments were made by the vice-president of manufacturing at Baxter. We are trying to encourage these people to make further investment in the area but they look upon it as a backwater by the time they get to Westport and Castlebar.

This also has an impact on tourism. Tourist numbers in Dublin have increased by 30% over the past five years and by 25% in Galway but by only 6% or 7% in Mayo-Roscommon. Road safety is also a serious issue. The Road Safety Authority calculates the cost of serious accidents and fatalities and it produces an average statistic for the number of accidents per kilometre on single lane highways. Many of the sections of the N5 to which I refer exceed the national average by a factor of two and three in some cases.

Committee members will be surprised that the N5 upgrade would not require a great deal of investment. It is great that the major interurban routes are nearing completion but the problem is we are being left behind and the region at a competitive disadvantage. Three sections of the N5 need to be addressed. The proposed Longford bypass which is 2.5 km long would cost €12 million based on NRA figures for the Charlestown bypass that was completed recently. The Ballaghdereen bypass is 13.5 km and would cost €60 million. I referred to Coke concentrate and renal dialysis solution being transported in containers. A total of 100 containers a day pass through Ballaghdereen and they must negotiate a T-junction. Every container must mount the footpath to get through. The most significant section of the N5 upgrade is between Frenchpark and Scramogue. It is 35 km long and would cost approximately €150 million. The road could be upgraded at a cost of €220 million, which equates to eight months of the tax revenues paid by the companies involved in the MIG.

The companies in the MIG are significant players in the towns of Castlebar and Wesport and they are well aware of their impact on Mayo. If one of the those companies is lost, it will not be replaced and the IDA will confirm this for the committee. It would be almost impossible to replace a company providing between 800 and 1,000 jobs. Let us put the money into the infrastructure to retain the jobs we have. Let us try to build on that investment, move up the value chain and ensure the 9,000 jobs in place will be retained. If possible, let us try to build on them for the future.

I thank Mr. Delaney and Mr. O'Donnell for their concise and clear presentations. As Mr. Delaney indicated, circumstances are changing on a daily basis regarding issues that must be faced in the short to medium term. Mr. O'Donnell said the social partnership model and the partnership agreements are important. How does IBEC see the model progressing in the immediate future? Do the witnesses believe the social partners should reconvene? How will the model evolve in the short to medium term?

The cost of short-term credit for companies has increased over the past six months. What was the percentage increase? A large proportion of economic activity in my constituency is business-based. It has a centre for the northside of the city, the financial services centre and a number of industrial parks and units. Regularly I am approached by SME representatives who say they cannot gain access to credit. The issue is not cost because they would pay for it if they could. What are the views of the witnesses on that?

The economy expanded rapidly over the past ten years and reference was made to confidence and spirit. The foundation built in that time through IBEC, ICTU and the other social partners is stronger than existed between the 1970s and early 1990s. We have made a significant investment in infrastructure, as mentioned by Mr. O'Donnell. Would the delegates agree that continued investment in infrastructure and our national development plan, NDP, is the right way to go? Will it benefit us in the long term when things turn around? Will we be in a position to take advantage of that? I understand we must get out of our immediate problems and manage our way through them. However, in the medium term, is continued investment, particularly in infrastructure, important to where we end up eventually?

Mr. Pat Delaney

I thank Deputy Brady and will work back through the points he made. It is vital that the national development plan is, where possible, accelerated, irrespective of the means by which the Government raises the money. It will be necessary to borrow, and we have no objection to borrowing taking place for the public capital programme. The stimulus many people are seeking for the economy is there in the NDP. This is the time to do it. The costs associated with infrastructure are lower now than at any time in the past decade and the opportunity is there. The focus of the NDP should be on infrastructure, particularly in the employment intensive area. We would, for example, be in favour of the schools building programme and the roads programme being accelerated. Mr. O'Donnell has also made a strong case for the N5.

Overall, the NDP is the means by which we can stimulate the economy. It is clear the stimulus cannot have the impact we have seen over the past 15 years, where we moved into creating asset bubbles that do not deliver anything back to the country. We want to ensure that when the economy comes out of this recession in 2012, if then, we will have taken every opportunity we can to put in place world class infrastructure that provides the services we need. This would mean not just in roads, but in telecommunications, broadband, education, schools and connectivity.

We all understand how important connectivity is from the regional perspective. One only has to look at the impact of the Heathrow issue in the mid-west or what companies are reporting with regard to their decisions based around connectivity in order to understand this. Our ports must also be considered in this regard, as must air and public transport. It is interesting that currently, the figures for the number of people being carried on our public transport illustrate how alarming the situation is. The figures using our public transport system are down by approximately 130,000 people a day. This means people may not be getting out of bed to go to work or are not travelling into cities or towns.

With regard to working capital, about two weeks ago my colleagues in the small firms association called for the introduction of an operational programme that would use European Investment Bank money. There is a fund available from that bank that, to date, has not been drawn down by any of the retail banks here. Interestingly, in the mid-1990s, the operational programme for small businesses was very effective in providing finance to small companies at fixed rates over a fixed period of time.

