Vol. 640 No. 2
79 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the amount of grants, aids or other financial assistance provided by the Exchequer to a company (details supplied); if these moneys have been recovered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25374/07]
95 Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the discussions he has had with IDA Ireland and a company (details supplied) regarding its development and subsequent withdrawal from the facility in Carrigtwohill, County Cork. [25430/07]
108 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when he, his Department or any of the State agencies under the aegis of his Department first received an indication that a company (details supplied) was indefinitely postponing the project in east Cork; the contact or communications he, his Department or any of the State agencies under the aegis of his Department has had with the company since its announcement to indefinitely postpone the plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25455/07]
112 Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the action being taken by him and by the enterprise development agencies to ensure the creation of jobs in east Cork, an area which has been particularly badly affected by job losses in recent years in view of the announcement by a company (details supplied) that it is postponing indefinitely its plans to come to Carrigtwohill, County Cork. [25412/07]
132 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he, his Department or any of the State agencies under the aegis of his Department has been given an indication from a company (details supplied) regarding the future of the site in east Cork; if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure to date by local authorities, State agencies or any Department on works, grants and so on connected with the development of the site; if there is a planned future expenditure regarding same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25456/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 79, 95, 108, 112 and 132 together.
As stated in my previous reply to the House on this matter, I was disappointed to hear about the decision by Amgen on 3 October last that it was to indefinitely postpone its proposed development of the Carrigtwohill site. On 15 October last detailed discussions were held in California between myself, the Secretary General of my Department, senior IDA Ireland personnel and senior corporate executives from the company.
With regard to the financial assistance provided to the project by the Exchequer, a total of €4 million in IDA Ireland grants has been paid to the company to date. While IDA Ireland has not sought repayment of IDA Ireland grants to date, the company is obliged to repay the grant in its entirety under its legally binding agreement with IDA Ireland in the event of the project not proceeding.
I have no function in regard to local authority expenditure. However, I understand that at a meeting held on Thursday, 9 October, Amgen confirmed to Cork County Council that it will reimburse the council for costs incurred by the council on works relating to the site. The company indicated that it expected to retain the site. As stated in my earlier reply, it confirmed that to me as late as last week. The county manager has also confirmed to me that he had fruitful discussions with Amgen on the infrastructural works. As stated earlier, the decision by Amgen was based purely on developments relating to its global business and is in no way reflective of the business environment in Ireland or of the high calibre staff it had hired.
IDA Ireland is actively promoting the greater east Cork region to prospective investors across the full range of IDA Ireland targeted sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, medical technologies, information and communications technologies and internationally traded services via its network of overseas offices and project divisions. The agency has seen the emergence of an economic corridor along the N25 with the initial development of Little Island many years ago followed by new developments at Eastgate, Fota Business Park, Carrigtwohill and Midleton.
IDA Ireland has also been instrumental in attracting additional client investment to the area with the development of the IDA Ireland Business and Technology Park in Carrigtwohill. The availability of quality property solutions in the east Cork area has proved attractive to visiting IDA Ireland clients.
There are currently 133 IDA Ireland assisted companies in County Cork employing almost 20,000 people. The corresponding figure a decade ago would have been 10,000. Cork city and county have benefited greatly from a number of important investment announcements this year which demonstrates the attractiveness of the greater Cork area as a location for inward investment by existing companies already located there and new overseas client companies choosing Cork as their location of choice.
Cork has seen consistent investment by new companies and reinvestment by existing companies in recent years in the pharmaceutical sector. The investment by GlaxoSmithKline of €250 million over five years in its production site at Currabinny followed the establishment of a research project in August 2006 into gastrointestinal diseases, in collaboration with the Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre in UCC, which involved an investment of up to €13.7 million. Cork as a location was also endorsed by Eli Lilly with its intention to invest €400 million over five years in a biopharmaceuticals manufacturing facility at its existing site in Dunderrow, Kinsale and byPepsiCo Inc. with the establishment of its worldwide concentrate headquarters.
