The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, was present on Second Stage so we are grateful the Minister can join us for Committee and Final Stages.
Industrial Development Bill, 1995: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
There was a reason for that.
Of course. I am not implying anything. There was no suggestion that there was any ulterior motive.
There is a growing concern about the further establishment of what might loosely be termed Government quangos. The most recent count to my knowledge revealed 108 such bodies and we are now being asked to establish two more or to make provisions for the establishment and functions of various bodies.
This gives me the opportunity to ask whether the Minister has any philosophical view about this growing trend in a small country. There are 37 county enterprise boards, 36 Leader programmes and 35 area partnership boards which, together, number 108. This does not take account, for example, of the six county enterprise boards in my part of the country which were set up in the Border counties under the International Fund for Ireland and the Arigna taskforce, which was set up in the Roscommon-Leitrim area following the collapse of the Arigna coal-mining industry, which is still in existence and still helping local industry.
When will this end? Already, in counties such as my own and in the western counties generally where there is depopulation, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find personnel who are both capable and have the time to devote in a voluntary capacity to the increasingly onerous activities of these boards. Substantial sums of money are now passing through various evaluation committees and boards which hopefully will filter through to the local communities for which they were set up.
I do not want to give the impression that I am against the concept. Far be it from me to suggest that because all of us are enthusiastic about more money and power being devolved to local level, particularly to community based organisations. However, does the Minister agree that this will reach a logjam eventually? For example, representatives of IBEC have pointed out that a number of their members are withdrawing from these boards because they do not have time for them. If business people with the expertise, which was to be put at the disposal of these boards and bodies, are withdrawing from them and being replaced by people who, with the greatest respect, may not be up to the mark, surely the long-term effects will be a diminution in the quality of the decisions taken and, perhaps, in a return of a more centralised form of government, which none of us wants.
I thank Senators for their understanding on the last occasion when I had to attend a family funeral.
I am sorry. I was not aware of that.
There has been a huge growth in the use of devolved groups in the approach to enterprise, local development and unemployment action. It is not fair to lump them together and say that it is terrible we have 108 bodies. The partnership programme is obviously designed to try to bring about a community response to unemployment. Most people who have looked at long-term unemployment see it needs community based responses at local level. There is a need for local groups who would try to solve the problem of long-term unemployment. That cannot be done from Merrion Street or Kildare Street. There is an acknowledged belief, which has surfaced through the National Economic and Social Forum, that one must have a community based bottom up response to that issue.
Equally, the county enterprise boards grew out of the belief that micro-business was bypassed by the large agencies, that there was not sufficient focus on the potential of local business, that there was a need for a local agency which could take a view of that area and see how to address its enterprise requirements and that there was merit in bringing employers, unions and the community together to do that. Indeed, the Senator's party first put that in train and I have, to a large extent, inherited the 35 boards.
Having said that, I recognise there is potential for confusion, particularly for people looking to these agencies, trying to set one off against the other, with all the potential for frustration which that could bring. The Taoiseach's Department, as the Senator probably knows, recently established the county strategy teams which are designed to draw together the executives in these different bodies to ensure there is coherence in what they are doing, that their plans gel and that they will not waste their time processing the same application twice.
I see this need at local level. If there is a genuine belief in a county that these agencies are putting an excessive burden on the membership and are doing things which could be consolidated, there is every opportunity for them to consolidate at county level. Some county enterprise boards and Leader groups have successfully dovetailed their evaluation committees, for example, so that they have a single evaluation team working on projects coming from different areas.
We would be keen to see that evolve and to see first stop shops created. The county enterprise boards is where the resources are. If you walk in off the street to a county enterprise board, it has all the answers as to where you should properly go with a project. There should not be waste.
We are determined to ensure State money in this area is well spent. We will take a rigid view on this. We want to see value for money from the agencies. We will review their progress and if they are not succeeding, we will look at that issue. As of now, and with considerable political momentum from the Senator's party as much as any other, we have wanted to see a bottom up approach with local people taking this into their own hands. Clearly, the onus is on the local areas to make it work. Ultimately, if it is seen to fail because of the reasons about which the Senator is worried, the Government will have to respond.