The key requirements at that time were that the retail banks would carry the administrative charge associated with the distribution of the fund and that companies would commit to creating employment as a result of receiving that finance. That programme had a significant beneficial effect. IBEC would like to see a scheme similar to this put in place. Access to that type of finance should not necessarily focus on creating new jobs, but on maintaining current employment levels in the companies accessing the fund. This would be hugely beneficial.

Historically, small companies always find themselves in difficulty in times such as these. Where limited finance is available, small companies are at the bottom of the chain. As Deputy Brady rightly pointed out, sometimes it is availability and not the cost that matters and companies will pay for credit. Some projects can be funded at different rates. What is important is that working capital requirements are supported. Rather than move to term loans, companies should have the ability to avail of and maintain overdraft facilities.

On the issues of the cost and availability of credit, it is clear from the retail banks that they are not going to lend money to people who cannot pay back. We should not expect them to do that. We have seen the impact such lending has had throughout the world through the effects of sub-prime lending.

We have many good companies — hundreds and thousands — in our economy with strong balance sheets, but with no liquidity and these companies find themselves under pressure. We must find a means of unblocking this. Following my discussions with colleagues and financial institutions, I believe the institutions are working hard to alleviate this pressure and that the amount of money being lent to companies is keeping up apace. However, demand for that money is increasing daily. If capital is constrained and significant numbers seek the capital available, the market will reflect that in the price and that must be expected.

On the issue of social partnership, Darwin said it all. He said it is not the strongest or the most intelligent who survive but the most adaptable. Social partnership gives us the ability to be more adaptable than our competitors. If social partnership did not exist, we would have to invent it. In the situation we are in now, flexibility, adaptability, the ability to change the way we do things and consider ways of being more innovative in how we work are important. In the private sector, the current situation creates the best opportunity there ever has been for that sector to engage and increase flexibility at the level of the firm. I expect that every opportunity any company gets to engage directly with employees will be taken.

Increasingly, the mindset of people is changing. People know circumstances have changed and that people without a job are out of the game. This keeps people going. People know communities disappear when jobs disappear and we know that when communities disappear all the things that hold us together are gone, not just for now but possibly for generations to come. This is what makes partnership so important. It is important for all of us to work together and not spend every day having acrimonious debate about whose fault it is and getting involved in the blame game. We are where we are and have been here before.

The shape of today's situation is significantly different from the situation we had in the 1980s. In the 1980s we had very high interest rates, inflation and unemployment and no investment. Interest rates are going to fall again today and inflation will be very low by historical and international standards next year. There is an issue with regard to jobs and we are more exposed in that regard than other economies. People will recall that in the 1980s those without work could move to another economy where there were jobs available. That is not the case this time. Every economy in the world faces the same crisis.

Whatever we do, we must do it here. The decisions we make over the coming weeks and months and the decisions made at Government level will affect all of us. There is no easy way around the problem. We must get the message out to everyone so they all understand that we must find a way to reduce current expenditure. This must be done because the alternative is that we increase taxes and expose ourselves to even worse returns than currently.

The new economy for which we must prepare may not be at the level our economy was this year or last. We may be in a situation where for some years to come, five or six years, we will have a shrinking of the economy. We must deal with that. Tax revenues may not be €42 billion, they may be €35 billion or less. Whatever they are, we must deal with that. Whatever decisions must be made to take account of this — just as with any household budget — current spending must reflect those decisions.

I am 1 million % behind the NDP. It is the one chance we have to give a positive stimulus to the economy.

I welcome the delegation from IBEC. Mr. O'Donnell and I have had discussions about the N5. I have been badgering the Chairman to ensure that the committee travels that road as part of its work programme. Discussions on the route are taking place at a high level at present. It would be of assistance if the committee would endorse the reasonable presentation made by Mr. O'Donnell in this respect.

Without pre-empting anything, the Deputy can take it that we will endorse the presentation and pass it on.

Perhaps the presentation could be forwarded to the Minister for Transport and the Taoiseach.

We will certainly do that.

The case is a strong one. Mr. Delaney referred to the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the role IBEC played during the referendum campaign. Its representatives put their necks on the block and their money where their mouths were. Some of the other social partners were not as committed to the treaty, which is of great importance to this country. It should be recognised that IBEC was to the fore in this respect. Yesterday, the Taoiseach referred to the ongoing discussions, involving IBEC and the unions, on the national recovery plan. What are IBEC's priorities in the discussions, without going into the detail of them? What does IBEC want to see in the plan?

I would like to comment on IBEC's endorsement of the partnership agreement. It is likely that many of IBEC's members are not as enthusiastic about the agreement as is the leadership of IBEC. In recent weeks, Deputies have been contacted by members of IBEC to discuss the manner in which employment laws and procedures are being implemented and followed up. To what extent is IBEC engaging with its members to spell out the benefits of partnership, as Mr. Delaney has just done? Is IBEC engaging with them to make it clear that partnership is the best show in town? In recent weeks, many small businesses have expressed a great deal of scepticism about the role of the National Employment Rights Authority and the joint labour committees, in particular, within the partnership process. They are not convinced that small businesses benefit from the process.

In recent weeks, IBEC has been discussing the pay deal that was agreed for next year with representatives of a number of sectors. How many of those sectors will be in a position to meet the terms of the pay deal? Can IBEC estimate how many sectors will invoke the agreement's inability to pay clause when the pay increases are due in September?