I am confident the policies being pursued for Cork city and county by the development agencies and by Government will continue to pay dividends in terms of investment and jobs for the region.
Members on this side of the House are not seeking to play politics with this issue but we question, as is our right, the decision by Amgen and the Government's response to it. The company has had two postponements. On 15 October, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Micheál Martin met with Amgen. The people of Carrigtwohill and the region want to find out what the future holds for Amgen. Is it in a position to state whether it will proceed with the plant? If anybody is to be accused of playing politics with this issue it is the members of the Minister's party and his backbenchers.
The position is as I have stated. The company has not changed from its position, as articulated on 3 October 2007; in essence it has postponed the project indefinitely and is either redeploying or laying off staff. Prior to 3 October it was employing people and was planning and designing for the biopharmaceutical plant at Carrigtwohill. The company decided, however, it wants to hold on to the site. I do not wish to raise expectations one way or the other.
IDA Ireland would have pursued Amgen for quite a number of years. We have almost all the household names in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical sector, but those we do not have, we pursue to get them to invest in Ireland. We won the Amgen company, having beaten the competition. Countries put up a great deal of competition to get biopharmaceutical companies to locate in their country, because the projects are very big in scale and there is a good deal of fixed investment. One can be fairly sure of the long-term prospect once the company locates in an area. We will continue——
A number of Deputies are offering.
When did the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment first become aware of problems with Amgen? Were warning bells ringing in the Department or in State agencies when some of the drugs that Amgen had on the market were withdrawn from the US Medicare and Medicaid services in March? Did warning bells sound when the stock plummeted and it clearly ran into financial difficulties? The Minister postponed a sod turning ceremony in April; were the warning bells ringing at that stage? Am I correct in stating there is an advance warning system in the Department? Did that kick in at any stage and, if so, when? If not, why not? The Minister stated that the grants will be repaid; is there a timescale for the repayment of the €4 million advanced by the IDA?
There is an ongoing early warning system in the Department but that is dependent on information from the companies themselves. We maintain contact with the companies but corporate headquarters do not always tell people lower down the hierarchy of a business about the decision they are soon to announce. Amgen made an announcement in April. The Amgen personnel travelled especially to Ireland to meet and communicate its decision which at that stage was to stagger the project out to 2012. Many people thought this made sense because of the extraordinary rapidity of the project, with construction timelines and so on, which was even faster than the Johnson & Johnson project in Ringaskiddy. The Amgen personnel raised some of the points made by Deputy Stanton, such as the falling share price and they reassured me that this was something they could deal with as it was a cash rich company and it was definitely going ahead with the project.
Deputy Stanton may not have been in the House when I stated that the executive vice-president said to me: "Do you honestly think that we would have proceeded post April to continue to plough resources into the company; to continue to employ people and pay salaries and to continue to employ people to design the plant if we were not going ahead with it or if we were postponing it indefinitely?" It was obviously a fluid situation. The company was committed to the plant but the situation has not improved for it in the interim with the difficulties with the FDA and so on. It is fair to say that all companies in this area go though periods of volatility; as we know from other companies, the sector is prone tothat.
On the question of the grant, there is no issue with the company on any of the matters. The company has been upfront and our strategy would be to keep the door open. I will say no more than that or I will raise expectations. There are clear legal obligations. It is only a month since the company made its announcement and indicated that it wanted to hold on to the site.
Will the Minister indicate if he has a timeframe in mind as to when he might begin to pursue Amgen for the repayment of moneys advanced by the State agencies? I understand that while there is a significant chance of the development going ahead, the Minister would not want to pursue the company, but has the Department considered a timeframe? Would the Minister consider giving equivalent incentives to indigenous industry because clearly as my colleagues in Cork will testify, people are very anxious to ensure that employment opportunities are created?
