Priority Questions.
30 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason for his decision to revamp the State’s employment rights system and review labour legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18238/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraSince the setting up of the Labour Court almost 60 years ago, structures and systems have evolved in an ad hoc manner to the extent that there are now seven bodies and 25 Acts operating in the employment rights and industrial relations area. The evolution of a large body of employment rights legislation has led to the current system, which can be complex and costly, with duplication of functions as well as divergences in procedures and remedies.
Arising out of a commitment in the programme for Government 2002-07, a review group on the functions of the employment rights bodies was established. This was the first ever review of the role and relationships of the employment rights bodies and their adjudication and enforcement frameworks. On 24 May I announced that the Government had agreed a programme of action in response to the report and recommendations of the review group and my subsequent consultations with the various interested parties. I am confident the programme of action will improve considerably the levels of customer service that the various employment rights bodies can offer to those using the dispute resolution services. It will also facilitate the simplification and modernisation of procedures, providing greater transparency and ease of access.
The consolidation of the large corpus of legislation in this area, when coupled with the legislative proposals emerging from the work of the employment rights group which is to be established, will enhance the coherence and user-friendliness of the employment rights adjudication and enforcement system and be of benefit to all.
Why has the Minister decided to proceed with the review at this juncture, and from where did the initial suggestion come? What was the original source of the suggestion that this review was necessary, notwithstanding that it was in the programme for Government 2002-07? There is not universal approval from all practitioners in the field, nor is there full agreement on the process by which the Minister is proceeding. What is the precise problem?
None of us would expect to get full approval. When I was appointed seven or eight months ago one of the first documents I received concerned the recommendation arising from the review group. I held consultations with representatives of the various bodies concerned and with the social partners. There was not complete support for the proposals and there was concern about the next phase, the proposed setting up of an implementation group. In view of that I sought to have an independent assessment of the initial reports carried out. This was done by the former Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Kevin Bonner, who also carried out consultations with the bodies involved and made some changes to the initial recommendations.
At this stage, they command a considerable level of support. The initial reason for establishing the review group was the strong belief that considerable difficulty is experienced by people who have to access the system due to the fact that there are seven bodies and 25 pieces of legislation. Complications arise from that position, including cost factors.
One of the bodies charged with implementing the legislation is the Employment Appeals Tribunal. I have received correspondence from the chairman of that tribunal, Ms Kate T. O'Mahony, stating: "The proposed change, if implemented, would have far reaching effects, would downgrade the rights of dismissed employees, and relegate Ireland to the lower echelons among the European member states in terms of its protection of its employment rights." How does the Minister of State reconcile those comments from the chairman of the Employment Appeals Tribunal with what he is proposing to do?
I am aware of the concerns expressed by Deputy Hogan and I am also aware that there are many divergent views on this matter. Nevertheless, the overarching concern of Government must be to ensure that the system is fair and accessible to everybody at reasonable cost. The proposals arising from the review by Mr. Bonner are considerably more acceptable to many of the bodies than had been the case with the original proposals.
Some time ago there was a recommendation to abolish the Employment Appeals Tribunal and deal directly with such cases through a rights commissioner at the Labour Court. Does the Minister of State agree, however, that a one-stop-shop mechanism might be more appropriate to deal with all these issues, rather than the half-way house recommended in Mr. Bonner's report? If the Minister of State is so concerned about rationalisation of the Act and the procedure, why is he retaining all the various existing layers, including the rights commissioner, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Labour Court?
There are two elements to the proposal, one of which is consolidation of the legislation. It is an important job, which, I understand, will take 18 months to two years. It is worth doing in any event. The original proposal was for the amalgamation of the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Labour Court, but it did not find a lot of favour. Following Mr. Bonner's review, it was felt that a more appropriate mechanism would be to refer cases in the first instance to a rights commissioner and, subsequently, on appeal, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, as appropriate. That system serves the function of which Deputy Hogan extols the value, effectively providing a one-stop-shop for the person initiating a claim. It brings considerably more clarity to the entire system.
31 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the Government’s views on the recently published report of the consumer strategy group; the reason he has decided to embark on another consultation process in regard to below-cost selling; when this process will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18119/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Government welcomes the report of the consumer strategy group which was published on 18 May 2005. The report contains over 30 separate recommendations involving a variety of Departments and agencies. The Government accepts the core recommendation in the CSG report and has approved, in principle, the establishment of a new national consumer agency.