I would like to speak about the banks. IBEC represents the great and good of Irish business. Many of the big honchos in the banks are represented on its various committees and around the tables of its boards. Is IBEC using its influence, which is strengthened by the knowledge of what it stands for, with the banks? When representatives of the Small Firms Association attended a meeting of this committee, they made some very fair proposals. Is IBEC, which is the mother ship, using its moral influence with the banks? Mr. Delaney is right to say that we do not want to support basket cases. If a business cannot make its payments, it needs to address that reality. Many solid businesses that cannot get access to credit are being held over a barrel. I agree with IBEC's proposal in this regard. Can it not use its influence with the people who run the banks to try to pursue that proposal?

I noted Mr. Delaney's comment that we would be out of this crisis by 2012. What is that analysis based on? Is it based on IBEC's economic research? I hope he is right. According to IBEC, what decisions need to be taken in the next few weeks to ensure that we can get out of it by 2012?

The Deputy thinks that Mr. Delaney is a clairvoyant as well as everything else.

Mr. Pat Delaney

I will explain my reasons for the 2012 analysis. Most recessions tend to last up to 36 months. One can expect about 80 months of growth after that. The economy will not be able to grow until it hits the bottom. In this economy, it will be difficult to tell when that happens. Early next year, we will have a full disclosure of the real exposure of the construction sector to the economic downturn. That will have to be taken on board. It will be some time before we will see any growth in the construction sector. The stimulus that is rightly or wrongly created by such growth will not be evident for some time to come. I think we will begin to see some growth in the economy in 2012. If 2007 is seen as 100 on the index, and we are at 98 at the moment, it is likely that we will decline further, to 94, next year. Therefore, the growth that takes place in 2012 will not constitute growth on 2007 figures. It will be growth on what applies in 2012. It may take us many years to regain the level of economic standing we have enjoyed, in GDP or GNP terms, over recent years.

Deputy Calleary spoke about the pay deal. The first line of the transitional agreement makes it clear that terms are to be negotiated by each individual firm. This is not something for nothing. No employee in any company covered by the deal has a legitimate expectation to be awarded a pay increase when he or she comes into work next year. That will not happen. Each company will have its own requirements. I expect every company to sit down with its employees to set out the situation. I would question any company that does not ask its employees what they would do in exchange for certain things it might do. The process of negotiation will have to happen in a different way in the various companies. IBEC is committed to helping its members to achieve a positive result in the discussions that will have to take place. The outcome of the transitional agreement will differ from company to company. Some companies will invoke the inability to pay clause. Other companies will introduce measures to offset their costs, look for flexibility or seek ongoing change in work practices. It will be different for everybody. Some companies will not be able to pay anything. Some companies will look for extended pay freezes, or ask for the provisions of the agreement to be phased in in a different manner. The architecture of the agreement allows such discussions to take place. Companies have a comprehensive ability to engage directly in individual discussions pertaining to each of them. For that reason, I expect a positive outcome.

We should bear in mind the position we came from. When one is in a snowstorm, the rear view mirror is always clearer than the windscreen. This conversation started in April. I remind members that at that time, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was looking for annualised increases of 6% and retrospection on inflation. There was some degree of sympathy among the Members of the Oireachtas for that view. They believed the claim was reasonable at a time when inflation was about to go up but the world was about to stay more or less the same. They asked why such a deal could not be agreed. The world did not stay the same. The circumstances in which we find ourselves are entirely different. The public purse will have to take account of that. Matters like the need for gains in efficiency and effectiveness, the economy in which the public service is run and the equity issue will have to be addressed.

Since January this year — well in advance of the April talks — IBEC has engaged directly with those it represents. We have engaged in the widest possible process of consultation throughout the country. There are 85 sectors, associations and groups within IBEC. We have nine regions and a permanent office in Brussels. No stone was left unturned as we engaged directly with members. At the beginning of the year, our members expressed their views to us and we operated on that basis. In April this year, we checked whether the lights were still green. When we found that they were, we proceeded on that basis. When the talks collapsed in June, we had further discussions with our members. We explained why it was necessary to do that. They agreed that we were right. When the Taoiseach asked the social partners to give it one last go in September this year, we accepted the invitation. We consulted our members again to check that all the lights were green. Following the reaching of the agreement, we again spoke to our members in all 85 sectors, associations and groups across the nine regions. When we asked individual members whether they could support the agreement, they broadly said that they could. It was the best agreement that could be achieved at that time, during those negotiations.

While I do not want to have a retrospective view at all times, I wish to point out an aspect of social partnership that is sometimes lost in the debate on what it delivers. One of the key things social partnership delivers is industrial peace, which is deeply important. I ask members to remind themselves of what this country was like in the 1970s and 1980s. I can inform those who do not remember that era that this country's economy, which was employing 1.1 million people at the time, used to lose an average of 560,000 days to industrial disputes each year. Fewer than 10,000 days will be lost to industrial disputes this year. The final figure for this year may be just 7,000 days lost. The lights are on, buses are running, post is being delivered and nurses, doctors, teachers, firemen and gardaí are all in work. The system is working so the issue is not one of reconvening the social partners but getting on with it. We do not want to have a report which leaves us one report short of action. We need to express in an adult fashion the needs of the economy in real time and in real terms.