Today we announced the Enterprise Ireland strategic review for the next three years, which clearly illustrates the range of supports that will be available to indigenous Irish companies to grow, develop their research capability and become international.
This is not about pursuing Amgen. That is not in the spirt of the relationship. There are set procedures and processes in play that determine when all these issues are resolved between the IDA and its client companies. I have no reason to doubt that they will come into play in the context of what may emerge.
I have two questions. I preface my remarks by saying that nobody holds the Minister responsible for the problems that Amgen may have getting Arnest recognised by the FDA.
In the period between April and June, did the Minister or IDA Ireland receive any early warning, were there suggestions the project could be scuppered or was the company put on a hot list? In regard to ownership of the site, is the Minister satisfied that Amgen is retaining site ownership and, if so, does that preclude IDA Ireland seeking alternative investors for this serviced site, which was carried out largely at the expense of the taxpayer, albeit with a refund from Amgen?
It is not largely at the expense of the taxpayer.
What about the €4 million?
This is a billion euro project. Let us be very careful. We have been very transparent, whereas normally we take a more confidential stand on the supports we give companies. We have a range of sites for potential investment. The Carrigtwohill site was developed specifically because Amgen had a view as to where it would locate. We offered a number of locations, and when this site was agreed with the company, the county council facilitated the provision of the site by rezoning it for major industrial facility that would bring significant jobs and investment to the region. Let us not forget the big picture and the spirit in which we engaged with Amgen. I do not know what the ultimate agenda is, but it does not impair the capacity of the IDA to attract investment into the Cork region. There are other sites that can host biopharmaceuticals. In response to the Deputy's question, I am happy that Amgen is holding on to the site. IDA Ireland is also happy that Amgen is holding on to the site because as I stated earlier we want to keep the door open. This business is volatile and cyclical and it changes. It is too early to close the door on the site or the company.
Many of the works were coming on stream in any event. The Amgen project merely accelerated a significant degree of utilities which the county council had put in. That is good news for the east Cork area. The Cork area strategic plan, as developed by Cork County Council and Corporation, identified east Cork as a growth area. Therefore, utilities are important there. It is a valuable site and is now zoned for major industrial activity. If Amgen does not develop it someone else will.
We all accept the vagaries of the international market, that negotiations are delicate and that landmark projects of this nature sometimes do not proceed. If Amgen is retaining ownership of the site, the people of the region will want to know why it is doing so when they have postponed the project twice. Is the Minister continuing negotiations with Amgen? Will Amgen make a final decision on its intentions in a reasonable time? The people of the region want to know where Amgen is going? If it does not locate within the site will someone else do so?
Given that €4 million has been expended to attract this industry, a legitimate question hangs over the use of taxpayers' money to attract industry. The Amgen project could be used as a benchmark for foreign direct investment projects throughout the country and for global trends in industries of that nature. If the global financial and economic infrastructure is changing and Amgen can make a sudden decision of this nature, questions must be posed regarding the nature of foreign direct investment throughout Ireland. That is why we are asking these questions.
Is the Minister saying the only early warning system his Department depends on comes from corporations themselves? In March, April, May and June when Amgen products were experiencing all kinds of problems, did no one in his Department alert him to the problems within the company or to the possibility that the project might not go ahead? Is he aware that these problems were spoken of throughout east Cork where everyone was saying Amgen was gone? Did no one in his Department raise with him the possibility that the project might not go ahead?
I met representatives of the company in April for the tenth time. They reiterated clearly and determinedly that they were going ahead with the project.
When did Deputy O'Keeffe meet them?
In August, the company issued a public statement declaring it was going ahead, despite rumours. One cannot work on the basis of rumour machines.
Did the Minister depend on that statement from the company?
No. IDA Ireland works with companies and has personnel who work with companies in California, the east coast of America, Japan, Germany or wherever they are located. We have IDA Ireland offices whose personnel liaise with companies in a tough competitive world.