The Senator will have seen that in the case of Leader there was considerable criticism from the Comptroller and Auditor General of the review of the first programme but there has been a lot of tightening up in the second programme to make sure those errors are not repeated.
We must act similarly. We must have critical reviews, put better reforms in place and ensure there is no wasteful duplication. That is the best way forward. It is not fair to tot up everything and say this is unacceptable when, at the same time, people have grabbed the opportunity to have a group in the local county town. These groups look to the future of the county, try to devise enterprise strategies, give soft supports to small businesses which are trying to get on their feet and run grant and mutual training schemes. Those are valuable contributions.
The question of quangos is important and I take the point which Senator Mooney made. Newspapers love the short headline "More quangos". In some cases, as we move further down the road of decentralisation and devolution, this will rear its head. People will ask why there are so many intermediate bodies between the dispenser and the recipient. The Taoiseach's intiative may go some way towards resolving that point.
Some questions must be asked about IBEC and ICTU because on almost every occasion they seem to adopt the old maxim "round up the usual suspects". Hence you see the same faces on five different and unrelated layers of endeavour. It is almost like a cocktail circuit because the same people are involved. It is time that ICTU and IBEC provided a talent bank of some description. Very good people on both the union and business sides do not get a look in because both organisations are clubs where the best people do not always come through.
Just because somebody does not want to get involved in a town or village's local chamber of commerce, it does not mean they do not have a lot to contribute. Many people are excluded because they cannot waste time at meaningless meetings, and if they did attend such meetings they would be appointed to all sorts of things.
As we move into the decentralisation and devolution process a potentially serious problem arises. IBEC, ICTU and other organisations are almost always asked to produce an "expert", but the trouble is that such people are either very thin on the ground or the pool of experts is confined to a few friends. That has to be examined in the interests of making it work at local level with real community involvement — not tyranny by the few as we have in some communities.
I was anxious to hear the Minister's views on the one stop shop, but has he checked out the county enterprise boards, Leader and tourism groups the Senator did not mention? They comprise another layer of people who have been put in place over the last three years — none of this happened in the last 12 months — and we have watched them all grow.
I would like to see a direction given to such groups when they are setting up offices that all the agencies should be in one building. This would save an enormous amount of expense because one secretariat could do the work for the county enterprise boards, Leader groups and tourism companies.
As regards the strategy groups proposed by the Taoiseach, it is important to bring their leadership together to avoid widespread duplication. It would be crazy to do otherwise. I suggested this a long time ago so that each group would know about the other's applications. This would avoid a situation where projects receive grant approval from two different groups because information about applications is not shared.
In County Meath there is an opportunity to put all these organisations into one headquarters, yet some people are resisting the idea because they want to run their own little enterprise. That is totally wrong. Next week we will bring together all these bodies to see if funds for tourism development can be pooled to maximise their use in promoting the county as a tourism base. Such funds will not be available after the turn of the century so the best possible use should be made of them. Every county will have an opportunity to make use of this once off contribution over the next few years by selling their individual areas on a national and international basis.
The Minister should not allow two or three offices to be set up in the same town, thus forcing individuals to drive from one office to another and find parking along the way, spending half the day trying to get information that could be provided by a one stop shop. The funds should be maximised to avoid their abuse for the benefit of individuals who say, "This is my little enterprise and I am going to run it as I see fit".
Acting Chairman
Senators should not make Second Stage speeches but should confine their comments to section 1. Everyone will be given the opportunity to contribute.
Earlier the Minister recognised the potential for confusion. Since this Bill is merely a housekeeping one, why can it not sort out some of the confusion which has been worse for the last year or so than previously? The Minister mentioned the one stop shop idea which has been in vogue for quite some time. The real problem now, however, is that three agencies — Leader, the county enterprise boards and the small industry section of the IDA — are dealing with one group of small business people.
Even at this late stage, could the Minister consider including some provision for a more synchronised approach by those three agencies? The Senator is correct in saying that three agencies are dealing with one group of small businesses in different offices in the same towns, which is a bit ridiculous. I am disappointed that the Minister has not included in the Bill a strategy to synchronise the work of those agencies.
Since the debate on Second Stage I have checked the position with a number of county enterprise boards and Leader groups. I found that several thousand applications for aid were approved in principle but have been held up because no money has come either from the Department of Enterprise and Employment or the Department of Finance to fund those programmes.