The Government intends to ensure that the new agency is up and running as soon as possible and to that end my Department has commenced the necessary legislative and organisational work to establish the NCA. In the interim, I am appointing a board to the new agency, which will act in an interim capacity until the NCA is established on a statutory footing. The interim board will immediately begin planning for the final structure and organisation of the fully-fledged national consumer agency.
As regards the other recommendations contained in the CSG report, the Government has agreed to establish a high level interdepartmental committee to examine the recommendations and to report back with a detailed implementation plan within three months.
One of the group's recommendations — the proposal that the groceries order be abolished entirely — has, not unexpectedly attracted a significant amount of interest. This is an important recommendation both for business and consumer interests. The issues to which the groceries order give rise are complex. The CSG report, while coming down in favour of the revocation of the groceries order in its entirety, also recognises that there is well-founded argumentation on both sides of the debate.
It is probably well funded as well.
The report advances new material and arguments in support of its recommendation to revoke the order. It is also the first time since the groceries order was first introduced in the 1950s that its operation has been examined from a uniquely consumer perspective. It is only sensible and prudent policy-making to give all those with an interest in the matter the opportunity to comment on the CSG findings.
In all those circumstances, I decided that careful and serious consideration of the CSG arguments and recommendation was warranted before deciding what action would be appropriate on the order. Accordingly, I decided to invite the views of all interested parties, not just on the recommendation to revoke the order but also on what, if anything, should replace the order.
The consultation process is under way and submissions are invited before 31 July 2005. Following this consultation period, I will take all views into account before deciding what action is appropriate. In the event that it is decided to change the status of the order, primary legislation will be needed.
We now know the views of virtually everyone in the country, except the Minister, on the groceries order. We know the views of the Oireachtas committee, Opposition Deputies who spoke on it and the consumer strategy group. We have not, however, heard the views of the Minister who has responsibility for this matter. Does the Minister accept that he has garnered for himself in a number of Departments a reputation for always being a report away from a hard decision? Will he tell the House his thoughts and views on the value or otherwise of maintaining the groceries order?
I reject the Deputy's assertion about previous ministerial duties I occupied, including education and science, and health and children. I was the first Minister in 30 years to begin the process of abolishing health boards. The decision to do so through legislation was my decision, despite all the opposition from those on health boards.
Not least the Minister's own people on health boards.
Yes, I acknowledge that, but I still took the decision. The smoking ban was also my decision.
Fair play to the Minister.
I took decisions on other matters as well.
I do not think things have improved since he did.
In making decisions, I believe that one must take on board what people have to say. To be frank, although it might be inappropriate for me to say so, I think it was too soon for the Oireachtas committee——
The Minister should speak his mind.
——to arrive at a conclusion prior to the publication of the consumer strategy group's report.
The Minister had the report for six months.
I did not have it for six months.
He had it for three or four months anyway.
In the context of the groceries order, it raises a number of points——
Can we have the Minister's opinion now?
——particularly the issue of net invoice discounting.
Does the Minister have a view?
The Oireachtas Committee would do well to re-evaluate and re-examine it.
What about the Minister's view?
I will not pre-empt the outcome of the consultation period.
Is the Minister under pressure from the Progressive Democrats?
Not at all, I have an open mind on this matter. There is a number of factors to take on board, not least the interests of consumers, which is a key issue. There are also the issues of primary producers, suppliers and the impact on industry. I will allow the consultation process to take place. The consumer strategy group has advanced cogent arguments. Those who are opposed to the revocation of the order will have to come up with strong arguments on the issue.
I feel a compromise coming up.
We will have to respond in a meaningful way to the points that have been raised by the consumer strategy group, not least that, to date, everyone has concentrated on the revocation of the order only. There are other issues that the CSG raised which deserve serious consideration.
Deputy Hogan is right to say that there is a compromise brewing. Does the Minister accept that the groceries order involves a uniquely consumer perspective or does he accept that the order also involves other vital perspectives, such as good planning? Does the Minister agree with the consumer strategy group's recommendation that local authorities should interpret the retail planning guidelines in a manner that promotes competition and that is consistent across all local authority areas? Alternatively, would the Minister share my view that different interpretations might be more appropriate for different locations?