So, no one raised the issue.
That is how things work and there is no mystery here. Representatives of the company flew into Ireland in April and assured everyone they were going ahead.
They postponed the sod turning ceremony.
It would have been totally inappropriate to hold a sod turning ceremony on the day the company announced that people were being laid off.
No one told the Minister.
I am telling you what was said. I am not the corporate headquarters of Amgen, nor is IDA Ireland.
So much else is happening out there.
As late as August, the company said it was going ahead with the project and was making no deviation from its plans. There is no mystery. Companies make decisions. In some instances they communicate those decisions to IDA Ireland and in others they do not. In my experience, when one is alerted to a company closure one is alerted very late in the day and the company always insists on first communicating with staff. That is how it works.
That is how things work in the real world.
80 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of occasions in respect of each of the past five years on which prosecutions were initiated and prosecutions secured in respect of failure to hold appropriate work permits against employers and employees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25399/07]
Under the Employment Permits Acts 2003 and 2006, it is illegal to employ a non-EEA national without an employment permit where one is required. These Acts provide for a large number of obligations and offences including those relating to the employment of foreign nationals except in accordance with an employment permit; refusal to co-operate with inquiries of the Garda Síochána; forgery, fraudulent alteration or fraudulent use of an employment permit; and misuse by employer or employee of an employment permit.
Any prosecutions initiated under these Acts are a matter for the Garda Síochána, which comes under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am informed the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has made inquiries with the Garda authorities in relation to the number of prosecutions but it has not been possible in the timeframe available to obtain the statistical information requested. This information will be forwarded to the Deputy as soon as it is available.
I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there also an EU directive which makes it a criminal offence for employers to employ illegal immigrants? Could Ireland opt out of that directive, along with Britain, under the terms of Title lV? Can the Minister provide details of that possibility?
There is a general perception that while employees are prosecuted if detected working illegally, employers are not. It is important, because of this perception, that accurate figures are provided and I ask the Minister for further clarification. It is my understanding that Ireland and the United Kingdom indicated an intention to opt out of a new EU directive making it a criminal offence to employ illegal immigrants. This is so that criminal sanctions would not attach to employers. Is that the position or am I misinformed? If I am misinformed I will accept that, but I do not think I am.
I will check that matter for the Deputy.
The situation has changed somewhat. The Employment Permits Act 2003 provided for no enforcement body other than the Garda Síochána. The 2006 Act provides that "the Minister may appoint, in writing, such and so many of his or her officers to be authorised officers for the purposes of all or any of the provisions of the Act or the Act of 2003". My Department is currently holding discussions with the Garda national immigration bureau, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the National Employment Rights Authority with a view to developing a very robust system for such prosecutions.
The fundamental ethos of the National Employment Rights Authority will be one of building compliance. It will give people the opportunity to correct their wrong ways. Its objective will be to reduce transgressions by building a robust compliance model. Article 27 of the Employment Permits Act 2006 allows the exchange of information held by my Department for the purpose of the Acts, between my Department, the Ministers for Social and Family Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Revenue Commissioners. This will allow agencies to combine their focus on employment sectors, such as the construction or hospitality sectors.
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad to see there is a greater cohesion and integration in this regard. I understand it is important to provide the opportunity to become compliant rather than bring down the full force of an immediate criminal sanction. Nevertheless, it is important that we correct the perception that it is always the unfortunate employee rather than the employer who suffers as a result of a minor indiscretion.
Will the Minister accept that the lack of awareness among employees and employers of their obligations in that area is still an issue? Will he consider introducing a penalty points system with more aggressive penalties for employers who are frequent offenders in regard to abuse of employees?
