There are five Government amendments. They will be dealt with in four debates. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will be discussed together. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage on each debate.
Industrial Development Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 4 to 13 and substitute the following:
7.—The functions of Forbairt shall be, as an agency of Forfás—
(a) to develop industry in the State,
(b) to strengthen the technological base and the capacity of industry to innovate.
(c) to provide services which support such development,
(d) to make investments in and provide supports to industrial undertakings which comply with the requirements of the enactments for the time being in force, and
(e) to carry out such other functions as may from time to time be assigned to it by Forfás with the consent of the Minister.
This is a textual improvement suggested by Senator O'Toole. Section 7 has been redrafted and a new section substituted. It states more clearly the functions of Forbairt as an agency of Forfás. I understand there have been consultations with the Seanad about this.
I appreciate the manner in which the Minister accepted this and I thank him and the draft persons for framing the amendment.
The amendment says the function of Forbairt as an agency of Forfás shall be to develop industry within the State. What relationship, if any, will exist between the enterprise boards and Forbairt?
A structural relationship will exist between Forbairt and the county enterprise boards in that a representative of Forbairt will be on the evaluation committee set up by each county enterprise board. The representative will know and understand the structure and nature of grants and will be able to advise where projects could be better dealt with by Forbairt at local level rather than the county enterprise board. Therefore, there is a structured relationship between Forbairt and the county enterprise board in a specific person. There will be working co-operation also.
County managers will have received correspondence from me on the composition of the evaluation committee of the county enterprise boards. That will be separate from the membership of the board itself which will comprise 12 people. The five person evaluation committee will have a representative each from Forbairt, the banks, the accountancy profession and the business community and another to be decided by the county enterprise board. The board will nominate all the members but they will be chosen as representatives. Therefore, there will be a Forbairt representative at that level.
What size of grant aid will be available to businesses and what size will the business have to be? Will there be a maximum amount that can be allocated to an industry? Will the business that is benefiting be allowed employ up to, say, five people? What is the cutoff point?
The arrangements have not been finalised but I will tell the Senator what has been decided. Forbairt can only deal with proposals for job creation within the remit of IDA legislation, that is, manufacturing related activities and internationally traded services. We have suggested any project proposing to employ ten persons or more in that category be dealt with by Forbairt. Any project in that sector with an employment threshold of less than ten could be funded by the county enterprise boards. At present the IDA does not deal with small-scale operations. The figure is an arbitrary one. We will have to see if it works but I think it will.
The county enterprise boards will be entitled to deal with many other types of projects currently ineligible for grant assistance from the IDA. Those would be in tourism, services and service provision. The boards will have to make their own decisions about grant-aiding such projects on the basis they do not displace existing ones. We must remember that taxpayers' money is involved. If there are two barber's shops in a town and someone proposes to set up another using taxpayers' money that would not make sense. The question of displacement would have to be considered.
No decision has been taken as to the amount of grant a county enterprise board could give to an individual project. A certain amount of money is available for all the boards and that will be divided on a pro rata basis or using some set of objective criteria. It will then be up to the boards to make their own decisions. It is unlikely a board would give all its money to one project.
I wish to know about the dispersal of funds to the county enterprise boards. Some £25 million has been allocated in the budget for this purpose. The Taoiseach in his press release on 6 October indicated £150 million was available, including £100 million from the banks. I hope the Minister will not make such promises when issuing figures.
That was a different Government.
Yes. What will happen to projects like the operational programmes? Will the money——
Senator Dardis, you are straying from the amendment.
The Minister has dealt with specific aspects of county enterprise boards.
The amendment does not.
Yes, but if the Minister has strayed I beg your indulgence for a moment, a Chathaoirligh. Will the moneys for rural tourism under operational programmes be dispensed by the county enterprise boards or will they still come through Departments?
I am conscious we are being given latitude by the Chair. With your permission, a Chathaoirligh, I will respond to the legitimate question put to me by Senator Dardis.