The private sector will deal with the changed circumstances. I am determined that we will do so in a manner which is best for all the employees and companies represented by IBEC and ICTU. The paymasters of the public service must do this in a different manner, which will be a challenge and one with which all our elected representatives should be directly engaged. I am confident IBEC will secure a positive outcome in dealing with the private sector.

IBEC is on the side of the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA. Members may be aware that prior to taking up my current position, I was director of the Small Firms Association. During my time with the SFA, the organisation took calls from member companies on employee-related issues every three minutes. The NERA, for its part, takes an approach which is sometimes not welcomed by companies. For companies which do not have the proper level of information, advice or assistance available to them, it can be difficult. To put the matter in context, and I would also make this point to the business community, employees in Ireland spend six times more than employers on representation. It should not come as a surprise to employers that their employees are very well informed given the money they spend on information. Perhaps the business community needs to take account of this fact, particularly companies which operate outside organisations which can provide the necessary expertise, information, advice, assistance, representation and education.

If one were to open a business next month, one would need to be well acquainted with at least 27 primary Acts before one could open one's doors, offer someone a job, sell goods or register as a company. One would need to be a linguistic expert to understand the complexity of some of the regulations with which companies must deal. This is the purpose of organisations such as IBEC. I have sympathy with companies which face excessive bureaucracy. Red tape impacts more on small firms than large companies, with the former expending approximately 4% of turnover on dealing with the administrative burden. In a small company employing eight people half of one job will be spent filling in forms which feed the administrative system.

I acknowledge that a great deal of positive work is being done. The committee system of the House has greatly facilitated much of this good work by giving organisations an opportunity to outline the difficulties in which they find themselves. Despite the improvements, difficulties remain.

The NERA represents the State in dealing with employment rights. On the issue of balance and equity, employers must respect the fact that an institution such as the NERA exists and they may be liable to an inspection. IBEC has engaged in the past 12 months and in collective terms has probably spoken to 15,000 individual companies to bring them through the legislative requirements they face. Whether it is IBEC or the SFA or another association or group in the confederation, all these companies have access to 210 highly qualified, professional representatives who will represent each and every one of them on all the relevant issues. While I cannot speak for companies which are not members of my organisation, I encourage them to join IBEC if they have any difficulties. We would be pleased to take on board problems they may have.

I thank Deputy Calleary for his kind words on the Lisbon treaty, which remains a priority for the business community. IBEC will again fully engage with the challenge and opportunity the treaty presents.

I welcome the delegation. Having spent most of my adult life working in a small enterprise, I feel the hurt being experienced by many businesses. I listened carefully to Mr. Delaney's comments on the red tape small and medium size enterprises face. Often business people would like to clear a desk to do some strategic thinking, perhaps to bring new lines into their business or commence new methods of doing business. It is frustrating to face a high level of bureaucracy. Having experienced this problem, I would like to eliminate some red tape.

On that note, a division has been called in the Dáil for which I apologise to our guests. Deputies must attend the House but will return immediately after the division. We do not have control over this aspect of parliamentary life.

Sitting suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.

Deputy White was in possession.

I hope I can remember where I was.

I urge members to ask precise questions because I would not be surprised if there was another vote.

I have three quick questions. Under the radical review of the national development plan Mr. Delaney referred to the fast-tracking of projects that best support employment and benefit enterprise. What projects is he seeking to fast forward?

Energy costs are critical to the ongoing competitiveness of Irish companies. The committee went on an interesting excursion to an Austrian town called Güssing, which had no jobs and mass emigration but now is one of the richest centres in Austria because it has become completely self-sufficient in energy. That small town close to the Hungarian border is able to offer energy to 50 of the top companies worldwide, which have located there. Through best practice it has a surplus of green energy, which it can offer at a low cost to those companies. We should look at that model here. Throughout Ireland we have the potential to create green collar jobs that are sustainable and that will not drift to low-cost economies. Green collar jobs worldwide are worth in excess of $84 billion. We should look at that model in order to secure jobs in this country.

I wish to offer a philosophical thought. The Chairman is correct in that we cannot lose our spirit. We are a gutsy people. We are innovative and we have a great entrepreneurial spirit. Our backs are to the wall. Let us hope we can go no further back. We must come forward with ideas. We must ensure that we do not become dispirited. Competitors from abroad must see that we are not dispirited even while we are going through a deep recession. We have the guts, the innovative tendencies, the business acumen and the entrepreneurial spirit to come out of this recession on top. I firmly believe the glass should be half full, not half empty. If we can send that signal and work together we will come out of the recession with good business trends, good spirit and drive our economy forward in the best interests of this country.

Mr. Pat Delaney

I thank Deputy White for her comments. I reinforce our commitment to that ideal. If our DNA has prepared us for anything it is the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. We have been there before throughout history.

Prior to the suspension, Deputy White referred to the administrative burden on businesses. An interesting approach was taken in the UK in that regard. It conducted a "with or without" test on every form required to be filled in by small businesses. A question was asked of what they get from the information and what would be lost if they did not have it. The result was a reduction in the level of form filling by approximately 3,000 individual forms. That exercise was well worth doing. The net result was that information that was required within the public domain was supplied but it was not duplicated. The form design was made easier to understand and once the information was provided it could be used throughout the system in a far more efficient and effective way. There was no duplication of purpose.