That is a useful suggestion that I would not rule out and that we could pursue because it could be built into the compliance model. I have taken a fairly hard line with regard to some employers. One of the easiest things to say to employers is that if they are found guilty of flouting employment and labour law, they need not bother to reapply for a work permit. That would be a very simple way of concentrating their minds. We had a very high profile case regarding the methodologies we use that has concentrated minds. It has ended up in the higher courts. Some of the feedback from the employers' side indicates that they are not overly enthused about the robust provisions of the 2006 Act. However, we have no alternative other than to do this to ensure we send a very clear statement that we will not tolerate any abuses of Irish employment and labour law or exploitation of Irish workers irrespective of class, creed or colour.
81 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his legislative priorities for the Thirtieth Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25397/07]
The legislative priorities for my Department are formulated in the context of the implementation of the programme for Government. The following are my current legislative priorities for the Thirtieth Dáil.
The Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Bill 2007 has been published. The purpose of this Bill is to regularise the position in Ireland as regards the lending of copyright works through the public library system in order to bring Irish legislation into full compliance with the EU Directive on Rental and Lending (92/100/EEC). This Bill has passed all Stages in the Seanad and is now awaiting Second Stage in the Dáil. The Control of Exports Bill 2007 has also been published. Its purpose is to update existing legislative provision for control of exports, which dates from 1983, and to bring Ireland into line with best international practice. This Bill has been passed by the Seanad and completed Second Stage in the Dáil on 4 October last.
As part of the Government's commitment under the partnership agreement Towards 2016, two priority Bills, the employment law compliance Bill and the employment agency regulation Bill, are being prepared by my Department. With reference to the employment law compliance Bill, it is my intention to bring a draft scheme of the Bill to Government shortly with a view to having the Bill published by the end of the year. I am considering the final elements of proposals for the draft scheme of a Bill to regulate the employment agency sector. It had been agreed under the partnership agreement Towards 2016 but the social partners wanted some changes made to it and that has delayed the Bill. I intend to submit a memorandum to Government very shortly seeking approval to have the Bill drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. While I am anxious that the Bill be published as soon as possible, the date of publication will depend on the date it is submitted to the Attorney General's office and on the priorities agreed with that office.
In regard to the Company Law Consolidation and Reform Bill, the company law review group, CLRG, was established in 2000 following the Government's decision to implement the recommendations in the report of the working group on company law compliance and Enforcement. The CLRG was set up by statute to advise the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on companies' legislation and, more specifically, to promote enterprise, simplify legislation and enhance corporate governance. The proposed legislation will consolidate the existing 13 Companies Acts, dating from 1963 to 2006, as well as other regulations and common law provisions relating to the incorporation and operation of companies, into a single Act, comprising 1,263 sections approximately. It may be necessary for a special committee of the House to deal with it, with all that entails in terms of man hours and so on. That will form much of the activity for the Oireachtas.
I am glad that the two priority Bills are the employment agency regulation Bill and the employment law compliance Bill. I urge the Minister to give those priority in the context of the priority question I tabled in regard to it. I am certainly very eager that they be addressed.
The company law consolidation and reform Bill is extremely important. It is important that the law is clear, not just for directors, members or shareholders but also for employees. It is a major undertaking and I am eager that we should facilitate a committee to examine it in detail and make further improvements even at a prepublication stage and thus expedite the passage of the Bill. If the Minister leaves behind a good codified company law consolidation Act with some reforms he will have left a reasonable legacy.
There is merit in what the Deputy has said and it is constructive. While the Parliamentary Counsel can begin drafting the Bill, it would do no harm to set up a committee to devise a general scheme. I will discuss this with the Whips. The committee dealing with enterprise would normally have enough on its agenda, but I will initiate discussions with the spokespersons to see what the best methodology would be.
82 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if his attention has been drawn to the fact that workers here have fewer public holidays than workers in most EU countries; if he will increase the number of public holidays from nine to 11 to bring Irish workers up to the EU average and particularly in view of recent statistics showing that workers here are the second most productive in the world; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25377/07]
The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which implemented EU Council Directive 93/104/EC, of 23 November 1993, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, provides for an entitlement to nine public holidays per annum.