The moneys currently being distributed through the operational programmes remain the responsibility of the relevant Ministers; in the agricultural context that is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. I am not sure if that answers the question. Those moneys are different from those administered by the county enterprise partnership boards and are not under their control.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 43, after "bodies" to insert "(including regional bodies)".
This amendment is to give the explicit reference to regional bodies sought by Senators on Committee Stage. I was happy to accommodate that. It also retains flexibility in the types of bodies so we can have committees, regional bodies and other bodies, giving us three options.
I thank the Minister for allowing that provision. At some not too distant point, for continuity purposes one may wish to have a regional board for a period to ensure similar provisions apply in different counties. That is important.
As I understand it, Forfás or either executive agency may as it deems fit from time to time constitute committees or other bodies and the Minister may seek to include regional bodies. The Minister should be more specific. There are many regional bodies, for example, the proposed regional authorities and the regional tourism bodies. How many of these does the Minister propose to include?
I regret that the Senator was unable to attend the debate earlier today when he might have received clarification on this point.
The Senator's question centres on the organisational structure of Forbairt throughout the country. Forbairt will be in a position to organise itself at national level and this will give it the power to provide a regional structure similar to the current regional structure of the IDA.
Amendment agreed to.
The words of amendment No. 3 do not appear in the text of the Bill initiated in the Seanad as they were inserted by Government amendment No. 21a which was agreed to on Committee Stage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 3 is a Government amendment, amendment No. 4 is consequential on amendment No. 3 and, therefore, they may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 9, lines 29 and 30, to delete "not later than six months".
The intent of this amendment is to clarify that reports will have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and not the relevant Government Department or the Minister, within six months of the completion of the financial year. I am advised that the text of the Bill must be amended in this way to accommodate this specific request.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 9, line 32, after "Oireachtas" to insert "not later than six months after the end of that financial year".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 11, line 22, to delete "him" and substitute "that person".
This amendment relates to the issue of gender proofing discussed earlier and in a letter version to achieve the objective of that discussion.
I thank the Minister for clarifying this issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: That the Bill do now pass."
As a member of a local CERT committee which has dealt with the IDA for some time, I can testify that there is already a multiplicity of schemes. This Bill now establishes a multiplicity of agencies. Given this, I ask the Minister for clarification on the following point. Part II, section 6 of the Bill inter alia, states:
(1) The functions of Forfás shall be—
(a) to advise the Minister on matters relating to the development of industry in the State,
(b) to advise on the development and co-ordination of policy for Forbairt, IDA, An Bord Tráchtála and such other bodies as the Minister may designate...
(2) Forfás and each Agency shall comply with such general directives relating to the policy to be followed by it in the exercise of its functions as may be given by the Minister.
As An Bord Tráchtála is under the aegis of the Minister for Tourism and Trade, which Minister will be responsible for it under section 6 of the Bill?
The chief executive of An Bord Tráchtála will be a member of the board of Forfás. In addition, the Government has agreed that there will be policy co-ordination between the Department of Employment and Enterprise, the Department of Tourism and Trade and An Bord Tráchtála.
Part II, Section 6 (1) (b) states: "to advise on the development and co-ordi nation of policy for Forbairt, IDA, An Bord Tráchtála and such other bodies...". This provides the legal framework to ensure that the body accountable to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, and through the Minister to this House has the legal power to co-ordinate policy between An Bord Tráchtála and the agencies as set out in this legislation. Notwithstanding this, the board of An Bord Tráchtála is appointed by the Minister for Tourism and Trade and is accountable to that Minister for the purposes of Estimates and the disbursal of moneys.
The intention of this is to ensure co-ordination of policy. For example, the board of Forfás could direct that a given policy of An Bord Tráchtála be co-ordinated with other policies being pursued.
Will the Minister advise on the origin of the word "Forfás", and its correct definition and pronunciation? Is it related to the Irish word "forás" which refers to growth and development?
