Vol. 424 No. 1
1 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of country and area enterprise partnership boards which have now been established; the source of finance available to each one for the provision of assistance for new and existing small and start-up enterprises; and the number of jobs it is envisaged will be created and assisted by each board.
Just one county enterprise partnership board has been established to date. The funding as announced heretofore will be made up of £50 million from State funds and £100 million from the financial institutions and will be supplemented by various funds from the European Community.
Would the Minister agree that the Government is not taking the job crisis seriously, given that it was only four months ago that it first recognised that such a crisis existed and that since then all it has managed to do is establish one partnership board yesterday in Galway? Could the Minister explain in detail to the House how finance will be provided, given that £50 million is to be provided from the debt management fund? Since that announcement there has been quite a change in the economy, particularly in regard to interest rates. Will the Minister explain how the £50 million will now be available from the debt management fund? When will the Government apply for the £50 million which they claim will be provided by the EC?
I reject entirely the Deputy's assertion that the Government is not taking the job crisis seriously. I was given specific instructions on my appointment on 12 February last to enterprise the existing county development team structure and to see what could be done to create an enterprise culture.
Is that a new verb?
Since then the Government set up an all-party Committee on Employment and it is ironic that Deputy Taylor-Quinn should castigate the efforts of the Government when her party choose not to make a contribution, verbally or otherwise, by participating in that committee.
There is no ministerial accountability.
Replies should be listened to with respect.
He is very stimulating.
If this continues I will call the next question. There will be no debate about it.
There will be ample funds available for this initiative. As I said, £50 million is being made available by way of public funds. We have had negotiations with the European Community and they have agreed the structure we have put in position. The global grant employment initiative that the Community has taken is based on the new structure. We have a commitment under the EFTA fund and we are negotiating on structural funding. We are absolutely certain that the funds are available and that there will be a major contribution for the first time in the history of the State to small indigenous industry, which the Government have indicated will be handled by the enterprise partnership boards. This is a departure from the position heretofore where there was a vagueness about who should handle small industry.
Is the Minister aware that some counties, particularly in the southeast, are applying to him and his Department for sanction for a different model, to use the existing county development teams in an expanded way to achieve the same objective? Will the funds and resources available under his proposals also be available for different models deemed by the local authorities to be in the best interests of the communities they serve?
I could not accept a different model. The Government have taken a clear decision. The Deputy speaks about an ad hoc arrangement——
No. Has the Minister read the submission?
Let me answer. In 1965 the Government took a decision to create county development teams in the 12 western counties under what is known as the western development fund initiative. The eastern counties never had such an initiative and never had such funding. However, during the seventies the local authorities in the western part of the country decided to have an in-house county development team of their own, without State support. Acknowledging what has been done in the western development area and the arrangements which existed in the eastern area, we have put into position a new structure involving the community, the private sector, the commercial sector, the semi-State sector and the public sector. The European Commission and the European Community support that initiative and will back it up with funds. The Government have taken the decision. We are proceeding.
What is the Minister's reaction to the fact that some local authorities have rejected unanimously his proposals for enterprise committees, including local authorities controlled by members of his own party, and in some cases Members of this House?
I always recognise the right of any elected person to have his or her point of view on any issue or initiative. As this initiative evolves I am confident all parties will give it their full support. I am delighted to be able to tell Deputy Kenny, and his colleagues, that the honourable and distinguished Mayor of Galway City, Deputy McCormack, and the Chairman of Galway County Council, Councillor Mullins, gave this a positive welcome when it was announced at yesterday's meeting.
Members behind the Minister of State rejected it unanimously.
If the Minister does not agree that the place from which to promote industry and enterprise is the Department of Industry and Commerce, will he agree that it is the internal fighting in Government that caused this promotional industrial enterprise to be taken from the Department of Industry and Commerce and given to the Department of the Taoiseach? Will the Minister acknowledge that if one was to have any regard for value for money, it would not be possible to devise a more wasteful structure? Does the Minister acknowledge the danger of this being used as a slush fund running up to a general election and that it was the overriding desire——
The questioning is over long.
