Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. I acknowledge Senator White’s encouragement in the progress we are making. She rightly highlights emigration as a continuing challenge. The figures show that for the past couple of years net migration, which is a fairer measure, has been approximately 34,000. The trend is predominantly Irish net migration now whereas in the earlier phases many who came in here in the boom time left. If we can maintain employment creation at the level of approximately 70,000 since the last quarter of 2012, which is double the net migration number, there will be employment opportunities. We are beginning to see options for people who previously had no option but to emigrate.

The Senator rightly remarks that some people who have jobs go. Having met many people on trade missions overseas, one wonders why they do. Many of them are given responsibility at an earlier age when they go abroad. There is a pull factor in being able to assume responsibility at an early age. There are different forces exercising others, who have been forced out particularly by the collapse of the construction industry.

Senator White also made interesting points about the need to create an entrepreneurial environment in the public service. That is a real challenge. We are heading in that direction. In my area we have tried to create, through the Action Plan for Jobs, a recognition of success. Every quarter we report on what has been delivered. The staff do not earn a profit as a result but those who deliver change and achieve targets are recognised within the system. We need to celebrate that success and measure it, as Senator Barrett says, and use it to deliver real reform. It is changing the way business is done.

Over the years I have seen many very ambitious reports or plans published but with no real accountability when things went wrong. This time we are at least making every agency accountable for its piece of the jigsaw, measuring its success and questioning why it fails. It may not always be a case of someone not making the best effort he or she could. That is an answer to the criticism that Senator Barrett outlined of a public service that does not answer or analyse, or makes adjustments only at the margins. That is changing but it will not change overnight.

In my area of clear vision, the Action Plan for Jobs, and the process of quarterly reports, does change the environment within which people work. I recognise that there is frustration among public servants. There has been little recruitment in the public service for many years. Opportunities for progression have been limited. One of the casualties of the recession has been the lack of new blood coming in, which has been affected by the sort of changes we have had to make. We need to address that over time.

In response to Senator Ó Clochartaigh, to be fair to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, it has in the past 12 months approved our putting new feet on the ground for the Industrial Development Authority, IDA, in specific overseas markets, in the same way it has allowed us send front-line people overseas for Enterprise Ireland. It has also agreed to allow us have graduate recruitment in local enterprise offices. Some flexibility is emerging, which has been hard won but it makes it possible to be more innovative. We all abuse the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but it is trying to achieve things.

That brings me to Senator Landy’s point about centralisation, which is a tricky one. The notion of centralisation is the concept of shared services. It should be easier to deliver a high quality service in one location than to have it administered separately in different areas. He rightly says the principle might have been good but sometimes the practice has not been as good as we would like. To be fair to Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, I have not heard anything like as many complaints this year as there were in year one. Some of these matters are a learning curve. I can understand his points on medical cards because local discretion was a factor. People knew the families and that made a difference. It is harder to do that when there is a shared service in one location. That is a real challenge. The Government does need to examine that system.

Senators Landy and Barrett were very critical of Irish Water. It is genuine reform. They might not like it but creating a State agency that has the capacity to raise its own money because it has a revenue stream is genuine reform. We can invest in a water system we are unable to invest in at the moment because of the constraints on public borrowing. If we create a commercial State body that considers the whole water infrastructure as a single unit, can borrow independently, and be accountable to this House to show that it is delivering and meeting its targets, that is logical good reform and accountability. It will have to be accountable to Senators and committees. It will face challenges in showing that it can deliver. The system has not been delivering.

Senators Cummins and Landy rightly raised the situation of Bausch and Lomb. It is a very tough day for the workers affected. The company was acquired at the end of last year and has been restructuring in its US plant and is now restructuring in the Irish plant. It is working to a different cost model, seeking to build its market. It believes that it has identified a significant cost disparity between the operations in Waterford, in the US and elsewhere in Ireland. It says that cost differential must be dealt with in order for it to invest. That is the company’s decision and it means some job losses and negotiations to bring down costs. That will be difficult to do. I hope both sides can engage constructively to save the maximum number of jobs. Government stands ready to invest in a future development bringing in new production lines, processes and research capability. We have been working with the company over months to try to get the very best outcome we can for the plant and for Waterford. I hope we can achieve a good outcome there despite the grim news today.

