Vol. 424 No. 8
11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to transfer local industrial functions from the Department of Industry and Commerce to his Department in view of the fact that the county enterprise partnership boards are under his aegis.
12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the role, if any, the Department of Industry and Commerce will have in overseeing and directing the work of the county enterprise partnership boards.
13 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach the reason membership of the Regional Tourism Organisation are not included in the country enterprise partnership boards which were recently formed by the Government.
60 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Taoiseach the reason no consultation with the councils of the regional tourism organisations took place prior to the establishment of the enterprise partnership board; if he will give an assurance that suitable tourism structures at local and regional level will be maintained; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 12, 13 and Written Question No. 60 together.
The Government are confident that our initiative in establishing new county and area enterprise partnership boards will have a strong positive impact on the development of small and start up businesses and on the development of tourism. The Government further believe that the partnership boards will provide an important new local, rather than centralised, basis and focus for decision making in these areas.
Specifically in relation to small and start-up businesses the Government have decided, as set down in the Government statement of 1 October, that the new county enterprise partnership boards will as part of their promotion and assisting of integrated local socio-economic development, provide financial assistance and information services for new and existing small and start-up enterprises, defined as those having existing employment, or potential employment, of up to and including 12 people.
The transfer of the functions involved is from the centralised industrial agencies to the new local partnership boards. Guidelines are now being prepared for the basis of selection by the new boards of individual projects. These guidelines will be agreed by an interdepartmental steering group, which will include among its membership representation from the Department of Industry and Commerce. This will ensure that the implementation of the county and area action plans prepared by each partnership board will accord with national policies in relation to industrial development and other areas of activity. Decisions on the actual selection of projects and the support which they will be given will be solely for the partnership boards.
Specifically in relation to tourism, the new county tourism structures will include the following:
—a member of the regional tourism organisation will be appointed to each of the boards;
—a specialist tourism committee will be established in each partnership board. The industry members of the existing RTOs will ex officio become members of this committee. Through its chairman and a new county/city tourism manager, the committee will report directly to the partnership board and its chief executive;
—a county tourism advisory council will be established, representative of the local tourism industry, all the local authorities, and, where appropriate, the State sectors in tourism.
As part of the overall county action plan to be prepared by each partnership board, the new county tourism manager will prepare a tourism development plan, an integrated plan for the development of tourism in each county. He or she will consult with all relevant local tourism interests and with all relevant State and semi-State agencies, in regard to the county tourism plan. This plan, when sanctioned by the county enterprise partnership board, will form a constituent part of an overall national tourism strategy. The county tourism plan will have the full support of the new board and access to the relevant funding at county and other levels as appropriate. Funding obtained from the industry for tourism will be allocated only for tourism and enterprises will, however, have access to the wider enterprise funds in the new arrangements.
Does the Minister of State see any problem at all with the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is to be accountable to this House for the expenditure of taxpayers' money on national industrial development, whereas the Department of the Taoiseach is to be responsible to this House for local industrial development? Does the Minister of State see any possible difficulty in assuring coherence in the policy-making between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in a matter where responsibility is so unnecessarily divided?
I do not visualise any difficulties whatever. The new county enterprise partnership boards will have representatives of the State and semi-State agencies, the IDA, SFADCo, Údarás na Gaeltachta and other bodies who have responsibility to the Department of Industry and Commerce and to the Department of the Gaeltacht for job creation in specific areas. The Government have taken a decision, for the first time in the history of this country, to put an emphasis on job creation for small industry and the demarcation is that all projects up to and including 12 jobs will be dealt with by the county enterprise partnership boards. National policies will be adhered to so this is a common effort to ensure that we can do something for the unemployed.
Is the Minister of State not aware that the budget of SFADCo and the IDA who will be represented on this body is provided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not to be represented in any way on these boards? Does the Minister of State not see a problem in the accountability to this House for expenditure on industry given that it is to be divided between two Departments, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Industry and Commerce with no clear responsibility in anybody's hands for achieving results?
Conversely, in response to Deputy Bruton, the Taoiseach himself will not be represented on these boards either. However, the agencies reporting to both the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Industry and Commerce and albeit to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, are represented on the boards. There is a clear demarcation up to and including 12-job projects for the county enterprise partnership boards. There can be no difficulty whatever in that. For the first time ever the vagueness of application and decision-making for job creation is being clarified so that when an application is made people will know where to go, what is available and who is responsible.
It does not appear to me that the county tourism advisory councils that the Minister now proposes are any different from the regional tourism boards presently in existence. It is agreed that in most parts of the country they are doing a very good job. Why the change, and how are these new structures going to be funded? Are they going to be funded directly from Bord Fáilte or from the Department of Communications? Does the same argument that Deputy Bruton made in regard to the Department of Industry and Commerce also apply to the Department of Transport, Communications and Tourism?
