Michael Lowry
Question:10 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the role he plans for tourism under the proposed County Enterprise Boards.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Enterprise Boards.
Responsibility for the proposed county enterprise partnership boards was transferred to me at the end of January 1993. I have asked my Department to undertake a review of the establishment procedures, staffing and funding involved in the establishment of new structures. It is particularly important to ensure that they support and do not hinder activity already undertaken effectively through existing structures. It is also necessary to ensure that they do not cut across work already being done under the Leader programme, INTERREG and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress area based initiatives.
The new boards can, with local community involvement, play a significant role in tourism development at county and sub-county level. In consultation with the relevant interested parties, including the Minister for Tourism and Trade, I am considering how the new boards can make an effective contribution to generating employment through community and rural-based enterprise projects with a significant tourism dimension.
Will the Minister confirm that the proposed review is based on the fact that he has major reservations in relation to the composition of the county enterprise boards? Will he also confirm if reservations have been expressed by the social partners, particularly IBEC and ICOS, and by the EC in relation to the composition and the non-democratic nature of the proposed boards?
I expressed my major reservations about the proposals of the previous Government. I have no reservations about the Programme for Government which I helped to negotiate and which was endorsed by our two parties. The Programme for Government provided inter alia for the transfer to the Department of Enterprise and Employment of total responsibility for the establishment and operation of county enterprise partnership boards. That is being done and involves among other things the transfer or staff and resources from the Departments of Finance and the Taoiseach. With regard to representations from the social partners, I confirm that people actively involved in the LEADER programme and in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress area based companies have expressed concern, as indicated in my formal reply, that the work they are already doing should not be undermined or duplicated. That is a valid point. My two colleagues, and I are looking closely at how to complement and add to the work already done. With regard to the operation of the global grant to which the Deputy's question refers, the EC has indicated to us — and we have accepted — that the management in the form of the chairperson and the chief executive of that company should not be serving civil servants.
Are we to take it that the county will remain a unit regardless of the review? In relation to the role of tourism, does the Minister now intend to leave the regional tourism boards intact or will he continue to implement the proposal of the previous Government to merge these boards into the new county network?
With regard to the interaction of the regional tourism organisations and the enterprise boards on 12 March a press release was issued by me, my Department and the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, indicating that the RTOs as they currently stand will remain as they are and that we are not proposing to interfere with them because of the nature of these bodies and the fact that they were receiving contributions and subscriptions from other organisations.
With regard to whether the county structure will be the fundamental structure, that is a matter which is being reviewed. We want to make local enterprise work efficiently and effectively. There has to be a meeting of minds between a spontaneous response and a support interaction, including financial assistance. That, in many cases will occur at county level. In some areas, including Dublin city and county for example, the area may be too large and may need a number of bodies. We are trying to get the right formula in place before we rush in and perhaps undermine the work of existing bodies.
The Minister was forthright at our last Question Time and confessed to the House that he recalled very well his enthusiastic support for my view of the county enterprise boards only a few months ago. Mine was a very lone view in the House at the time. If the Minister acknowledges that view — Fine Gael always shared my view on it and last weekend the Progressive Democrat Party advocated the one car family making it clear that they now agree with it——
The Deputy should have said "big" car.
——that would imply to me that there is a majority view in the House not to proceed with this insanity. Would the Minister not consider that some element of appropriate regional planning structures should be put in place rather than proceed with these county enterprise boards?
I admire Deputy Rabbitte's ability to take a particular point and twist it into an entire thesis. My criticism of the boards related to the manner in which it was originally proposed they would operate, but not of the concept. On the contrary it is clear — indeed, the Culliton report, to which we have made frequent reference this afternoon, has conceded this — that even if we were to do all the things Culliton proposes the actual number of jobs created would not meet the huge demand which this country has and will continue to have for at least the next five to seven years. Against that background it is absolutely essential that we stimulate, or allow to blossom, local initiative and local enterprise where it exists to complement the work of Culliton on the one hand and the continued investment of multinational companies at the same time. There are three legs to the one stool. The county enterprise concept of local community initiative, which will provide sustainable, community or co-operative employment, is a critical component of this Government's programme. It will be implemented sensibly and intelligently with collective and local support.
Democratic support.