On the wider issue of Waterford, I recognise what Senators Cummins and Landy have said. The south east generally has been a real problem area. After the closure of TalkTalk we created a south east action group. We have worked relentlessly and I have focused the work of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland on the area. We have had some significant successes with investments. There is a pipeline of projects we are trying to get across the line. No action is being spared. For the first time in many years there is an advanced facility being built in Waterford, as well as those in Letterkenny and Athlone. We recognise that we need to do different things in the regions to get the sort of spread we need.

We have put a big effort into getting the local enterprise offices embedded in local authorities, which are the most powerful regional tools. Senator Landy recognised that they are the most powerful regional organisations that we have and it is correct to embed the enterprise process within them. I know there has been criticism of that but if we can get the powerful resource of local authorities behind enterprise development, we can maximise the potential impact on the retail and other sectors.

Start-ups are the driver of growth. In the most difficult period between 2006 and 2011, when the rest of the economy shed 400,000 jobs, start-ups created 100,000 jobs. In the face of a blizzard, so to speak, many people started businesses and created those 100,000 jobs. How much better could we perform in a much more benign environment if we get it right? We are seeking to do that through the local enterprise offices, and regional aid has been recently reinstated. Having been under European Commission pressure to dilute regional aid, we have been able to hang on to it as a powerful tool for regional development. I share the view of Senators, including Senator Ó Clochartaigh, that we must focus on regional development in a well thought out manner. It will be a really important debate.

Senator Barrett asked why we are not quantifying savings. There has been a reduction in all our staffing, which has impacted on Forfás and the Department. Many of the potential savings have been taken out through attrition, essentially, and in a period of diminishing resources we are trying to align those resources to have the maximum impact on the challenge of employment. That is why I have always believed we need a stronger policy capability with the Department and the relationship with our agencies should be one of greater equality of strength. We can achieve that by bringing Forfás within the Department. In doing so we can hold our agencies to account, develop policy with a broader perspective and do everything mentioned by the Senator.

I give Senator Ó Clochartaigh an assurance that I am absolutely determined that independence will be maintained and research will be independently published. That tradition has existed in various evaluation bodies within the Department but we have also strengthened the National Competitiveness Council, which has an independent right of publication and audience to the Cabinet committee. It is a strengthened body which will act as a guarantor, meaning it has a role in ensuring the Government is accountable.

It is disappointing that IDA Ireland has not been able to hit investment targets but that has not come from a lack of resources. It is the one body we have protected in this period and there has been no diminution in its resources. There is the issue of locating mobile investment and why there is a focus on certain locations, and it is a complex matter. IDA Ireland is evaluating foreign direct investment strategy for the future and it is considering whether there are sectors other than those which are internationally mobile and which drive towards big urban centres. Unfortunately, those are the types of projects which are mobile and they are in information and communications sectors and seek deep labour pools. The older manufacturing types of projects which were more regionally dispersed are fewer, which presents a real challenge. It is a question of whether we can identify sectors with a potentially better regional spread, as well as seeking to win other projects.

I assure Senators that we are going to align resources to deliver maximum impact, and that is what we have been trying to do. Senator Landy touched on this issue. Nobody gets recognition for some feats but, for example, the Companies Registration Office has halved the time it takes to start a company. Much change in how it did its work was needed to achieve this. We have more than halved the time taken to issue a work permit, and by implementing the provisions in the companies Bill, we will make it much easier to set up and manage a company. We are continuously driving public service reform that makes it easier for enterprises to thrive and jobs to be created. We are determined to do that and we seek to ensure the quality of the research, as the Senators rightly demand, as well as the quality of the implementation we deliver.

On Committee Stage we can go through the provisions of the Bill but they are not particularly controversial and I am delighted that Senators are broadly supporting the principles. I hope it will help us to confront the regional and national challenges we face.

Senator White raised the issue of rates. Senators Cummins and Landy may be able to provide a briefing on this, as the revaluation in Waterford has caused as much trouble as it has brought benefits. Valuations from the 1980s are being updated to what is being regarded as a modern standard. There have often been winners but there have also been losers, who have been inconsolable. It is a tricky matter. Senator White's idea is to move to some other type of incentivised structure within the rates base, which is interesting, although it may be a debate for another day.