Publication of data by the European Employment Observatory shows that there is a wide variation in the number of public holidays among EU member states. The average public holiday entitlement in the EU at present is approximately 11 days per annum. Variations in the number of public holidays must be considered in the context of other factors which may bear on this matter including for example, the relationship with annual holiday entitlement, whether statutorily based or obtained by way of collective agreements. Some entitlements also stem from the legacy of historical and religious developments of specific and differing societies.
Were an increase in public holidays to be considered and I stress, no increase is, at this moment, being contemplated, it would be necessary to undertake detailed and substantial consideration of issues arising, including wide-ranging consultations with social partners and other interested parties. Among the matters to be considered would be the impact of any such increase in public holidays on the competitiveness of firms, in particular, small and medium enterprises with smaller work forces, and in terms of output and the impact on employment.
I would point out that the matter of an increase in public holidays did not emerge as an issue for consideration during the detailed and substantive phases of negotiation of the current partnership agreement Towards 2016. However, there is nothing to prevent any party raising such matters for discussion in the context of any subsequent agreement.
In the circumstances, I do not share the view that proposals of this kind should be considered without regard to the wider interests of workers and the enterprises in which they are employed. I suggest that social partnership provides the appropriate forum in which such matters can best be considered.
Perhaps it shows that the social partners are out of touch with the people they represent. Are they aware that recent European reports show that we rank among the lowest in Europe in terms of days off per year, despite working above average weekly hours. Is the Minister aware of the new International Labour Organisation figures that show that Irish workers are among the most productive and that we are second in terms of productivity based on total hours worked and fifth in terms of productivity per hour? These figures reinforce the case for the introduction of two additional public holidays as proposed by the Labour Party. Those matters are addressed.
That is the way we want to keep it.
Will the Deputy send me a copy of that?
These are impressive statistics by any standards and workers are entitled to some reward for their achievements. I, therefore, advocate the introduction of two additional public holidays. Is the Minister aware that according to a recent opinion poll of workers 71% declare they do not get enough paid holidays, 43% took one week or less for their main holiday, 65% say workload increases when they take holidays and 4% holiday in a different time zone or remote location to avoid work. Does the Minister realise that the average holidays, including statutory holidays and public holidays, is 34 days across the EU and that only the Netherlands, Romania and the United Kingdom, with 28 days against our 29, are out of synch? Will the Minister consider my proposal? If the Labour Party ever returns to Government this is something it will pursue. The last time this was done was when the Labour Party gave the public the May Day holiday in 1994.
The Deputy might raise that again in the context of where we are and what we are trying to achieve. Certainly it was Irish workers who answered the clarion call many years ago when we had major difficulties in the economy and they have worked progressively and are very efficient. We want that to continue to be the case in the context of a very open economy. The Deputy's suggestion can be discussed in the context of agreements being negotiated. However, at present, we must take into account the impact this would have primarily on small and medium sized businesses.
I know, I am one of those.
This is something that may be discussed at a later date. The social partners did not raise this issue and it is not a burning issue at my clinics. While it is nice to raise this issue, we must acknowledge the workers and avoid imposing any further risks, particularly on small and medium sized businesses.
I share the Minister's scepticism in this regard. I would be interested to know if the Department has ever carried out an assessment in respect of the cost to business and the public sector pay bill of an additional public holiday.
There are some estimates available. However, in the context of any further negotiations a detailed and substantive analysis would have to be undertaken of the impact involved. While I do not have figures in respect of previous analyses, if we were to make changes — I stress there is no proposal to do so — a detailed analysis would have to be undertaken of the impact of this on small and medium sized businesses. This is not an issue which workers are raising. Also, it was not covered in the programme for Government.
I urge the Minister of State to ensure he does not allow right wing views to cloud his evaluation and assessment of this important topic. It is an issue that exercises the minds of workers. I am involved in a small business which employs three people who receive their statutory entitlements in respect of holidays. I would vindicate the right of workers at all times in this regard. Workers come first with me. They are important. Irrespective of what is said by any other party in this House, the Labour Party will stand with workers any day.