The needs of cities such as Dublin, Cork or Galway are different from those of towns like Wexford, Mullingar and Tralee. Therefore, the best interpretation of what is appropriate to maintain the heart of towns and accessible shopping precincts is better understood by the local community. That is why we have the concept of local government, as opposed to centralised Government, to make planning decisions.
I am glad the Deputy has acknowledged that there are other perspectives to the groceries order issue. I initiated the consultation process to allow those other perspectives to have an input into future decisions on it.
I am trying to elicit the Minister's view.
On the point the Deputy raised concerning planning, I agree with the consumer strategy group's broad recommendation that planning authorities should not impede competition and should never utilise planning as a vehicle for impeding competition. On behalf of the State and the Oireachtas, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issues planning guidelines on a range of issues. The Oireachtas often concurs with the issuing to all local authorities of broad guidelines which could relate to social housing, housing in general, the retail area and so on. While local considerations must be considered, planning should never be used as a way to stop competition.
32 Mr. Healy asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the steps he has taken and intends to take to address the serious unemployment levels in Carrick-on-Suir; the steps which have been taken by the industrial agencies to bring industry to the town, including the number of site visits to the town by these agencies for prospective industrialists; and if he will establish a jobs task force to address the jobs crisis in the town. [18179/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraSupport for job creation and investment on a regional or local basis comes within the remit of the industrial development agencies, IDA Ireland, which is actively marketing individual areas as a location for additional foreign direct investment, and Enterprise Ireland, which concentrates on the development of indigenous industries, with the 35 city and county enterprise boards having primary responsibility for the regional promotion of indigenous industry in the micro-enterprise sector. Under the Industrial Development Acts, I may give general policy directives to IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland but I am precluded from giving directives regarding individual undertakings or from giving preference to one area over others.
The latest quarterly household survey published by the Central Statistics Office on 2 March 2005 shows that the unemployment rate in the south east was 5.6%. While this figure is above the national average, which is now down to4.3%, it is a significant decrease on the figure in the previous quarterly household survey which showed unemployment at 6.2% in the region. In addition, the numbers on the live register in south Tipperary fell from 3,733 in April 2004 to 3,275 in April 2005. The corresponding figures for Carrick-on-Suir show a reduction from 942 to 914, which reflects a positive trend.
FÁS is assisting those who are unemployed to join or re-enter the labour force by offering skills analysis, training and retraining programmes and a job placement service. A full-time local employment service office operates in Carrick-on-Suir. FÁS also sponsors a jobs club in the enterprise centre in the town. This latter initiative is aimed at increasing the skills levels of those concerned. The agency also works closely with the Carrick-on-Suir RAPID steering committee. RAPID is a special designation project for areas of high deprivation aimed at establishing innovative actions which aid growth and social and economic inclusion in the designated areas.
IDA Ireland supports two overseas companies in Carrick-on-Suir. While it has not hosted any recent site visits by prospective investors to Carrick-on-Suir, there have been 11 such visits to the surrounding area in the past 12 months. However, ultimately it is the investor who decides where to locate a project, including what areas to visit as potential locations. The announcement in May 2004 by Guidant Corporation of a 1,000-person job expansion at its Clonmel plant should have considerable knock-on benefits in terms of other investment and employment opportunities for people in the immediate vicinity and surrounding areas, including those living in Carrick-on-Suir.
Enterprise Ireland, EI, also continues to promote job creation in south Tipperary. Its job creation activity is focused on the creation of new jobs through supporting entrepreneurs setting up new high potential start-up companies, the retention and creation of new jobs in existing companies and on enhancing the innovation capability of Ireland at a national and regional level through support of research in companies and third level institutions. In the past three years, EI made payments of more than €4.5 million to client companies in south Tipperary to assist them with development projects.