I have been advised by a number of people, including the Secretary of my Department that there are two approaches to this issue. The first is that there is such a level of comfort and sophistication with the first official language that it is possible to make a play on words from two languages and have an unambiguous pronunciation in the word "Forfás". The second is to take a strictly lingual approach. In this respect I am advised by the chief translator of this House that it is grammatically incorrect to use the word "Forfás". The correct Gaelic word is "Forfhas" which would be equivalent to the word "forás". However, in the interests of ease of use it was decided to maintain the word "Forfás".
Cad é an brí atá leis an bhfocal?
Níl a fhios agam. There would have been ambiguity in this regard and it was decided to maintain clarity. The English language allows for the creation of new words from older words and I see no reason the same process cannot operate in Gaelic. I thank Members for their co-operation.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Crowley, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Henry, Mary.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lee, Joe.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Wall, Jack.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- Dardis, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Farrelly and Neville.
Question declared carried.
I sought the co-operation of this House and contacted the Leader of the House, Senator Wright, and expressed my concern about having this Bill enacted as quickly as possible since we are under time constraints. The Oireachtas will rise in the middle of July and I wanted this legislation in place so that we could make the changes as quickly as possible.
I wish to put on record my thanks to the Members of this House for their co-operation. I attempted to reciprocate in accepting as many amendments as possible and being as forthcoming as possible in those areas where I was unable to accept amendments. Normally the conventions of this House prevent us from doing so, but I wish to say that the legislation would not have been possible had it not been for the extraordinary dedication of three people in my Department, the Assistant Secretary Mr. Michael McKenna, Principal Officer, Mr. Paul Cullen and Assistant Principal Mr. Ned Costello.
On behalf of this side of the House and on my own behalf, I thank the Minster for the way he has dealt with this debate and for introducing the legislation in this House. I must say to the Minister, without being condescending, that he has shown a refreshing attitude by engaging in meaningful debate rather than simply going through the motions of accepting or rejecting amendments. My woe at not being able to attend the opening of the Newbridge bypass this afternoon was compounded by his inability to accept any of my amendments, and it was further compounded by his ability to accept amendments from other Members of the House. I hope this legislation will improve the atmosphere for enterprise and lead to extra jobs. I thank the Minister for having attended so diligently during the debate.
I support the comments made. One of the criteria for ministerial office should be service in the Seanad. This would ensure co-operation of the kind the Minister, Deputy R. Quinn, has shown since this Government was formed. I thank him on behalf of my colleagues for initiating the Bill in the Seanad and for the open manner in which he met the arguments put forward, as is his style. I also like the idea that the "faceless" civil servants are named when they perform such a service for the State, and we recognise their abilities. We spoke earlier about the quality of the public service and it is good to acknowledge that in this House. When we had a debate on the meaning of Forfás I noticed that Senator Lee did not intervene, I suppose that was based on the mistake earlier this evening. It shows how humble Cork professors are.
I join with the other Members in thanking the Minister for accepting some amendments to the Bill. I noticed that many Members thanked him for initiating the Bill in this House. I have not been thanking Ministers for initiating legislation in this House because we should not have to do that. I hope Ministers would initiate legislation here on a regular basis. There is no reason they should not do so rather than wait for the Dáil to finish the debate. We are part of the Oireachtas and legislation should be coming on stream here as in the Dáil. The Leader of the House has at all times been trying to ensure that we are kept as busy as possible. As a former Member of this House the Minister respects it more than others who were not Members of this House; perhaps there is a lesson there. If we have achieved nothing else perhaps we have made other Ministers aware that if they initiate legislation here, they might not have to spend as much time in the Dáil.
Now that the Bill has passed — although it took 18 months to bring the recommendations of the Culliton report into effect — and we have so many agencies, our priority must be to create employment. I hope the legislation will have that impact and that it will be seen before long.
I thank my colleagues for their agreement on the handling of this Bill and, in particular, the Minister who gave a commitment during the debate on the Culliton report that he would come back to us when the legislation was ready.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.