For instance, in Galway where we have a new Leader programme, a number of good projects capable of creating jobs immediately have been approved in principle but have not yet received any money from central funds. There is a continuing delay. We are told from week to week that the money is coming. The same applies to Galway County Enterprise Board where there is a major shortage of funds. Even though the funds have been approved and committed we cannot get the money. The Minister should address this problem facing many small businesses that have been told their projects cannot be approved because the money is not there.
The Minister has attracted a small amount of criticism because he has not done certain things in relation to this Bill. However, I congratulate him on the delivery of 1,000 jobs, 300 in my county. They are scattered around four areas and I am sure my Limerick colleagues will support me.
That does not mean I do not share some of the concerns expressed in relation to this multiplicity of promotion bodies and I said so when this matter was debated in the House a number of years ago. As far as I recall, Senator Mooney did not support me at the time. When I argued against a multiplicity of bodies I was persuaded that this was the way forward. This system has been in place for a year or two and we should measure its effectiveness. I call on the Minister to see if it requires change and I am satisfied that any objective examination will mean that it does.
I say this in the context of another issue which I would like to raise. There is a train of thought coming from Europe which I support. There is an urgent need to deal with legislative and administrative simplicity as far as industrial development is concerned. A monitoring committee has reported and said that over-regulation stifles growth, reduces competition and costs Europe jobs, that the impact of regulations frustrates a culture of enterprise, hampers innovation and deters domestic and inward commitment. The committee came up with 121 proposals which will be considered at the Madrid summit but, before then, they will be put in order of priority. I would like the Minister, perhaps not today, to outline the Government's response to the proposals.
Europe has belatedly come to the conclusion that we are stifling everything by over-regulation. Perhaps we are stifling things by having too large a conglomeration of promotion agencies. The movement is towards simplicity. Will the Minister outline the work being done in relation to that report, the response of the Government and how many of the 121 proposals it has identified should receive priority? I compliment the Minister on this morning's announcement which will be welcome in my area.
Acting Chairman
The Senator has a national constituency.
I join Senator Howard in welcoming the 300 jobs for Gilloge in east Clare which is two miles from where I live and straddles the east Clare and Limerick constituencies. As regards Senator Mooney's point, I agree with the Minister that each of these organisations was set up in response to needs at various levels, including the county enterprise partnership boards, the Leader programme and Forfás. It is ineffective to talk about them as quangos. They have arisen in response to the principle of subsidiarity and there is no need to defend them. They do a good job and the fact that those on the county enterprise partnership boards said they have already spent their money is an indication of the need for this type of assistance.
A system of co-ordination is needed and I support what has been said in that regard. I also support the suggestion that a one stop shop should be available to the public because there is confusion in that people do not know the relevant body which will provide them with information and assistance. Where it should be provided is a matter which could be decided on.
I would not like the role of local public representatives to be swept aside. One of the terms of reference of the devolution commission set up by the Taoiseach is to identify where local and regional authorities can play a role in co-ordinating the various developments, in making information available and ensuring that there is no waste and duplication. I would have thought that local and regional authorities would have had an important role in this area. The terms of reference of regional authorities indicate that they have a role in monitoring how EU money is spent. These bodies are necessary but they should be co-ordinated and provide clear information to the public in one place so that they know exactly where to go.
Senator O'Sullivan mentioned the need for local representatives to be involved in these organisations, particularly the ADM which specifically requires that public representatives are not represented. There is a ludicrous situation in my constituency where an individual who twice stood for election and was unsuccessful is now successfully running west Limerick resources. Those of us who defeated him in the local elections found that we were not even considered. If we believe we will remove politics from all levels of society, we must think again. We may remove elected representatives but we will still find politics at local level. I ask the Minister to remember local representatives.
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his views in this area and to my colleagues for a worthwhile debate on the increasing number of institutions. I am sorry Senator O'Sullivan took umbrage at my reference to quangos. It was not pejorative; I was attempting to find a word to explain or define these bodies and institutions because they are not elected bodies but a mixture of appointed members and representatives of local authorities. I would be grateful if somebody could come up with a definitive word.