Since its inception, the Tipperary South Riding County Enterprise Board, CEB, has assisted 40 micro-enterprises in the Carrick-on-Suir area and has provided more than €448,000 in grant assistance resulting in the creation of 67 jobs in Carrick-on-Suir.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In addition to providing direct financial assistance, the Tipperary South Riding CEB also provides non-financial assistance such as advice, mentoring and a broad range of training programmes which are beneficial to either prospective entrants or established participants in the micro-enterprise sector. In the period since 1993, a total of 110 people from the Carrick-on-Suir area have participated in a range of management development courses held by the Tipperary South Riding CEB in Carrick-on-Suir, including courses in starting a business, web design, front office skills and information technology training. In addition, enterprises from Carrick-on-Suir have also participated in courses run in other areas of the region such as Clonmel. Any further initiatives in job creation should be addressed at local level in co-operation with the county development board where the industrial development agencies are already involved. This would be in line with the position adopted in other areas of the country.
It appears from the Minister's reply that he can tell us what is happening everywhere except in Carrick-on-Suir. He has told us the position in south Tipperary and in the south east generally. It seems the Minister will not accept that a persistently high level of unemployment in the town of Carrick-on-Suir is serious or indicates a crisis. Since the Government came to power in 1997, an unemployment problem of this magnitude has existed in Carrick-on-Suir. It is a town of 5,000 people with more than 900 unemployed. That represents an unemployment rate of close to 20%, close to four times the national average — a million miles away from 5.6%, or indeed 6.2%, in the south east. Does the Minister accept that this is a serious situation and that regardless of whatever has happened in the south east or in south Tipperary, a particular problem regarding unemployment and job creation exists in Carrick-on-Suir? As Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister has a responsibility to ensure that every area gets its fair share of investment and job creation. As Carrick-on-Suir has persisted as a blackspot area in this regard, would it be opportune for the Minister to establish a task force for the town to ensure that it avails of job creation and investment?
I do not wish to be adversarial, but the surest way of turning foreign direct investment away from an area is to label it a blackspot. Anything I said in my reply did not understate any difficulties there may be in Carrick-on-Suir in terms of creating employment. If we want to attract foreign direct investment to a particular location, we should avoid headlines or titles using the term "blackspot" because that does nothing for the area and nothing to enhance its prospects for attracting jobs and employment.
The south east is relevant. Everything I said in the reply is relevant because it impacts on Carrick-on-Suir. Between 2005 and 2010, IDA Ireland will bring 1,000 jobs to Clonmel, jobs which are just beginning to arrive. It is ridiculous to suggest that the success of IDA Ireland in attracting an investment of that size and quality to Clonmel, which is about 14 miles from Carrick-on-Suir, will not have an impact on Carrick-on-Suir's unemployment figures. It defies logic.
It has not had an impact.
I suggest to the Deputy that in the context of the Guidant Corporation investment or other investments in the area, the State agencies, in particular FÁS, the training agencies and the Tipperary Institute, should look at ways in which we can ensure that a significant proportion of the population in Carrick-on-Suir is in a position to access the jobs bring created in companies like Guidant. I will work with the Deputy, local interests and the State agencies to see if we can ensure that this happens. Through FÁS, Enterprise Ireland and the country enterprise board, we will continue to work on training and education to achieve a higher work participation rate in employment for people living in Carrick-on-Suir, and to build more employment to the area, either through indigenous companies, by attracting new companies or expanding the facilities in companies already located in the area.
We must be factual and cannot bury our heads in the sand. When nearly 1,000 people are unemployed in a town of 5,000 people, that is a serious situation. Will the Minister meet a deputation from Carrick-on-Suir Town Council to discuss the matter?
I will consult the Deputy and other Deputies in the area on the matter rather than meet only a town council delegation.
Will the Minister meet a deputation from Carrick-on-Suir?
I will talk to the Deputy afterwards about the best way to approach the matter.
33 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his views on whether it would be appropriate for Ireland to set itself a target for a reduction in administrative and regulatory burdens on small business along the lines of the model recently introduced by the Dutch Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18239/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra265 Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will consider bringing forward legislation or plans to cut the growing costs of regulation on business such as is being planned in the UK with the Regulatory Reform Bill; if clear targets for such reductions in red tape as was adopted in the Netherlands will be introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17817/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 265 together.
While centrally, the better regulation issue is being driven by the Department of the Taoiseach and the better regulation group, I support any initiative aimed at keeping to a minimum the administrative and regulatory burdens on small business in Ireland. The Taoiseach launched the Government's White Paper on better regulation in January 2004 which sets out Government policies and an action plan for improving the quality of regulation as well as the regulatory process in the coming years. Many of the provisions in the White Paper replicate the approach being taken at EU level and in other member states.
