I welcome Mr. Gerry Andrews, director, Print and Packaging Forum, who has been here previously and who knows us well, Mr. Lorcan Ó hÓbáin, president of the Irish Printing Federation——
Irish Printing Industry: Discussion.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
He is not here. Unfortunately he has been delayed. My colleagues are Mr. Johnny O'Hanlon——
Mr. Johnny O'Hanlon, director of the RNPAI.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
——and Mr. Terry Cummins.
Mr. Terry Cummins of IBEC. I thank the delegates for their attendance.
I draw your attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. 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 the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I call upon the delegates to address the committee. We have received Mr. Andrews's opening statement which is comprehensive. He has appeared before the committee previously and we are pretty familiar with the overall thrust of his position. I ask him to present us with a synopsised version of the presentation rather than the entire document. We have already studied it and I thank him for it. It is a pretty comprehensive document and, in fairness to him, he did the same in that respect on the last occasion. Members would like to have an interactive discussion with the delegates on this area and to obtain as much information and extract as many details as possible on it.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
I thank the committee for meeting us.
Let it be said Mr. Andrews is no relation.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
I deny that.
It is not a slur.
(Interruptions).
Mr. Gerry Andrews
The Print and Packaging Forum was formed in 2004 to champion the needs of the Irish printing industry at national level and to promote a cultural change at industry level. Professor David Jacobson of DCU is our chairman and the members include the employer groups, trade unions, FÁS, Enterprise Ireland, DIT and DCU. The Print and Packaging Forum is a true model of social partnership at work. When it comes to the immediate threats that pose difficulties for us, I point out that this is an industry of 600 companies employing 11,000 people with a combined turnover of €2 billion per annum. In 2005 we published a report on the printing industry and identified threats to the long-term viability of the sector. When we published that report the industry employed 19,000 people. In the interim since the last time we appeared before the committee, 7,000 people in the sector have lost their jobs. Back then, we were saying the industry was heading into a difficult period. Now, it is in meltdown stage and is fighting for survival. In the past 12 months significant closures have occurred and there will be more in the near future if we do not take immediate action.
Numerous issues threaten our industry. However, we are absolutely confident that the bedrock of the industry has many positives going for it. We have, for example, a young and vibrant workforce which is well trained. We have state-of-the-art, world class technology. With the support of organisations such as Enterprise Ireland, a consortium of Irish printers could be developed to pursue foreign contracts. Such alliances would ultimately result in some industry consolidation through mergers and acquisitions. This process would also help to restore competitiveness because it would yield synergies. If, through a process of dialogue, companies were to amalgamate and maximise the industry-wide synergies, it would be very advantageous and bring competitiveness back to our industry. The Irish printing industry is very high tech and firms could be repositioned to provide additional services, such as design, logistics, web solutions and so forth to other sectors. We could also, with State agency support, be aligned with other sectors such as pharmaceuticals, health care and so forth.
Many of our problems will be resolved internally but certain issues require political support. We have dealt with the issue of public procurement for a long time and the committee will be familiar with the arguments. We have been very vocal about our position on how the European Union rules are being interpreted. We took the view that the establishment of the National Procurement Service, NPS, and the publication of a code of best practice would be very welcome and beneficial for our industry. However, this has not been the case. We have found with regard to the recent guidelines issued by the Minister for Finance that civil servants appear intent on maintaining the status quo. In many cases, they choose to operate in the fashion to which they are accustomed rather than interpret the guidelines as outlined by the policy maker. Clearly, that is not in anybody’s best interest. Equally, while the establishment of the NPS is welcome, it does not have a mandate to buy on behalf of the State. As a consequence, some of its decisions are questionable, to say the least, and inconsistent.
Consider the results of an examination of EU procurement statistics and the position of Ireland in the context of those statistics. France awards 0.75% of all its contracts to firms domiciled in another country; the UK awards 1.55% of its contracts to foreign suppliers. The EU average for such contracts is 1.49%. However, Ireland awards a staggering 17.7% of all its contracts to external suppliers and justifies this by stating that it must abide by European procurement regulations. This argument is totally at variance with the facts and implies that Ireland is the only EU state that complies with EU procurement policy and practices.