In my constituency Sligo County Council has initiated a one stop shop. It is trying to pull the various bodies together in one building. Senator Farrelly referred to this. I am concerned that in areas where there is not a wider availability of talent, as Senator Magner lucidly put it, there could be a danger that we would find a diminution in the quality of the service provided by these bodies, which would be unfair.
As regards Senator Howard's comment, I fought hard in my party against the concept of the county enterprise partnership boards taking it from the local authority. The county development teams were working well and they should have been strengthened. We should never have set up county enterprise partnership boards. Being a member of a party the Senator will know that when I lost the battle in my party I had to defend the indefensible.
I appreciate the initiative by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, who has increased the number of elected representatives on county enterprise partnership boards from that set out by my party which was not in favour of widening the franchise for elected representatives. The issue is not relevant to this debate but, as Senator O'Sullivan said, we are concerned about the diminution of the role of elected local representatives which is a challenge to the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 28, to delete "therein.'." and substitute
"therein.
(3) That no disposals be undertaken without prior consultations with Local Development organisations and bodies.".
The amendment is self explanatory. All I am asking for is a continuation of the philosophy expressed in the debate so far on all sides of the House and by the Minister. There should be local consultation about the disposal of property. The 1993 Bill was initiated to split the IDA into three bodies, which I am not so sure was a very good idea. My party's deputy leader is on record as saying that when Fianna Fáil comes back into Government it may re-examine the splitting up of the IDA.
The county enterprise boards have been in place since the 1993 legislation. This legislation does not acknowledge the role and status of the county enterprise boards specifically and that of the wider local authority in the areas where there is now an input into industrial policy. It seems unfair and goes against the spirit of this legislation if the Minister retains the right to dispose of property and the various bodies — Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland — retain exclusively the right to dispose of the existing land banks and advance factories which were traditionally in the ownership of the old Industrial Development Authority.
I am sure all Members will agree that for decades the IDA, in furthering the industrial policy outlined by the Government of the day, always took into account local needs, interests and concerns and also ensured that the land bank or advance factory was in keeping and sympathy with the environment in which it was located, whether it was a tourist environment or an industrial zone. It seems this power is now being absorbed and concentrated in the personage of the chief executive of Forfás.
I am asking that, in having the power to "acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property or any interest therein", no disposals would be undertaken without prior consultation with local development organisations and bodies such as the county enterprise boards, local authorities, local development agencies, area partnership boards and Leader groups. These are the people who, as the Minister said, are most aware of their area's needs.
If property to be disposed of was put up for public tender or auction, all of these organisations would know about it. I do not believe any organisation should have the right to have first or second look at a proposed development with an opportunity to purchase it. If a body has property to sell it should always be put on the open market.
Mr. O'Sullivan
It seems somewhat cumbersome to have to consult all these bodies. It might be more appropriate to consult through a co-ordinating body, such as the county strategy groups, rather than speaking to each organisation.
I understood from Senator Mooney's contribution that he is concerned that the county enterprise boards should be consulted before a disposal. The amendment is not specific and states "local development organisations and bodies". How wide would that circle be? I have that reservation about the terminology used in the amendment.
I deliberately made it wide ranging in order not to tie the hands of the Minister or the chief executive. I have very specific experience of property vested in the ownership of the Industrial Development Authority which was not sold by public auction and did not even come into the public domain, where an individual approached Forfás which, in turn, was prepared to sell without any consultation. This is a flaw in the legislation.
We have been talking up to now about local involvement and empowerment. Surely, the argument cannot now be turned on its head to say that we will now vest this power exclusively in the chief executive of Forfás? All I am asking for is local consultation and I have left it deliberately wide ranging to allow the Minister to define what he or she believes to be local development organisations and bodies and how they go about that consultation process.
I have real problems with this amendment. The Senator may misunderstand what is happening. We are proposing that Forfás, which has since the 1993 Act held responsibility for the land and property portfolios, hand that responsibility back to the IDA. These decisions will not be in the hands of the chief executive of Forfás but in the hands of the IDA with its regional offices and its access to the regional directors to consult on any disposals.