As the primary regulator of business and of the workforce, my Department is well aware of the need for the best possible regulation as well as the continuing need for lighter and more focused laws. In this regard I am anxious to ensure that my Department's activities in reforming existing legislation and introducing new legislation conform with the principles of better regulation as set out in the White Paper. I am also aware of the recent report prepared for the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which recommended a proactive approach to reducing regulation in the economy and that some consideration should be given to adopting an approach whereby specific targets would be set for reducing regulation within a specified timeframe. My Department is considering its response to this report.
While there is merit in monitoring the better regulation agenda in the Netherlands and in other member states, that is a matter for all Departments to take on board, and the Taoiseach's Department, which convenes the better regulation co-ordinating group, can assist that process across Government and regulatory bodies. My Department will assist that process with a view to reducing regulatory burdens, where possible. The best way forward is through implementing the specific actions set out in the Government White paper. I have instituted a review and regulatory impact analysis of the directors' compliance statement at section 45 of the Companies Act 2003. In addition, my Department is currently engaged in a number of other projects designed to improve the current regulatory environment, including the fundamental restructuring, consolidation and reform of existing company law; the modernisation of consumer legislation, with a view to producing a single modern Act to replace the broad set of legislation currently in force; a new safety, health and welfare at work Bill, which will set a new health and safety legal code for the next ten to 15 years; and the restatement of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-1993, which will include all amendments to the Unfair Dismissals Acts in an up to date document.
The Government has agreed a programme of action in response to the report and recommendations of the review group on the role and functions of the employment rights bodies, which includes the harmonisation and consolidation of business employment rights legislation.
It is precisely because the Taoiseach launched the document on better regulation in January 2004, but did nothing since that I asked this question. It is all very fine for the Minister to stand here and say what is in the Government White Paper. We know what is in it, but nothing has happened.
The Minister stands accused of imposing additional regulatory burdens on small businesses in recent years. The fact that he has acknowledged there is a problem means he, as part of the Government, has been somewhat responsible for some of these additional regulatory burdens on small businesses. In light of the problem in terms of the regulatory burden on small businesses in particular, will he set a target for the Government to reduce the administrative and legislative burdens in the same way as the Dutch Government did?
I do not accept that nothing has been done. I have already outlined the programme of work under my Department, which dovetails with the recommendations of the White Paper, in particular the consolidation and simplification of existing legislation dating back over a long period. We are codifying, consolidating and simplifying that legislation for the benefit of those who come under its ambit.
I do not have a difficulty with the thrust of the Deputy's position. I intend to look at the area of small business and micro-enterprise specifically. In that context I can take on board the regulatory burden on small business in particular and the best ways to effect a reduction of that and make a proper evaluation of its impact on our competitiveness.
The Minister was warned about the compliance statement and the difficulties it would have for directors when the legislation was going through the Oireachtas, but he chose to bulldoze his way through this.
I was not in the Department then.
I know that, but I understand corporate governance still holds, although I am not sure about that at times. I am glad the Minister agrees with the report of the Oireachtas committee on this occasion although he may not have the same agreement with Deputy Howlin's questions on another Oireachtas committee report. In the Oireachtas committee report, in advance of the Minister's thinking on the issue — in order to prod him along — we have set the route towards ensuring that there will be less regulation and a more benign environment for small businesses. Will the Minister agree to come before the Oireachtas committee at the earliest opportunity to discuss the contents of that report and to respond as quickly as possible?
Which report does the Deputy mean?
The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business report. Will he come to the committee to tease out some of the difficulties small businesses have before he comes to any conclusions with his company law review group on the review currently going on in his Department?
Given the respect I have for the Oireachtas committee and the appreciation I have of its view, I will gladly discuss that issue with it, subject to commitments. However, I will ensure I do it before the recess.
The review of the compliance directive is a good example of Government listening rather than ploughing ahead. Collectively the Government has taken the decision to listen to what people have said on this. There is a fine balance to be struck in dealing with this. On any day here Deputies jump up and down if something breaks with regard to banking or some scandal emerges. People say we need accountability and compliance, which we do.
This difficulty is not about big businesses and corporations.