While Government Ministers and officials tell us we must comply with EU regulations, Irish commercial State enterprises are using a private company, Achilles Ltd., to filter potential suppliers as part of a pre-tendering selection process. Simply put, it means Irish small and medium enterprises, SMEs, are required to pay registration fees to this firm to be considered for selection as a supplier to semi-State bodies. Companies that fail to register are excluded from the tender and denied access to commercial State contracts. We believe this requirement is a barrier to entry, is anti-competitive and is at variance with the recent guidelines issued by the Department of Finance. The forum requests that the Government mandate the NPS to purchase all goods and services on behalf of the State and instruct it to comply with the EU procurement policy code. We also ask that it follow the recent guidelines issued by the Minister for Finance. We request that Irish SMEs be allowed access to commercial State contracts without having to pay registration fees and that the relevant authority ensures that Irish SMEs are not disadvantaged in their efforts to win semi-State contracts.
The printing industry must change direction if it is to have a future and we need State agency support to be successful in this regard. Enterprise Ireland, EI, currently supports a very small number of printing companies which directly export their products. However, the majority of Irish printing companies indirectly export products but they do not qualify for EI support. The forum requests the Government to expand the Enterprise Ireland mandate and instruct it to support firms that directly export their products and those companies that produce substitutes for imported products.
Technology in our industry is constantly changing and our workforce is currently comprised of many people who have a recognised apprenticeship qualification which is now technologically limited. We also have staff who participated in an on-the-job traineeship but never received a formal qualification. Technological developments in the industry dictate that all training initiatives must place an emphasis on multi-skilling and mobility of the workforce. With that in mind, the forum wishes to introduce an upskilling programme which would run in tandem with the apprenticeship programme. We request the Government to instruct FÁS and the Higher Education Authority, HEA, to ring-fence funds currently allocated to the print media apprenticeship programme and to commit those resources to an apprenticeship training initiative which would include the upskilling of the unemployed in our sector.
One of the issues that has caused us much difficulty over time is the fact that VAT-exempt bodies choose to purchase printed products outside the State for the purpose of saving tax. In recent years we have worked closely with the Revenue Commissioners to help eliminate this serious breach of regulations. Those efforts have proved successful. However, we are aware that exempt bodies continue to practise VAT avoidance. They are buying outside the State for the purpose of avoiding that obligation. The forum requests the Government to ensure that VAT regulations apply to exempt bodies and that they are properly policed to verify that the appropriate rate of VAT is paid on all inter-Community purchases. We also request that the Government examine the anomalies that exist between the VAT that applies to printed products in Northern Ireland and that which is applied in the South.
The Government has invested significant amounts of taxpayers' money in establishing State-funded printing facilities. Many of these facilities are significantly under-utilised and fail to comply with the procedures and practices which exist in a commercial environment. Most of the people employed in these facilities have come from within the public sector. We are rather confused as to why the State continues to direct taxpayers' money towards funding such enterprises at a time when the State's coffers are bare and the printing industry is struggling for its survival. The forum requests that the Government investigate the efficiency and effectiveness of every State-owned printing establishment. In the interest of efficiency and in line with the Government's requirement to reduce public spending, we respectfully suggest that significant savings could be made if a twin strategy of sub-contracting to the private sector and the consolidation of all State-owned printing facilities was explored.
In conclusion, the industry urgently requires immediate political support if it is to survive. A change in policy is all we require to save our industry from extinction. With that in mind, the forum requests that the Government establishes a task force, which would include the State agencies we have mentioned, to assist us in our efforts to save the printing industry.
I thank Mr. Andrews for his presentation. I am delighted to welcome Mr. Johnny O'Hanlon, former editor of the Anglo Celt, a well known newspaper in County Cavan. I will play devil's advocate to an extent to probe some of the comments made by Mr. Andrews. If the industry is in such rapid decline, is it realistic to be setting out an upskilling programme when much of what is happening with some of our production bases is that we are asking how do we reskill people for new jobs? Can we reverse the downward trend that is clearly evident in the sector, not merely in the past 20 months in which there has been a massive shake-out in many traditional manufacturing sectors, but even in the longer term?
Against that background, what is the value of public procurement in the printing area? Do we know how much of a pool is out there? Mr. Andrews quotes a figure of 17.7%, which is staggering and more than ten times the EU pattern. How much of that is in the printing area and how much printing is going off-shore?
When Irish tenders fail, do they get a response as to why they failed? Is it due primarily to cost? What is the scale of cost involved? In terms of the business being lost on public contracts, were Irish printers way out or were they very close to the margin? There used be a margin of 3% on which a Government was permitted to favour a domestic supplier. I do not know whether that is still the case. How far out is the State in that regard?