What the Senator is putting forward has potentially very serious and damaging implications. It would mean that on every occasion the IDA consulted on an incoming project — confidential consultations on the development of the project and access to land and factory space — there would have to be additional circuitous consultation. I do not see how that would be helpful and it would be very cumbersome. For example, if a company renting factory space from the IDA decided to purchase that space — which we are very keen to see happen as we want to use that money for industrial development purposes — that would have to go through a process of consultation which I cannot see having any beneficial effect.
If the Senator is concerned that there might be a planning issue if the IDA proposed to bring in a project with environmentally damaging implications, such a case would have to go through the planning process. If it wanted to change the use of an existing factory it would also have to go through the planning process. The proposer would consult locally as part of that planning process. That is adequately covered by the normal planning process and the IDA cannot sidetrack local concerns. What the Senator is putting forward is not the correct way to deal with what is adequately dealt with in our planning laws. Environmental and other concerns about a project can be hammered out with An Bord Pleanála and the IDA has no exemptions.
If the Senator is concerned that the IDA might decide that it no longer wanted to hold its land bank in a certain area for industrial purposes, he will see that I have dealt with that under subsection (4). The IDA should take a commercial approach to its land bank but it cannot get into the property development business. We do not want to see the IDA buying and selling land for commercial purposes which is nothing to do with its mandate. If it decided to dispose of land which it acquired under its industrial mandate for non industrial purposes, that would come back to me as Minister before it would be approved because, essentially, they are moving from their industrial mandate and disposing of property. In general that is a good thing but not in every case. I do not want the IDA to become mini-property developers and that is why I require ministerial involvement. If the Senator has concerns we could require local consultation before ministerial approval is sought for the disposal of land for nonindustrial purposes. However, I see no merit in it from an industrial development perspective. We do not want the IDA bound up in cumbersome procedures which could only damage its capacity to be flexible and deal with issues and companies in a confidential way.
Local concerns will be properly dealt with in the planning process, as we have seen in many instances. I appreciate the Senator's point but the amendment does not achieve his objective. He is right to be concerned that industrial development would take account of environmental matters and that decisions about the property portfolio would be related to the regional director of Forbairt or the IDA. I am happy that regional directors would be intimately involved in decisions about disposals as a matter of course but a wider round of consultations would limit the flexibility of the IDA and damage its greatest selling point.
It has been a non-bureaucratic organisation with the capacity to deal with people in a confidential way. It has short communication lines and can get things done through good links with local authorities and Government. Prior consultation could damage the flexibility and be counterproductive. Other procedures could ensure consultation with IDA or Forbairt regional directors when they are disposing of property for purposes which are unrelated to their mandate but I could not allow a situation where every disposal of property, even to an existing tenant, would involve some form of consultation. That would be neither helpful nor fruitful.
I am reassured by what the Minister said. The motivation behind this amendment was to minimise and even eliminate the fears and concerns of people in local communities in light of both the legislative changes since 1993 and the current proposals.
We are moving back to pre-1993.
That is what I wanted to clarify. I have no monopoly on wisdom but my reading of section 3 did not indicate that this was a reversal. I understood that land and advance factories in the ownership of the Industrial Development Authority up to 1993 were now being transferred to Forfás.
When Forfás was established it retained the property portfolio pending a decision as to how to deal with the operations of Forbairt and the IDA, as both had an interest in the land banks and the advance factories. A consultancy examined how best to handle this issue. As a result of that consultancy and a review by the EU operational programme personnel, it was decided that the best way to handle it was to transfer the land back to the IDA as is now provided for in subsection (2).
In future, the IDA will hold the land bank and the estates but this has been done in full consultation with Forbairt to ensure its interests will not be damaged. The most important role of advance factories or land banks is in the context of incoming investment. The most important consideration was that the IDA would have that facility and, for that reason, it is best that it manages the land bank. It would be senseless if the IDA had an industrial estate in which three blocks were owned and managed by Forbairt and four owned and managed by the IDA. There should be uniform management and that was the background to the decision.
The regional structure of the IDA will deal with these issues. Forfás will have a role only in relation to its own buildings. We are reverting to the previous situation while taking account of the existence of Forbairt and the IDA. We wanted to be sure that the arrangements relating to land and advance factories protected both their interests satisfactorily. The powers are not being sucked out of the regions and into a central body.