——of the Taoiseach to rub the nose of the Minister for Industry and Commerce into the political mire that has devised this crazy wasteful structure?
I totally reject the mischievous contribution by Deputy Rabbitte and also his allegation that State funds which will be disbursed by a board of directors composed of members of the public sector, the community, and nominated and elected by reputable organisations, will be used as a slush fund. Deputy Rabbitte should not talk too loudly about that. He should be careful when he talks about funds. We all know what happened to the funds in his party recently when they changed their name very quickly. The way they did their transfers, was not very ethical.
This is all irrelevant.
It is serious for Deputy Rabbitte to make such allegations. The Deputy should not downgrade any democratic structure when we are reforming and devolving responsibility to the people so that the Government, public representatives and the people can——
Bluster.
——make our contribution in our own time towards creating equality of opportunity for the people who are entitled to get jobs.
That stuff would be great off the back of a lorry in Ballinasloe, but it is irrelevant in this House.
What is wrong with Ballinasloe?
There is nothing wrong with Ballinasloe but there is a great deal wrong with that type of rubbish.
It is shameful. This issue is too serious for that.
Have job targets been set for each enterprise board area? Will the Minister tell the House the quota that has been decided for each board area as a target for job creation? What is the position in regard to the enterprise board and the duplication that will occur with the Leader programme which has similar terms of reference? Would the Minister agree that in order to create jobs we need good ideas, skill, good management and real capital investment?
That should be adequate, Deputy.
On management is the Minister and the Government prepared to accommodate managers who have good management skill in existing secure jobs, so that they can take leave of absence for three years without affecting their pensions?
Extraneous matter is being injected into this question.
It is obvious that some Members have not read the various Government statements——
We have read them in detail.
——and have not listened to the statements made in this House.
We got them three times.
When each enterprise board is established they will prepare an action plan for employment for each county.
We know that.
They will also prepare a tourism plan which will be integrated——
What does the action consist of?
——into the overall development plan for that county based on the input of the board of directors and in consultation with the forum groups that make up and advise that board. Measures will be initiated to provide opportunities for people. This is an opportunity for everybody by consensus to make their contribution. I hope Members will make positive contributions.
Waffle. Will the Minister of State listen to the local authorities?
Question No. 2.
I wish to put a very brief question.
I must dissuade Members of the notion that we can debate this matter today. I will allow a very brief question.
I congratulate the Minister on his performance——
A question, please.
——on the achievement to date which is, to increase unemployment by 15,000, and on his refusal to meet the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment thereby vindicating our stance, and on demolishing totally any idea of any involvement by local government in this. Will the Minister say why the Government felt it necessary to set up this structure to replace an existing structure involving our local government system, and totally ignore any input by local government? Will the Minister tell us whether this is not a final turning of the back by the Government on any notion of local government reform?
Hear, hear.
I do not understand what Deputy Dukes is talking about——
That is clear.
——when he is congratulating me on increasing unemployment by 15,000, while ignoring the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment who recommended——
We asked to meet the Minister and were refused, and we did not recommend any such structure.
I did not refuse.
Please, Deputy Rabbitte.
I suggest that Deputy Rabbitte consult the chairman of his party's sub-committees. I do not understand what Deputy Dukes is trying to say.
That is your problem, Minister.
Deputy Dukes need not worry, as I well understand the negative attitude his party are promoting. In this new structure we are involving the chairman and the manager of each local authority.
One out of 15.
We are asking the community with 100,000 people to elect three people, pro rata.
Just like the Structural Funds.
We are giving equality of opportunity to everybody in every strand of society to make a contribution towards assisting the Government's job creation effort. I suggest to Members——
What about the tourism board?
——that they would be more gainfully occupied supporting the initiative.