We all agree that energy is a big challenge for us. We must consider how we, as a society, deal with our dependence on fossil fuels. In 2006, some 91% of our energy requirement was imported. We created only 9% of energy for ourselves. Business needs certainty about energy. Energy is a complex business when one takes into account its generation, distribution and supply. The cost of providing the infrastructure for it is especially high. We would like to see a greater shift in infrastructure funding to the NDP than is currently the case. At the moment companies operating in the economy are being asked to pay for infrastructure the benefits of which will be enjoyed by other companies in 50 or 70 years' time. The funding requirement is at a higher level than we think is reasonable. IBEC is committed to the shift to other forms of energy, especially wind, wave and renewables. As a society we must examine those options. The big issue, which unfortunately will not go away because it is at the heart of competitiveness, is the cost associated with energy and that is impacting in a negative way on companies.

On the broader issue of the NDP, it offers the only opportunity to create a positive stimulus in the economy. Its timing is perfect and its prioritisation is absolutely necessary. We must be mindful of the employment intensive aspects of the NDP, given the current situation in terms of employment, which is critical. Whatever money is spent on the NDP we should try to ensure the greatest number of jobs in the economy and the greatest multiplier in the economy that is possible.

The roads programme is critical but there are other areas that are important such as broadband, education, and the schools programme. All of those areas involve sustainability for future generations and investment in them will provide a real return not just now but in the future. That is the type of infrastructure we need.

Already, one gets the sense that the national development plan is getting fudged at the edges. Our view is that if borrowing is required that it should be undertaken for capital projects. The projects that should be prioritised are those that have been identified as giving the best rate of return, the best impact on employment and the best multiplier economically.

If we are serious about balanced regional development and the national spatial strategy the one thing that joins it all up is connectivity. That is not just about roads but other areas of infrastructure, particularly broadband. Investment in education is capital investment. Every euro spent on education results in a return to society and the economy. Training is part of this process. We hear a lot about the position in which one of our agencies finds itself but there has never been a more important time for investment in training because, when one invests in training, there is a skills increase that leads to higher output. The higher the output, the more competitive one is, and the more competitive one is, the more one will sell. This is the virtuous cycle we must develop and maintain.

With regard to who gets trained and at what level, we may need to effect a shift from investment in training in the construction industry towards investment in other types of employment. I refer to upskilling in the manufacturing sector because the key relationship in that sector is the one between capital skills and knowledge. The capital requirement may not be the same as it was two or three years ago, but what is available must be nurtured and developed. The innovative capacity of the economy is linked to companies' knowledge base and IT. Even if companies have these but lack the skills base and do not continue to upskill employees, we will become less productive than competing economies.

Productivity is linked to education. It is undeniable that the more one learns, the more one earns. The greater one's skills in an economy, the more capable one will be of creating new products for export markets at a price customers are prepared to pay. It is an inescapable fact that investment in education and skills development works. However, in the evaluation and measurement of the matrices, value for money needs to be obtained. Training must be targeted at the current requirements of the economy. Every opportunity must be afforded to individuals in the workforce, those who have not yet joined it and those who were in it but find themselves outside it to gain access to training that will enable them to develop and gain more responsibility in the workplace.

Creating human capital and increasing the productivity of the Irish workforce are among the top three challenges we face. It is a pity there is so much deflection from this reality but we cannot lose sight of the absolute requirement to continue to invest in education and training.

I thank the delegates for their very useful presentations. I have a few comments and questions, primarily on three issues, namely, social partnership; credit and the currency crisis, which IBEC rightly regarded as the latest challenge; and the national development plan and public finances.

It is no secret that I am not as enthusiastic about social partnership as others. That said, I am not ideologically opposed to it in that a good deal is a good deal and a bad deal is a bad one. To a certain extent, social partnership is accorded more credit than it should be. If one studies the work of Mr. Jim O'Leary in Maynooth or the work on industrial peace, one will note that the number of strike days had been decreasing very fast even before the programme for national recovery was agreed. In countries that did not have social partnership, the rate of decrease was the same.

Social partnership deserves some credit but perhaps not the amount that it gets. At best, social partnership is a programme for national recovery. For example, it did set us off on the road to recovery in 1987. At worst, it is the culture we see in FÁS, that is, vested interests looking after vested interests rather than the public interest.

The flaw in Towards 2016 is that it did not recognise the reality of the economy that existed when it was produced, not just the economy of today. The history of the Irish economy for the past four years is a story of declining competitiveness and ongoing deterioration of the public finances. We did not go into deficit this year; rather, we did so last year. Crucially, we allowed a construction industry to develop such that it contributed to more than 20% of our economic worth. This proportion had to decline at some stage and it occurred faster than we believed it would. International factors compounded the decline, which has been deeper and harsher than we all expected. The reality is that the writing has been on the wall for a number of years.

Towards 2016 should have been the plan to make Ireland competitive again and prepare us for the inevitable downturn that was to arrive. Instead, it divided up the spoils of growth that never actually occurred. If social partnership has a role in the economic crisis, it will require a renegotiation of Towards 2016 and the pay deal. This is a real test for it.