This amendment seemed to make a lot of sense. I congratulate Senator Mooney on his motivation. However, having heard the Minister explain the problems it would create, I understand why it would be an impossible task.
I was in America last year where I met an American who thinks the world of Ireland but swears he will never open a factory here. He is on a number of boards and says he will work hard against ever employing people here again. I was jolted by this. He said it was because we do not understand business in Ireland. He had a bad experience here some years ago. I am determined to make sure that never happens again and I examine Bills to see if they contain anything likely to discourage people from opening factories here.
In spite of the fact that I came in here determined to support the amendment, the Minister has convinced me that we must simplify the process of encouraging people to select Ireland against fierce competition from other European countries in Europe rather than make it more bureaucratic. When selling a factory to a potential investor, prior consultation with local development organisations or bodies could delay the crucial moment of decision making and on that basis I support the Minister. If there is a problem we should find some other way around it rather than accepting an amendment which, despite the best motivation, would hinder the process. The amendment is not in our best interests.
I want further clarification. I am grateful to Senator Quinn for his tacit support of the thrust of the amendment. The purpose of an amendment is to get clarification and, as has happened in this instance, reassurance. Since 1993, Forfás has had responsibility for the land bank and advance factories. They could have disposed of them without any of the consultative procedures which had been in place within the IDA structure at regional and national level.
My concern was that in this interregnum power appeared to be vested in the chief executive of Forfás and its board, because of this legislative vacuum. Taking on board the Minister's point regarding planning and obligations, I was concerned about the one to one relationship between an entrepreneur or a potential purchaser approaching Forfás and an arrangement being arrived at.
It appears that the policy of the IDA — perhaps the Minister will clarify this — has been to dispose of the land banks and the advance factories where they have not been either filled or built on.
A policy of the 1987 Government.
Senator Mooney without interruption, and I ask the Senator to conclude his point.
I did not attend this debate to score political points. I am trying to establish the context in which the IDA has been operating over a number of years. If my colleagues in Government were culpable, I am happy to concede the point.
It is just the way it happened.
The Minister has gone a long way in reassuring me that on the issue of this interregnum period, which had inherent dangers and in which context the amendment was put down. The position has reverted to the 1993 situation. The Minister also made the point, and I ask for his reassurance on this, that there will be a return to procedures in place up to 1993.
There has been a consultative process, even if it has been informal. I appreciate the Minister's remarks. Like Senator Quinn, I detest red tape and abhor bureaucracy. If I thought the effect of this legislation would be to prevent even one new job from coming into this country, I would be appalled. I fully support the Minister in his efforts to bring more industry into the country and more jobs. I am reassured by his remarks and will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
The position, as outlined by the Senator, is correct. Forfás had that power and I have not heard criticism that it was exercising it unfairly. It had it because under the structure of the legislation it had everything and delegated things one by one to the agencies as it saw fit. The land was held back until it found a satisfactory way of dealing with it. I assure the Senator that it will revert to the original position and that his concerns will be met. The purpose of the legislation is to press it back down to the rightful level, having worked out a modus operandi that defends the interest of both Forbairt, which deals with indigenous companies, and IDA Ireland.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome the increase in the sum in respect of SFADCo from £150 million to £200 million. I am sure that the increase is well beyond the level of inflation. SFADCo is doing a very necessary job in promoting industry in the mid west region and will put its additional resources to good value.
When considering section 1, I suggested that the Minister might at an appropriate time examine the performance of the different promotional agencies in the industrial area. Any such examination should include the performance of SFADCo. This is not meant entirely as a criticism, but its performance should be subject to the same examination as all other development agencies. A failure to do so could have the effect of allowing an element of smugness to develop within these institutions, which would not be a good thing.
SFADCo will continue its good work for many years to come. Its head office is located in County Clare and it has had a long association with the county. Your predecessor in the Chair, a Chathaoirligh, reminded me that my constituency is a national one, and he was right. However, there is a tendency to look to one's county also. For the first time there is no Clare person on the board of SFADCo, which many in my county find hard to accept. I can assure Senator Magner we have many talented people suitable for board membership. Perhaps this is another aspect the Minister will bear in mind when a suitable opportunity arises.
