Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for this opportunity to respond. I thank Senators Denis Landy and Ivana Bacik for tabling this motion.

I share the shock at the way this matter was handled. Several members of Government went on record to express their horror at the way matters were handled. Very exceptionally, the IDA also indicated that in its experience this was completely out of character with what was normal behaviour by companies who, as was said, had been supported by Government.

I will examine the issue of extending the period of cover. None the less, it must be said that this was an exceptional case. The instinct to an exception should not be to create a new law that could be perceived, interpreted and presented as being very restrictive or undermining the pitch we have. This was definitely an exceptional approach by any company. The standard approach is like that taken by Johnson & Johnson and, as Senator Mary White said, that ample time is given to the IDA to examine the options, for workers to consider their options and for opportunities to promote a facility to alternative employers. We all live in the real world. We know that businesses, for one reason or another, move on. Things change and companies have to make changes. The issue is how we handle that and how the IDA, as an agent of Government, is respected and given the opportunity to find alternative employment and uses for a facility. The immediate instinct is to change the law dramatically and put measures in place. We need to examine the pros and cons of that but I will closely examine that request.

The point made by Senator Landy about Merck Sharp & Dohme and the educational mismatch was well made. We have a challenge here, and it extends well beyond my brief in that many of the new employment opportunities which are undoubtedly coming to a small, export-oriented country, whether they be through IDA companies or Enterprise Ireland, EI, companies, are increasingly seeking analytical, software and engineering skills, which perhaps in recent years, because of the property bubble, were inclined to drift away. I do not want to make adverse comments on legal or other professions that grew but a small open economy that needs to make its living by trading has to examine the educational underpinnings of that. All of us, whether it be as parents, pupils, teachers or policymakers, need to take that on board.

With regard to availing of the globalisation fund, I have alerted my colleague in the Department of Education and Skills to this matter and this is an opportunity to avail of it. It is handled by that Department. MEPs have been in touch with me and we will explore that fully.

An issue raised by Senator Landy and others is whether there is a level playing field between indigenous companies and IDA companies. A level playing field operates. The reason they were separated in the first place is that typically the need of an indigenous company and the need of a multinational are entirely different. Multinationals do not come looking for our help to find export markets or help with their marketing or product development. That is not what they generally come here for. They have ready-made strengths in many of those areas. The reason EI was developed separately and given a different suite of policies was because indigenous companies have different needs. They need start-up money, management support and support to enter export markets for the first time. There is a different suite of policies in place and comparison cannot be directly made between the two. However, in the case of call centres, for example, the policy has been that they will only be supported if they are creating a new market or playing into an export market. A call centre solely servicing domestic needs is not likely to receive grant support because of the displacement argument. Where an indigenous or an overseas company is opening up a new market, it becomes eligible for support. I am assured by the agencies involved that there is a protocol between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland that the same principles and levels of support apply, but it is based on whether the market being opened up is a new market for the country or whether the company is simply competing for an internal market. That is the distinction drawn in the policy. However, I will respond to the Senator's concern.

The point made about self-employed cover is well made. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, is examining this issue in the context of the commission she has established.

The issue of the IDA and its deployment of resources obviously arose in our discussions in Waterford. Mr. Barry O'Leary who was present stoutly maintained that the IDA was not downgrading Waterford in any sense. It has an office there with five staff and the previous regional manager is working within the area. Staff are deployed with reference to both the regional and the sectoral strengths. The change in the IDA for many years has resulted in more people being put on the front line, working with companies with particular specialties to support them in selling abroad or in opening up new opportunities. This involved a change in regional structures which had traditionally been more geared to the local economy and advance factories. The changing environment in which it operated changed the thrust of policy.

The agency's decisions are made on the basis of the best use of its resources to win employment opportunities for all the regions. It has a mandate, whereby 50% of employment opportunities should be created outside the Dublin and Cork regions. The reason we decided to draw up a south-east employment action plan was that Waterford was not doing as well as it should be within that mandate. That has been very clear, not only in the unemployment figures, but also in the figures for employment growth in the area. We must examine why that is the case and whether we can better manage our portfolio of companies. There was criticism when we were in Waterford that the level of contact and support for indigenous companies was not sufficient. Therefore, we must examine this issue. We are looking at what can be done across the board and assessing the strengths of the south-east region.

I reject Senator Cullinane's view that we are in some way hollowing out legislation. The reason we have reformed the joint labour committee, JLC, system is simply that the system was designed in the 1940s when there was a completely different environment. We must have legislation that supports the challenges of a modern economy. This has been recognised in many ways. Some of the elements built into it were anomalous and nobody would defend them. The reform agenda was drawn up by people with immense experience in this area. The call for radical reform came from experts in the field. This is not some sort of-----