I should like to encourage the Minister to continue to proceed in the direction in which he is going. He is being very reasonable and circumspect in examining this matter. Would he not agree with the RTOs remaining in place for the good reasons outlined? He indicated a number of other organisations that already exist. In the context of his review would he undertake a comparison of a similar regional structure, instead of the county enterprise boards, based on the RTOs as a comparable model of what may happen in the county structure? Would he consider undertaking a model of both to see whether the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak?
It is fair to say that my Department and my two colleagues, Deputies S. Brennan and O'Rourke, the Ministers of State, working with me in the Department are prepared to examine this whole area on the clear understanding that this House will realise we are fully committed to establishing and making these boards work. We have voted, with the support of the House, substantial amounts of taxpayers' money to make it work.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the old saying: if it is not broken do not fix it. Would the Minister not agree that the regional concept has worked very well and that he would be better off putting more investment into the regional boards that exist rather than set up county enterprise boards? Can the Minister tell the House his impressions of the only one which is already set up in Galway, which I understand is not working effectively, has no budget and, quite frankly, all the nominees belong to one persuasion?
Not unknown in the west.
There is nothing wrong with that in Galway.
Politicians on all sides of the House have an obsession with structures and the redesigning and altering of structures and it is not confined to this aspect of political life. We need to ensure the support is there and then make it happen. In respect of the operation in Galway it is still too early to say whether it is operating satisfactorily. That will be a matter for consideration.
It is not.
I can inform the House, contrary to what Deputy Owen has said, that they have a budget of £250,000 which was communicated by me to them as an initial sum.
How long ago did they get that budget? Was it three days ago?
I am speaking from memory, it would have been approximately 12 March.
For lollipops.
I wish to call Deputy Finucane for a final, brief and relevant supplementary.
It is always relevant, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome what the Minister has said in his deliberations because he does not want conflict in relation to the county enterprise boards. In my own area we have Shannon Development and Leader projects. Would the Minister not agree that the county enterprise boards, for which £25 million has been announced, have a long gestation process before coming to fruition? Would the Minister not agree it might be better to wait and see how the Galway operation works in relation to efficiency before implementing it elsewhere and probably ending up with people being very critical, as Deputy Rabbitte has said, in relation to the operation of the county enterprise boards?
Frankly, the electorate have not given us the luxury of that time-scale to deal with the problem of unemployment.
Is there an election coming up?
No, I said the electorate. During the next four years I intend to ensure——
Was it not eight years?
If the Opposition continue the way they are going, eight years seems guaranteed, but I do not want to presume on the sovereignty of the electorate.
The way the Minister is going it will be ten months.
On behalf of the Government I want to say we will not rush into something until we are satisfied it will function properly. That is a view that would be shared by everybody in this House. We will review and monitor work on the ground at present.
I am calling Question No. 11.
The reason——
The House will agree we have made very little progress on questions today. Progress has been extremely sluggish. However, I will not disallow Deputy Rabbitte making a brief supplementary.
He is only getting over the flu.
We all wish him a speedy recovery.
A Deputy
Does that include Deputy De Rossa?
He is able to shout again.
Would the Minister be surprised if I agreed with him that we have an obsession with structures? It is precisely for that reason he should not proceed with another layer of bureaucracy. Is it not the case that his predecessor in office, preoccupied as he was with protecting whatever virtue was around in Government, never actually got around to doing anything about the jobs crisis when 80,000 people were added to the dole queue?
I asked for brevity. We are having a lot of repetition.
Are we not going down the road again of a new Government on the business of institutional reform creating new structures, starting at the top of the Department with a national economic and social forum, the National Economic and Social Council——
That is quite a statement, Deputy.
——the county enterprise boards, the Leader programmes, the ESB——
I must call the Minister now. The Deputy is embarking on a speech.
——and the Minister himself identified a preoccupation with structures rather than changing policy?
I agree largely with what the Deputy has said in respect of colleagues who share the same side of the House as the Deputy. It is obvious from the conference at the weekend that the Progressive Democrats were not in Government for the past three and a half years.
Some of the Minister's colleagues do not realise they are in Government now.
Be that as it may, we are adopting a sensible and practical approach to a very real problem; where there are existing structures on the ground we should work with them rather than interfere with them. That is the reason my colleagues and I are reconsidering the operation and application of what is essentially a very good idea, which I endorse and which will be implemented in a way which ensures it works.
Question No. 11, please.