What is going on in procurement seems bizarre if codes of practice are not being honoured. Can Mr. Andrews give concrete examples of specific contracts where the codes of best practice set out by the Department were ignored? If we are to go to the Minister and haul procurement over the coals, we need specific examples. These will be disputed but at least we can argue on specific cases.
I wish to probe the matter of import substitution. What sort of supports has Mr. Andrews in mind from Enterprise Ireland? Presumably, for the export market, Enterprise Ireland would be looking at a company trying to access foreign markets. There would be very specific competition issues, for example, it would not be two printers side by side who might be chasing the same business where Mr. Andrews would be supporting one over another or supporting both of them to chase the same business. Presumably, Enterprise Ireland can have a self-contained package and state, "Here is a printer trying to get into the French market. Let us try to help him get off the ground." It is not so easy to present the same argument when, effectively, there are dozens of Irish printers with the same capacity to supply the home market. Is Mr. Andrews asking us to support them all in the home market? It seems like quite a departure from the attempt by Government to ring-fence new development as opposed to companies competing with one another. How would one manage that? What sort of supports are envisaged? I can well understand the need for supports, for example, for companies which are merely not well managed and need to improve their management. However, if it comes to more support for further down the production line, I cannot see that being consistent if we are talking about two firms, both of which are based in Ireland and chasing the same piece of business.
The issue of Government sponsored printing intrigues me. I am aware that there are State-run printing facilities in Dáil Éireann and I suppose we are one of the offenders in this respect. On what scale is this evident and has Mr. Andrews studied it? Do large agencies such as the HSE routinely possess in-house printing facilities or is this a significant occurrence? In the Oireachtas I can see how there is a tendency to want to control what is done. It has been consolidated in recent times to try to achieve efficiencies. Perhaps we need to look at ourselves, but that is the system that we have had and there would be many quite wedded to it. On what scale is this being done and what are the policy implications?
Against the background of what Mr. Andrews described, I can well understand how he is looking at every possibility. Can he paint a picture of where the printing and packaging industry could be in a few years' time because there needs to be a development strategy rather than merely a defensive strategy. I worry that there is too much focus on a defensive rather than developmental strategy. Mr. Andrews states the industry's technology is great and its staff are great, but the implication then is that we are being asked to support merely what comes at a higher cost than in other countries. Whether that is a sustainable strategy is what I am sure our friends in Enterprise Ireland, if they were present, would ask.
Mr. Gerry Andews
Deputy Bruton asked me to paint a picture of where we could be. At present, we are a commodity supplier of print and that is where we do not want to be. We have a significant amount of capacity available to us. On the area of IT, for instance, I previously mentioned how we could be aligned with the pharmaceutical sector and the food sector where we could get involved in services such as digital asset management, logistics and web development. If we think of ourselves not as a printing industry but as an industry that is very closely aligned with the communications sector, then moving on towards the upskilling of our staff, who currently are trained only as printers and very limited in the technology in which they have been trained, they have an exposure to technology that will bring them into other industries. We believe that with a combination of a proper training initiative and State support, and a refocussing in terms of where we are positioned as an industry with opportunities to expand as opposed to being the printing industry, we can reposition our industry to a point where we can stabilise the sector and safeguard the 11,000 people who are currently employed.
Are there exemplars who have done that? Are there some who have managed that transition?
Mr. Gerry Andrews
There is one particular company, Printech, for example, which many years ago was a very small organisation employing about ten persons. It focused specifically on producing computer manuals for the computer sector but as that sector was changing, it moved with its client base to a position where now it is part of the DCC chain. It is now called SerCom. It is an international company and it is a logistics company. It buys in printing as part of a service requirement but it is no longer a commodity supplier of print. That is an example of how a very small printing company could reposition itself as an international player supplying logistics to organisations such as Dell. I am not sure how many it employs, but it is an international player.
Other companies have similar capabilities within our sector, except that at this moment the majority of companies are so inclined to worry about survival that they cannot see beyond today. They are not focussing on tomorrow. That is where they need this support from the external players, in order to develop a strategy for tomorrow while they try to survive today.
The one element that is fundamental in all of this is training. I am referring to training from the chief executives of organisations right down to the shop floor. We require training initiatives within our industry in order to identify the opportunities that exist.