The increase provided is considerably ahead of inflation. The Industrial Development Acts provide, with regard to all these bodies, an upper limit on their total grant provision and, essentially, this is something that moves every few years. However, it allows the legislative scrutiny to revert to the House. Before they are granted further latitude with regard to their grant they must account for their stewardship every so often to the Oireachtas. It is correct that we have this opportunity.
The performance of SFADCo is kept under close scrutiny. Even its larger projects must come to Government for assessment. We are happy with the progress it is making. The Senator is probably aware that there was a total revamp of its senior management in the last three years and that it has restructured its organisation. We believe it is working well on foot of that.
The system provides that two vacancies occur every year. I will bear in mind the Senator's remarks when and if suitable vacancies occur.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister continue to monitor the development of the county enterprise partnership boards once they have been established on a statutory basis? Like many of my colleagues, I speak with a vested interest, being an elected member of a local authority. Senator Howard earlier referred to the origins of this concept. I was totally opposed to what I saw as a diminution of the role of locally elected representatives when it was first initiated.
I could not believe that a Government would give legislative effect to such a concept which would be in control of industrial development in an administrative area where elected public representatives were already operating and in which the local authority had a great deal of expertise in business, the social area, economics, etc. I was delighted that there was, at least, an increase from two to four in the number of elected councillors to be included on the boards. My understanding is — and I stand to be corrected because my experience is limited to my own region — that the elected representatives are the most active members of the county enterprise boards. They regularly attend meetings and are totally committed to the brief they have been given. That is not to suggest that the other members are not. However, the councillors on county enterprise boards are from all parties and are doing valuable work.
I agree with Senator Howard's request for a review of the working of these bodies. There might be a case for an increase in the representation of elected representatives in light of experience to date. Why should we be seen as pariahs? Why should we be excluded from boards operating in areas where we have gone before the public and are putting ourselves on the line? An increasing number of bodies are operating in the counties concerned and there is no obligation on their members to stand for election and there is no public accountability in the widest possible sense. There is an obligation on the county enterprise boards to be transparent in their operations and about the moneys they grant.
There is a need to look at the role of elected representatives vis-á-vis the developing bodies. I welcome enthusiastically the initiative of the Minister's brother, the Taoiseach, and I have written to him on the subject. At a recent meeting of the National Economic and Social Forum he threw away the script and spoke to the plenary session in Dublin Castle on the question of devolution and the relationship between bodies such as Leader, county enterprise boards, ADMs and so forth. I hope that the devolution committee will report soon and that it will not be one of these commissions that go on forever and a day and are then quietly shelved. I hope the recommendations in its report will be acted on as soon as possible.
I believe there is an inherent threat to democracy in all that is happening in this type of legislation. If we arrive at a point — and it can happen within a few years — where it is no longer attractive or there is no longer an incentive for people to put themselves forward for locally elected bodies and where it is more attractive to be on non-elected bodies, this House, and ultimately democracy, will suffer. There will not be the continuum of talent the country needs in order to address issues and problems. That is my real concern. I do not have a monopoly on that concern — all of us share it, irrespective of political or party affiliation.
If the issue cannot be addressed within the devolution committee, it should certainly be taken on board by this Government even if it means that the Government must break the trend which appears to have developed about 25 years ago where locally elected representatives were somehow deemed not capable or responsible enough to be included on regional and local bodies.
Would the Minister consider directing that these organisations come together within one office premises in towns throughout the country? I presume most of them are located in the main towns. We can reduce the substantial administrative costs by bringing these bodies together and employing one receptionist, one telephonist and so forth. There is a need for such a system. We are not providing that and we now have little Hitlers in every part of town running their own ship at the expense of the taxpayer. More money would be available for investment and to help provide badly needed jobs.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I support Senator Mooney's remarks about public representatives. I made that point during discussion of an earlier section so I will not repeat it.
My question relates to how the county enterprise boards will monitor progress with regard to jobs or companies they have grant aided. There is a history of problems with indigenous industry that has been grant aided. Of the indigenous industries that were grant aided in 1983 half of them had gone out of business ten years later. It is essential that money given out by county enterprise boards is to companies that will last so that jobs will continue. It is impossible to predict that when money is being given out; all the board can do is assess the business plan and whether the company is likely to succeed. However, it is important that there is continuous monitoring so that judgments can be made as to whether mistakes might have been made, how to learn from them and to ensure that money is given in such a way as to yield maximum benefit for the local area. Is there a provision for such monitoring?