I am not sure there is a reply to that.
I refer to a statement prior to the general election by Deputy Quinn of the Labour Party which states:
I know the Minister in question will not be in a position to deliver this after the next general election but this is Labour Party policy. I am sure that the alliance between ourselves and Fine Gael will be such that I can now seek an assurance from the Minister that his party, when in Opposition, will not oppose such an issue.
However, the public spoke in May.
83 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress reports he has received from FÁS in relation to its decentralisation to Birr, County Offaly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23534/07]
97 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress to date on the decentralisation of FÁS to Birr, County Offaly; the number currently working in the leased offices in Birr; the duration of the lease; when an application for planning permission for the purchased site will be lodged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23533/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 83 and 97 together.
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, FÁS is due to transfer its head office including some 383 posts to Birr, County Offaly, by 2009.
FÁS currently has 20 staff members based in Birr who are working out of offices located within the Birr Technology Centre. It is anticipated that 40 staff will be located in Birr by the end of the year. The offices in the technology centre have been rented on a five year lease from May this year.
Following the completion of all legal formalities earlier this month FÁS has now completed the purchase of a site in Birr, County Offaly in connection with the decentralisation of its headquarters. An application for planning permission is currently being prepared and will be submitted in due course.
I am glad we finally got some clarity in respect of the number of posts promised. Is the Minister certain 383 people will transfer by 2009? Prior to the general election, we were given to understand that only 200 people would transfer. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
On the planning application, will the Minister confirm when it will be lodged? I checked with Birr Town Council today and was informed it has no application on file. What is the cost of renting the technology centre? I appreciate the Minister may not know this off the top of his head. I do not believe the centre can accommodate more than the 40 staff already located there. However, in the intervening period, prior to the headquarters being ready, will staff be moved to any other premises within the town?
A further 67 staff, in addition to the 40 staff expected to be in place by the end of the year, have expressed an interest of re-locating to Birr. This is made up of 23 existing staff and 44 new entrants recruited on the basis of relocation.
On the planning application, I do not know the timeframe within which it will be lodged though it is due to happen in due course. FÁS is currently preparing the design and so on before submitting the planning application. Obviously, this will take some time to complete. I do not know the cost involved but I am sure that information can be secured from FÁS.
The Minister is obviously aware of the opposition of a large number of FÁS employees to relocating to Birr. This has had a negative impact, from a publicity perspective, on the area. Is the Minister confident that the required number of staff will relocate and how does he propose to persuade them to do so?
FÁS is a large organisation. It is clear that we have had difficulties in respect of the decentralisation of agencies which has not gone as smoothly as the relocation of departmental civil servants. For example, the centre in Carlow is now open and some 200 staff will shortly relocate there. This relocation and the relocation of the Health and Safety Authority, which is temporarily located in Kilkenny city, has gone reasonably well. I am confident we can get a substantial number of people to transfer though I am not sure if 393 people will transfer by 2009. I have had ongoing engagement with FÁS in this regard.
I was somewhat taken aback when SIPTU announced its categoric, unilateral opposition to decentralisation. I believe it should review its position. We are interested in engaging with the organisation on this. The opening of the new facility in Carlow has made an enormous difference to the staff there, many of whom had been commuting daily to and from Dublin for five years. The advantages, for them and their families, of being located ten minutes from their work cannot be quantified. People should take a more rounded view of decentralisation. Of course, people want particular issues to be addressed but there are benefits not alone for the locality involved but for the workers concerned. The new approaches that come with decentralisation in terms of delivery of service are also of enormous benefit. One of the best examples in this regard is the decentralisation of part of the Department of Education and Science to Tullamore which, some would say, has been the main contributing factor in respect of the new approach to school building.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