Deputy Bruton asked about Enterprise Ireland and the idea of non-competing companies. It would be our intention that we would take companies which provide parallel, but not necessarily crossover, services and which lack scale. When one joins companies with parallel services together, they would then be in a position to compete internationally for contracts that currently they are precluded from going after because they lack that scale.
When I speak of parallel services, there are firms that specialise in areas such as printing, security, logistics and pre-press. A number of different opportunities present themselves within the industry. This would not be appropriate for everyone. However, bearing in mind that our industry has reached the point where if the large players could form alliances such as those I have outlined, this could go some way towards resolving the position. If the industry begins to win some international contracts, the trickle-down effect will be extremely beneficial for the smaller players. There are approximately ten companies that could form an alliance or consortium which would not be in conflict with the rules and regulations laid down by the Competition Authority and which would certainly be of a scale to allow it to pursue international contracts. This has not been tried. I am of the view that we should give it a shot because it is new.
What I have outlined would reposition our industry and bring an international dimension to it. We have complete confidence in our ability to produce quality. Some of the players in our industry have been awarded world-class manufacturing status by Microsoft, Apple, etc. One particular printing company has, for the third consecutive year, been approved as the primary supplier of printed product to Apple. We are up there with the best but we lack scale.
In the context of public procurement, I do not know how much the Government spends and I do not know if the Government itself could provide that information to the Deputy. The system is so fragmented that the different Departments have individual budget holders. The Departments are unaware of what is their annual expenditure in this regard.
We tend to be rigid in our application of the code of practice and of European regulations. The Deputy requested an example. The best and most recent such example I can provide relates to the Revenue Commissioners. Having used an Irish supplier for the past five or six years in respect of the production of their various forms, the Revenue Commissioners chose this year to put a three-year contract out to tender. There is nothing in the European regulations which states that a contract must last three years. There is also nothing in those regulations which states that one must bundle together seven different products and put a single contract — which will last for three years — relating to all seven out to tender. In France and other countries — this is the reason the statistics are in favour of them as opposed to ourselves — seven different contracts, the period relating to which would be one year, would be tendered for by local suppliers. There would be plenty of competition among those suppliers. The idea is to open up competition, not restrict it. However, by denying SMEs access to these contracts, the opportunities for those who are seeking the best possible deal for the Irish taxpayer are being restricted and the prospect of small SMEs competing for such contracts is being reduced.
This is just a flavour of a number of the issues which arise in the context of the questions posed by the Deputy. The issues to which I refer must be dealt with in a significant way. Some of my colleagues may wish to add to what I have said in this regard. Effectively, what we are saying is that——
What is the position with regard to price? I presume the Revenue Commissioners stated that they could obtain much better value by bundling the seven products to which Mr. Andrews refers and putting one contract out to tender. IBEC actually advised the Revenue Commissioners to bundle products because this would make it more economical for people to tender for particular contracts.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
The code of practice issued by Brussels states that decisions to place contracts for tender should not be made on price alone but should rather be in respect of the most economically advantageous tender. The latter requires competition. I suggest that there is not sufficient competition in Ireland because SMEs — which have a low cost base and which are most competitive — are being excluded from the tendering process as a result of the bundling structure that is in place. I also suggest that in the context of a number of the contracts that are currently being awarded, the weighting system is skewed towards price only.
An Irish company must comply with the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act and the working time directive and also with the environmental policies outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I am aware of companies which have won contracts in Ireland and which do not comply with any of these provisions or policies. The decision to award such companies contracts is made on the basis of price alone. There are costs associated with complying with Irish regulations, which, quite rightly, should be the case. However, we are asking that there be a level playing field and that companies supplying into the Irish market must ensure that they comply with the regulations with which their counterparts in this country are obliged to contend.
It would be unusual for an Irish supplier's tender to be even considered unless said supplier could demonstrate full tax compliance. A foreign supplier need only show that it is compliant with the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin Castle. However, such a supplier could be in default in respect of all its tax liabilities in the country in which it is based. No one checks to see whether a Spanish printing company which wins a contract in Ireland is tax compliant in Spain. Once such a company is tax compliant in Ireland, that is fine. Companies of this kind are given the work because they can tender at a lower price. It is easy to offer such prices and win contracts if one is not obliged to comply with the working time directive, the National Minimum Wage Act, environmental policies or tax regulations.
Is there any way in which a weighting system could be applied in respect of those factors? Are our guests suggesting that in order to level the playing field, tenders put forward by companies from other jurisdictions — which are not obliged to ensure they are compliant with the various provisions, policies and regulations to which Mr. Andrews refers — have an adverse weighting applied to them or that a more favourable weighting be given to the tenders offered by their Irish competitors?