We must have a much broader form of social partnership that includes all small businesses. Much of the small business sector is not represented through social partnership. The self-employed, consumer organisations and the major Opposition parties are not represented. The latter are often asked to be patriotic and support the process, yet they are excluded from it. I hope the social partners will rise to the challenge. If they can do so, they will employ the best mechanism to face the challenge. However, we should not just believe that the ideology behind social partnership necessarily provides a solution. Rather, it is the deal made and the parties thereto that make it the solution.

I noted what the delegates said about the credit crisis. I am very concerned that a large number of trading businesses are unable to obtain credit. The issue of bank recapitalisation arises in this regard. Fine Gael called for the banks to be recapitalised five weeks ago but I do not necessarily believe this will provide all the solutions. I wonder to what extent our banks are becoming conservative lenders. They were not such in recent years. To what extent are the banks telling businesses associated with construction, retail and tourism that they will not loan them any money, even if they do have capital, in the belief that those businesses are unsound? I am very concerned that even if the banks are recapitalised, a number of them will state 10% or 15% of private businesses are going down and that, as a consequence, they will not give them money. What are the views of the delegates on this?

The currency crisis is a disaster for exporters. IBEC suggested a temporary solution in its paper. Will the delegates outline how companies suffering from the currency crunch can be assisted? Is it not the case that this will become a long-term problem affecting our competitiveness? The British economy is in trouble and its deficit is as great as ours, and potentially greater. The likelihood is that sterling will collapse in the coming years and will not recover. If sterling becomes much weaker than the euro, it could create a long-term problem in that the Untied Kingdom could become hypercompetitive in trade relations. How can we deal with this? It will very much change the dynamic of our economy.

I very much agree with IBEC on the national development plan. Fine Gael has proposed that we use the National Pensions Reserve Fund in this regard. The NDP was cut by €1 billion in the budget, which was a mistake. We have suggested that the fund be used to buttress the NDP. The Labour Party has made a similar proposal.

We will reach a point where we cannot borrow any more. The delegates stated the deficit next year will be 8% or 9% of GDP. I understand the ESRI will suggest a similar figure, namely, 9% or 10% of GDP. This will amount to a public sector borrowing requirement next year of €18 billion. Next year, we might borrow more than the entire pension fund. There has to be a limit to borrowing. If we are to use the pension fund, which does not involve borrowing technically, and combine this fund with those moneys accrued from borrowing to fund capital spending in the order of €10 billion, can we really justify borrowing €8 billion for current spending also? At what point must we stop borrowing? The more one borrows, the more expensive it becomes to do so.

It is certain that we will double the national debt by 2010. If IBEC is correct that we will not return to growth until 2012, we will treble the national debt just by borrowing what we are borrowing now. This means that when the recovery comes in 2011 or 2012, all our taxes will be devoted to debt repayment and not to education, training or any other area mentioned by IBEC. At what point must we place a ceiling on borrowing?

I have a few comments, some of which overlap with those of Deputy Varadkar. I concur with the views of the delegates that social partnership played a pivotal role in the recovery of the economy, notwithstanding Deputy Varadkar's assertion that the Opposition parties were often bystanders on the sideline. Sometimes the Opposition took flak on matters, while other times some of the social partners would come to it to sort out a larger issue, notwithstanding it was on the outside looking in. Social partnership has never been needed as much at this critical juncture of our economic development. This was emphasised by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Gilmore, last weekend when he called for a national forum of social partners to re-examine the evolving economic conditions.

The Labour Party recently tabled a Private Members' motion on small businesses, making several suggestions, including action on the banks. Why have the banks been reticent to take up the €15 billion investment fund initiated by the European Investment Bank? Is it because they cannot charge enough in handling charges? I meet many heads of small businesses who informed me last July that there were flare signals that credit was tightening. It is the lack of access to credit that is putting them out of business. It has affected the payment of wages, creditors and basic manufacturing products. Johnnie Owens of Owens Concrete Limited told me it pained him to let his workers go.

While my colleagues know that I am rarely politically partisan, I have been critical of how the Government handled the farm waste management scheme and did not extend it into May or June next year. Through the scheme, building work could have been provided for thousands, as well as addressing an environmental problem.

Up to 40,000 children are still being taught in prefabs. There are up to 400 schools to be built. Why is this not made part of a building programme to help the construction industry?

I have been critical of the Labour Government in the United Kingdom, believing some of its policies were conservative. However, it has decided to reflate the economy. I accept it does not have to face some of the constraints the Government here has to face because it has not signed up to the euro. Nevertheless, it has taken bold steps in tackling the economic downturn and has the Tory Party on the back foot because it is back in the electoral game.

If I were in government, I would be a strong advocate of borrowing for productive capital purposes. Investment should not just be made in capital infrastructure for schools but also teaching. That is productive capital too. I would support borrowing in these circumstances. The economy needs a sharp stimulus but it will still be a slow process. It must be remembered that building projects would be 25% cheaper than three years ago. We would obtain excellent value, while at the same time giving people hope and confidence. For example, building works under the farm waste management scheme could be extended into April and it would change people's outlook. Up to 40% of housing stock is over 40 years of age. Insulation and energy efficiency improvements could provide another stimulus for the construction industry, allowing workers to retrain at the same time. The skills programme is set to last until 2020, which is too slow. Some way must be found to accelerate it.