We are trying to strike a balance between accountability, good governance and good behaviour on the one hand and on the other, a flexible business-friendly environment that allows people get on and be productive and efficient. The country has a good reputation for the latter, which is important in terms of the attraction of foreign direct investment, particularly in key sectors of the economy where we have been successful in bringing in international mobile investment into the country. We do not want to undermine our capacity to do that into the future and our decision to review the legislation is part of that. The Minister of State in the Department will deal with the company law review and I will alert him to the Deputy's feelings on the matter.
34 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his plans to take action on foot of his Department’s recent publication of the Irish Electricity Market — Principal Challenges discussion paper; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18381/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn February this year my Department published a paper on the electricity market as part of the Department's policy to highlight competitiveness issues. The paper was written from an enterprise policy perspective and is intended as a contribution to the elaboration of an overall national energy policy.
With regard to the electricity market, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural resources has initiated a review of the electricity market sector. This review will examine the institutional arrangements and market structures and assess their appropriateness. The impetus for this review stems from the perceived difficulties relating to the ESB's dominance and the need to attract new entrants and develop competition in the sector. The paper prepared by my Department will contribute to this review.
I thank the Minister for his response. One of the key findings of the Department's report was that the ESB's market share in electricity generation should reach a 60% market share by 2005, but currently its share stands at 83% of the market. If current trends are maintained, by 2007 its market share will still be around 75%. Is the Minister in discussion with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Taoiseach and his predecessor in the Department, on this matter with regard to competitiveness and related issues?
With regard to the nuts and bolts of the effect of the lack of competition in the electricity market, we have seen a change of situation from the mid-1990s, ten years ago, where Ireland had among the lowest electricity prices for industry in Europe to a position where, for the past five years, we are among the three highest in Europe; only Italy and Cyprus are higher. In terms of competitiveness this is felt most markedly among the food and beverage, the pharmachem and electronic sectors of industry, which are responsible for more than half the money spent by industry on energy costs, even though they are the mainstay of employment here and are responsible for more than three-quarters of the gross value added of goods produced here. On those terms, is the Minister seeking to initiate a Cabinet debate on the issue? What legal mechanisms exist, for him or the Government, to bring the ESB in line with what is a voluntary commitment on its part in reaching a 60% market share by this year?
The document my Department produced is a contribution to the debate and, in particular, to the review the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has initiated. My Department has no responsibility for how the market is structured, how it evolved or how it can be reformed and developed. Control of these issues has been transferred to an independent energy regulator and that must be accepted. Also, in terms of the strategic developments in the market, EU directives govern that development.
That said, our concern and that of Government is the impact on competitiveness. The Deputy is correct to draw attention to the deteriorating competitiveness position in terms of energy pricing that we have witnessed over the past five or six years. There are counter arguments as to why this happened. Various arguments have been put forward by the ESB and others citing, for example, the historic under investment in both the generating and transmission infrastructure over a 20 or 30 year period. That is one argument cited for the rapid investment in recent times. The ESB has been trying to ensure that capacity is at a level that meets the significant rise in demand that has occurred as a result of the very dramatic growth in the economy over the past five or six years.
We are conscious that the cost of electricity for an Irish industrial user is approximately 40% above that of a similar UK firm. That is a matter of serious concern to the Government. It is obvious the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources had that clearly within his sights when he initiated the review. He is conscious of the concerns. It is obvious the members of the Government work collectively and coherently on issues of this nature, which are of national importance.
I accept that the Minister's role does not involve making decisions on how the electricity market is structured. However, I would like him to express his opinion on whether the 60% target can be achieved. Is there a need for specific legal mechanisms to help to meet the target? Is the Minister prepared to discuss the need for such mechanisms with his Government colleagues? All we have received from the ESB is a voluntary commitment. Not only do we need reviews of this nature so that debate can be generated, but we also need the Government to make decisions on the measures needed to bring about this eventuality.
I think I have answered the Deputy's query. Given that the current rate is 83%, it is clear that we are nowhere near achieving the target, which involves the ESB having a 60% share of the electricity generation market. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has initiated a comprehensive review to ascertain whether we can add new elements to the existing infrastructure and policy framework and free up the market to an increased extent. The initiatives taken — we have appointed an independent energy regulator, for example — have not resulted in reduced prices.