Mr. Gerry Andrews
Yes. The opportunity is there because the relevant statutory instrument is quite explicit in respect of what can be included in the weighting. It is the case, however, that Irish officials choose to consider price as the primary concern, which skews matters somewhat. The various other factors, which are all included in the statutory instrument, are excluded in the context of weighting.
Do the guidelines cover the scenario outlined by the Chairman, namely, applying a minimum wage, etc.?
Mr. Gerry Andrews
Absolutely.
Mr. Terry Cummins
One of the major problems we encounter — reference is made to it in the presentation — relates to the application of VAT. As Mr. Andrews stated, this area is not policed in the way it should be. Some of our biggest competition emanates from Northern Ireland. We understand companies there are being given incentives to establish operations. I am dealing with a company at present which was offered incentives in order to entice it to re-establish operations in Northern Ireland. It is now in a position to service the South from its base there. The policing of the area of VAT compliance is not what it should be. The system has been tightened up but in the past — this even happened within our own organisation — suppliers have quoted for business and informed prospective customers that they can source particular products in Northern Ireland and that VAT will not have to be paid in respect of them. That places our members at a complete disadvantage, particularly when one considers the rate of VAT that applies across the Border.
Mr. Andrews stated that the guidelines issued by the Minister for Finance last month should prove beneficial for his organisation's members in the context of public procurement tenders. It is somewhat unfair to blame civil servants for what happens in respect of the tendering process. Mr. Andrews stated that civil servants appear intent on maintaining the status quo and that they will resist the proposed changes. It is my opinion that civil servants have a vested interest in ensuring that jobs are protected. I do not believe we should be placing blame on people who serve the country well. Is it not the case that difficulties arise because civil servants are obliged to adhere to the regulations that are laid down? Perhaps politicians should ensure that such regulations are better defined, that stricter criteria are laid down or that different weightings will apply. Civil servants apply the weightings that are outlined for them. Are our guests’ members receiving enough feedback from civil servants in respect of why their tenders might not be successful? Do civil servants provide information on the number of points scored by particular tender? For example, an Irish company might be awarded 119 points for its tender, while a company from abroad might be awarded 157.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
Absolutely.
In such circumstances, the former would think that was madness and would wonder what was going on.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
The Chairman is correct. The level of feedback is excellent and I would have no criticisms in that regard. I would not criticise at all but all I can do is state the facts. For two and a half years I knocked on every door possible to get people to accept the concept of unbundling contracts and every civil servant I came across told me it was not possible. The committee might see that as a criticism of civil servants but I do not. It is a lack of training and that is acknowledged by the NPS, which says the people available to them require training. It is not as if they learn by osmosis. They are working to a policy they have inherited in many cases. I do not cast any doubt on the sincerity of the individuals but, until proved otherwise, they will maintain the principle of precedent.
Mr. Johnny O’Hanlon
The same applies to the VAT issue. The policing of the issue is the biggest problem. We acknowledge that Departments now recognise and see there are anomalies but we are asking for rigorous policing of them going forward.
Surely if political direction is given, civil servants will obey it.
Mr. Johnny O’Hanlon
We are still hearing anecdotally about contracts from semi-State bodies that are VAT exempt.
I welcome the delegation and I sympathise with the representatives. I come from a different background and, therefore, I do not know much about packaging other than how to open a package. They have provided interesting statistics about what happened in France and other countries. There is a serious anomaly in the Irish statistics. Does this result from a European directive? Are we rigidly working to the directive rather than doing what the French and others are doing?
Mr. Gerry Andrews
We are interpreting the regulations as we see fit. When Pat Cox was President of the European Parliament, I asked him about this and he said the Irish were more Catholic than the Pope.
I wonder.
Mr. Gerry Andrews
I wonder myself. We are at 17.7% and the nearest country to us is Cyprus at 7%. One could argue this forever but up until two years ago the concept of unbundling was absolutely not on the agenda. As a direct result of the Print and Packaging Forum it has been incorporated into the Minister for Finance's guidelines, which were issued last month. I genuinely believe that we are well intentioned but we are misguided.
Yes, but is the forum competitive?
Mr. Gerry Andrews
We stand or fall on our competitiveness and, at the very least, we have to be given an opportunity to compete on an equal playing pitch. If we fail to be competitive, then so be it. We will be out of business.