There are many similarities between the new county tourism advisory councils and the regional tourism organisations. Obviously the industry will be represented in the new structure as heretofore. However, in the regional tourism organisations there is no opportunity for all local authorities to be represented. That is now being changed. Every local authority within each county, whether it is a corporation, a council, an urban council or a town commission will have direct representation on the county tourism advisory council. The emphasis is being put on integrated, co-ordinated tourism promotion within each county and the big difference now is that we are going to involve at county level the State and semi-State agencies. Heretofore many of these were not involved. Now all people involved in tourism will be working together to achieve the desired result of maximum opportunity for tourism development and job creation through the tourism industry.
The funds available heretofore for tourism will be available under the new system and will be transferred from the existing votes of various Departments into the new structure. In addition the Government are making £50 million of public funds available which were not available heretofore. The regional tourism organisations have admitted in consultation that their eye was off the ball because they had not sufficient funds available to them. The funds will now be available to them for tourism development that heretofore were not available.
I thank the Minister for a reply that has not increased my store of knowledge one whit. If there is no difference between the new councils and the regional tourism boards, why not leave them as they were and allow them to co-opt members from whatever local authorities were not represented on them? It appears from the last part of the Minister's reply that the Department of Tourism will no longer exist. Is that correct?
The Deputy cannot interpret my response in that way. The Department of Tourism are doing a very good job. The RTOs were hamstrung for funds. The Government looked at the performance of the RTOs in the regions and the performance of the county development teams within each county. They regard these two agencies as having done an excellent job with little or no resources. As part of the Government's commitment to job creation to local level, they have amalgamated these two excellent organisations in a new county partnership structure to ensure that there will be effective job creation for small industry at local county level.
I want to proceed now to other questions. I will allow a final question from Deputy Peter Barry.
If they were doing this marvellous job would the obvious solution not be to give them the funds and allow them to co-opt those who were not already represented on to their boards rather than establish this new structure which is not answerable, as far as I can see, to any individual Minister except through this Minister to the Taoiseach?
Based on the structure of the RTO, which was a very broad cumbersome structure, one could say that there was not an equalisation of tourism development in each area, taking the larger populated areas against the smaller rural areas, taking the very beautiful natural areas against the artificially built facilities. We want to ensure now that the focus is on the county, that the facilities are created, supported and promoted together, that the private and State sectors and the community will have an input so that, working together in a new partnership, we can ensure maximum opportunities in tourism development and job creation within each county.
Why is it that the Department of the Taoiseach is taking responsibility for tourism when we have a Department for Tourism? Why is the Taoiseach's Department taking responsibility for industrial development when we have a Department of Industry and Commerce? Why is the Department of the Taoiseach taking responsibility for urban renewal in the Temple Bar area when we have a Department of the Environment?
These multiple questions are not in order.
Is this not only choking up the system?
Deputy Mitchell is a very experienced Deputy and he knows full well what he has said is not the factual position or is not true.
Precisely what was it that I said that was not true?
I did not interrupt the Deputy. What is involved here is job creation, and under the new structure all projects pertaining to job creation, irrespective of the sector, will be dealt with by the county enterprise partnership boards if they are in the small firm area providing up to 12 jobs. The Department of Tourism and Bord Fáilte will continue to promote tourism on a national scale. Our objective here is job creation. We are co-ordinating and bringing together all the relevant agencies into one single partnership board within each county responsible to a national management company so that there can be clear demarcation, absolute co-ordination and maximum effort to provide opportunities for people who have the ideas but who may lack management experience and who need the financial support. That is now being provided.
Will the county development officers be members of the new boards; will their salaries be paid by the new boards rather than by the local authorities and, if so, will the Minister for the Environment inform the local authorities that they should not make provision for the salaries of those members in their Estimates? May I also ask the Minister of State when he intends to appoint the chairmen of these new boards? Will he do so within the next three weeks?
As regards the first question, whether the county development officers will be members of the new boards, the answer is no. However, they will be members of the staff of the new boards. The process of appointing the members and staff of the new boards commenced during the past month and consultations are proceeding.
When will the chairmen be appointed?
Some of them have already been appointed. A series of organisations and institutions are involved. As information comes to hand in respect of each county, appointments will be made.
Will they be made before 26 November?
The Deputy need not worry about dates.
The Minister of State does.
Let us now deal with questions nominated for priority to the Minister for the Marine for which only 15 minutes is provided under Standing Orders.