Has IBEC given any consideration to the stimuli needed to reflate the economy? Why are the banks so slow in participating as regards the European Investment Bank funds? If they do not take them up, the State should step in. If the banks are going to dilly dally, there is no reason the State cannot design an instrument to tap into the fund to make money available to viable small businesses.

Has IBEC any experience from its members in attempting to work out a review with their banks? Have there been occasions when a bank has brought in a small business customer for the pleasure of telling him or her that credit facilities will be extended from, say, five to seven years with a rise in charges. Is there any evidence of charges being levied for such reviews or the extension of services?

Mr. Pat Delaney

To answer Deputy Varadkar's question about the democratic deficit often spoken about in the social partnership discussions, we can only deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. I have been involved in social partnership since 1995. The then Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, invited the small business community to participate when social partnership was broadened with a community pillar. It was extended to all organisations representing small businesses but the invitation was declined by those who now claim they are not invited to it. They had the same opportunity to participate as my organisation, the Small Firms Association. We chose to roll up our sleeves and become involved in the process and face down those who did not agree with us. We believed small business had to have a voice in the partnership process and during the years we have been proved right. Those who decry the exclusiveness of social partnership should reflect on their own history and the invitations they received to participate which they refused to take up. Social partnership works. It has a demonstration effect and history attached to it. We will not disagree as regards all of the issues. Everybody has, and is entitled to have, a view on social partnership. The gains far outweigh the deficits in terms of whether it is a matter of ideology or fact.

Looking back, one might ask how Ireland became the fifth most competitive economy in the world at that stage. Most of it, unfortunately, was built around the very weak exchange rate we had. There were 300,000 people seeking employment and for the first time we were beginning to get access to capital. Since then we have been creating around 17,000 businesses a year. I do not mind sharing with the committee the fact that in the early to mid-1990s, when I received calls from would-be entrepreneurs — as I did every day — asking whether they might get the money to start a small business, my advice to them was to go into a financial institution and ask for the money to buy a car. They would get the money to buy a car, but under no circumstances were they to say they wanted the money to start a business, because small business was not flavour of the month. Entrepreneurship did not then have the social status in this economy it has now. At that time Ireland was a country in which it was a stigma to fail, one that remained with one for the rest of one's life. We were not encouraged to take risks. At that time our brightest and best were still being encouraged to go into safe pensionable jobs and not take risks. How we have changed in the decade since.

We are creating 17,000 companies. Failure is no longer seen as a death sentence socially and economically — in fact people are encouraged to get up and try again. In all my years representing small business, I have never once come across a company that made it without a bank's support, to be fair. While banks come in for a good deal of criticism, without them there would not be much commerce. The bank shareholders are entitled to represent in the most robust fashion their ownership of their business. One can understand this when they find themselves under siege or under threat. When one compares what is happening here to the UK, one sees that bank shareholders in the UK have been treated abysmally and they will not emerge from the experience feeling particularly good into the future. They will probably not want to put themselves in a position where any of their money — or their pension fund money — will ever again be invested in financial institutions. That is not a situation we want to move into too quickly.

On the issue the Chairman raises as regards bank charges, here again it is useful to put the facts on the record. Bank charges in Ireland are 49%, or less than half, those of their counterparts in the UK. Again, as regards competition and what the banks are doing, we have a very effective banking system in Ireland. The costs associated with banking in Ireland are 50% less than those in our nearest competitor. When we look at the ability of banks to create credit, traditionally the leveraging of banks has been indexed at ten and is probably now moving into 11 or 14, but it has been as high as 35 during the past five or six years. Obviously, there will have to be changes if one decelerates from 35 to 15. The commonly shared view is that we do not want financial institutions to be leveraged to the extent that they were, in the creation of credit, with the outcome we have at present. Therefore, they will have to peel back. We will not create sufficient credit in the short term for the funds that are on deposit — and shareholders' funds are being diminished. That will take time, and it may require refinancing. The issue of refinancing will pivot on what shape it will take and whether the banks are prepared to either be forced into that position or accept it. That is between the Government and the financial institutions and I shall not say any more than that about it.

Is that Mr. Delaney's preference?

Mr. Pat Delaney

My preference is that access to funding is available for companies. The information given and supplied to the Central Bank — we have met all the major financial institutions in the past month — suggests that lending has not decreased. Those who are seeking funds and putting forward legitimate cases are receiving them. I know that in the next week to ten days there will be more announcements along the lines we have seen during the week, to the effect that new funding is available. However, the European investment funding is particularly important for small companies and should be pursued vigorously by everyone in the space.

Deputy Varadkar raised the issue of currency. I believe we need to be far more serious about this because, as of this morning, the economic challenges facing the economy have been put in stark focus. As I said, it is not about shopping baskets going into Northern Ireland. This is about the survival of our manufacturing exports sector, which traditionally has had the bulk of its business with the UK. In third markets Irish companies will find it very difficult to compete.