Was the under bidder for the Revenue contract way out on costs or very close? Did the bidder report back?
Mr. Gerry Andrews
My understanding was there was not an enormous difference in price. I do not have the facts but the contract was worth €300,000. It would be wrong to say the difference was marginal because I do not know but it need not have been a three-year contract or for seven different products.
Let us move away from State contracts to other examples of the nonsense. The design college in Dún Laoghaire is churning out qualified designers on an annual basis. Last year, it put together a contract that comprised the printing and design requirements of the college for three years and it placed the contract with a company from Denmark. We have, therefore, Irish designers designing products for a design college in Dún Laoghaire that is churning out graduates to join the unemployment queue. When I challenged this, I was contacted by the company in Denmark and I was asked to attend a meeting in the Danish embassy because its representatives wanted to defend themselves. I was led to believe they had offices available. However, the Danish ambassador sat in on the meeting and his job as he saw it was to encourage me to help the Danish company win more business in Ireland. I am amused about this because I thought if the roles were reversed, an Irish company would not be afforded the support the Danish company had been afforded. Here we had a situation where Danish designers won a contract for a design college in Dublin that is churning out designers to join the ranks of the unemployed. It just does not make sense. In any other country, each product would be dealt with in isolation and would be the subject of a contract in its own right. It would not have gone to public tender in the first place.
Mr. Terry Cummins
The Deputy referred to us being competitive. In the past, our industry enjoyed the fruits of the computer manual business. There were restrictions on the numbers coming into the industry and the cost of labour was driven up in the industry. I have worked with many companies to reduce their cost base. Of late many employees have taken up to 30% in wage reductions. Few companies have not addressed their wage costs. They are conscious of that and I mentioned cross-Border competition earlier. It is hard to compete with companies in Northern Ireland because they do not have the wage structures we have down here or the same minimum wage. We have difficulties. At one stage they benefitted strongly from the strength of sterling versus the euro and that put many of our companies at a disadvantage. The committee can take it that the companies surviving in this industry have been addressing their competitiveness and no company has failed to reduce its payment structures.
Mr. Johnny O’Hanlon
Deputy Bruton referred to jobs being shed and the wisdom of investing in upskilling. Apart from print, there is pre-press, particularly in the newspaper industry. I represent a large swathe of the regional newspaper industry. We have pre-press rooms in many regional newspapers working three-day weeks. The challenges there are the same as those we have outlined already. There has been a very significant decline in advertising revenues. There are also challenges in terms of circulation and one of the other challenges, which is more medium to long term, is that of the Internet. We do not have what has been publicly perceived as loss of readership, we have migration of readership. People are moving from print to on-line editions of our e-papers. We urgently need upskilling and retraining for our pre-press people to deal with how news and advertising will be presented on the Internet in the future. It is one area we strongly feel needs Government support to stop the very significant haemorrhage of jobs. There have been job losses of between 22% and 27% on the newspaper side in the past 30 months.
Mr. Andrews made a strong presentation, as he did on his previous appearance before the committee. There were 18,000 people employed in the industry and it is worrying that the number is down to 11,000. That downward drift will continue unless significant issues are addressed and interventions are made. He is saying they cannot be allowed to meander because we will again be speaking about an industry that was there.
The representatives have made a valuable contribution and we will follow up their presentation with the relevant agencies. They identified a number of issues, including upskilling, which a sub-committee of the committee has been trying to address. It is a major issue. If we can be accused of anything, it is that we have downplayed the significance of upskilling and retraining. It rolls off the tongue and it stops there but we must take meaningful action. The witnesses have suggested a number of positive solutions. The unbundling of contracts seems to be a key issue. I have a view that we always want to be the best Europeans on the stage. While one can understand this attitude at certain points in our membership, we have been behaving like this for a long time. Some of our colleagues in the European Union do not adhere to the letter of the law with the same degree of fervour as we do. The Government should give serious consideration to your proposals. This committee will certainly contact the Minister for Finance, who has a major role in this matter. We acknowledge that the recently issued guidelines make some positive contribution. It would be churlish not to do so. However, we are all interested in protecting jobs and we should all put our shoulders to the wheel. I congratulate the Print and Packaging Forum on its efforts in this regard. Thank you, Mr. Anderson, Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Cummins for coming here today and assisting us in our deliberations.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.40 p.m. until noon on Tuesday, 5 October 2010.