The UK Government has entered into a competitive devaluation. We cannot do anything, because the only control we have here is fiscal policy. We do not have interest rate or monetary policy within our remit and are dependent on the European Central Bank to reduce interest rates this afternoon which I fully expect and hope to see happen. The state aid issue is very important here. It is very difficult for the Government to put an instrument in place that would help companies trade through this difficulty. The challenge for companies is to start to use the eurozone area and try to remove currency fluctuations from our businesses as much as possible by sourcing more product within the eurozone and ensuring that the trade we develop can, hopefully, be removed from the UK in the future. If we were to increase our level of exports by 1% into other EU countries, we would reduce our dependence on the UK market by 80%. We are trading in a market of 500 million citizens. We have not been to the fore in developing our exports to Europe to the extent we should have been. Traditionally, we have depended on the UK, particularly our food sector, which will come under tremendous pressure, as well as the United States. There is a pronounced ability in Ireland to act American and think European, but this crisis puts the reality into focus to the extent that jobs in this economy will disappear at an enormously faster rate if our exchange rate remains as it is vis-à-vis sterling.

On the issue of borrowing, we have already seen the international markets and one cannot be certain people will lend to one. The costs associated with this are put in focus by the trading in government bonds, which is now significantly different to what it was two or three months ago. Even the Irish Government is not immune from such pressures in the market, where funds are limited as regards attracting them. I absolutely agree that the idea that we could borrow €8 billion for current spending is simply not plausible. It cannot happen, and I would say to everyone involved in the political process, that they cannot allow it to happen. If it were——

It might happen, though.

Mr. Pat Delaney

I am not so certain. We raised €2 billion in extra taxation in the recent budget, with no reform. Six or seven weeks on we see that the situation is accelerating in a negative manner to a far greater and faster degree. The current expenditure model we have has to stop and the capital programme must be reinforced. For every 1,000 people going on the dole, that is the equivalent of €11 million a year. If we are losing 4,000 jobs a week that is substantial and when one reflects on the loss of taxation to the Exchequer from the loss of those jobs, one sees the double hit that is facing us.

Whatever the source, there must be leadership, determination and focus if we are to move on from the situation in which we currently find ourselves. This country is facing a new reality. We are not going to pass through the current difficulties as through a swing door and conclude they were not so bad. There is no denying that things are bad. As my colleague, Mr. O'Donnell, said, if the 800 jobs in his company are lost next year, they will not be regained the following year or in the years after that. Communities will be decimated if we let these types of jobs disappear.

I urge members to do all they can to address these difficulties. The business community, through IBEC and others, will reshape itself. Companies do that all the time. We must take account of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. However, businesses cannot reshape and re-emerge with a hump on their back which will stop them from engaging once more in a competitive manner. The Government has the ability either to free us of that restraint or to load us down with a burden we will be unable to sustain into the future. These decisions must be made now.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. We found it a useful exercise. We would appreciate the opportunity to return, perhaps in the first quarter of next year, to restate the situation. I hope but do not expect it will be an improved one.

I thank Mr. Delaney and Mr. O'Donnell for assisting the committee in its deliberations on this issue. We deeply appreciate that they, along with their colleagues in the Visitors Gallery, have given so much time from their busy schedules. We are very interested in some of the issues raised by the delegates. It was a focused, informative and sobering discussion. The level of interest and the depth of questioning from members substantiates that. We are all acutely aware of the circumstances with which we are faced. It behoves us all to put our shoulders to the wheel in whatever way we can in an effort to overcome an impasse that we hope will not be as enduring as is predicted in some quarters.

We will invite the delegates to appear again before the committee, I hope in March 2009. Mr. O'Donnell's illuminating presentation vindicated Deputy Calleary's argument that we are being given a clarion call to "Go west, young men and women" for a period of time. We intend to do so. However, we are in the same situation as the delegates in that our schedule is very full. Our next major item of business is a detailed study of the retail trade, with particular reference to the cross-Border aspect. That will take up the full month of January. I am sure the delegates will tell their business colleagues that although Oireachtas Members are allegedly on holiday in January, we have a full programme of work for that month. Some elements of the media think we are not working if they do not see us in the Dáil or Seanad. The reality is that we are here in the bunker meeting with delegates and engaging in that type of work. Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Delaney will understand how much background work goes on in regard to committee meetings. The committee system works well in allowing delegates to make presentations.

We will take Mr. O'Donnell's point on board and support his proposal to the Minister for Transport and the Taoiseach. We cannot take it any higher than that. We expected Mr. Delaney to be forthright and knew of his reputation for expertise in his area. He dealt with a broad and diverse range of issues today. It is easy for members to focus on particular issues but the comprehensive, analytical and informative manner in which Mr. Delaney responded to our questions, without pulling any punches, commends itself to us. After all, our objective is to gather knowledge from those working in a business environment in order to obtain a deeper appreciation of the challenges people are encountering. I am confident that we are well informed at this time.

I undertake to pass the delegates' presentations on to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We have given them the intense scrutiny they deserve and will look to them as we consider how we can best advance. We recognise the importance of both small and medium enterprises and IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland sponsored foreign direct investment. Seeking to arrest the slide in our economic performance and begin the process of rebuilding is our shared objective. The point that will remain with me from today's meeting, apart from all the interim steps that were suggested, is that confidence breeds success. We must ensure that we pick ourselves up from the floor and regain our confidence not only in our own abilities but also in the investment process. The abiding message I will take from the delegates is that education at all levels is the most vital signpost on the road to recovery and to a resumption of the progress made in the last ten to 15 years.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 December 2008.
Barr
Roinn