I warmly welcome the Senators' comments. There will be a proper review of the success of this programme. However, as Senator Howard said, they have only been established and one cannot start reviewing and restructuring before they even get their remit. This Bill gives them the remit we wish to see them fulfil.
I agree that the county enterprise boards would add nothing if they just became a local bureaucracy doling out grants. That would reinforce concerns about grant dependency and would not add value. The added value is their capacity to ensure that the small businesses they assist do not fail. There is greater emphasis on this occasion on issues, such as mentoring and hands-on support to small emerging businesses, to ensure that we do not have the 56 per cent failure rate — not necessarily grant aided — for small businesses. That requires a degree of hand-holding with emerging enterprises at local level and the ability of a mentor to open doors for them to, perhaps, banks and customers and to be there to guide them on what can go wrong. They might be under-capitalised at first and make all sorts of errors that should be foreseeable.
Much of the success of county enterprise boards will not be judged by the number of grant approvals they push through but by their capacity to enable the businesses to be sustained. That would be absolutely critical to an evaluation of their success. They have evaluation committees that are quite rigorous in looking at the extent to which the ground has been prepared by a small business when they put a project forward.
With regard to the role of local authority members, anybody in elected office feels the same about a Bill that contains a standard section in which Oireachtas Members are taboo. It is understandable at one level. However, in an issue such as this I am pleased that there is a role for the local authority member on the county enterprise board. Much of what must be decided by the devolution commission is to carve out exactly what is the role of the local authority member. They clearly do not have a role in deciding between specific projects. However, they have a critical role in defining the planned structure, the quality of the plans and the policies that will be pursued. That is the purpose for which people are elected to office and that should be done at the lowest effective level. The principle of subsidiarity underlies the devolution issue. We are the most centralised State in Europe and we need to address that issue. The proper role of the local authority member will be an important one. They have been downgraded over the years and that must be addressed.
Senator Farrelly made the interesting suggestion that there should be a single office and first stop shop. I do not have the power to direct these matters. Leader and the partnership companies have their own remit, but I hope the county strategy team will realise the clear obvious local benefits to be had from integrating services. It is not in my power to direct it but we are anxious that it occurs. We have directed our own county enterprise boards that one of their key roles should be to develop a first stop shop where people can get access to information on the first call.
In the evaluation of the role of county enterprise boards, the quality of the plans they put forward is crucial and that has been one important element of the county enterprise board. They have had to put forward plans and their future access to development will be conditional on the quality of their plans. We are directing their development by forcing them to plan and take a strategic view of their county and add value in that way.
One final question on the Minister's comments and what Senator Farrelly and my colleague Senator Fahey have been pushing over a long time, that is, this one stop shop notion. Would the Minister and his Department be prepared to consider funding initiatives in this regard? I mentioned earlier that an initiative in Sligo was initiated by Sligo County Council. As I understand it — I am not in that jurisdiction so I have based my comments on the information given to me — they are currently in the process of acquiring property which will house the various local bodies.
Not every county will be in a position to do this; presumably they are receiving grant aid. It may be that they are planning to locate this new office under the urban renewal scheme so they will get tax relief. Would the Department, through the county enterprise board with, for example, European funding — many of these are European funded organisations anyway — be prepared to push the matter by suggesting some form of finance or support? This is vital. The point has been made here repeatedly and it needs to be said again that it is not feasible to expect business people to travel all over their county. People complain about the time wasted and the bureaucracy and red tape involved. A one stop shop would go a long way towards minimising that problem.
My final question is about the operation of the county enterprise boards. Coming from a tourism orientated county, my understanding is that the county enterprise boards do not fund or grant aid projects unless there is a specific job creation element to them. Where does tourism come into that? Why do the county enterprise boards not fund tourist projects that would promote and enhance the county and which would ultimately bring people into it? I am thinking about the arts and culture, music and the visual amenities. If a company wishes to travel that road, the county enterprise boards will not fund it. That needs to be looked at.
There is a difficulty in deciding at my level that there will be a single office because essentially the county enterprise boards and the Leaders have different administrative budgets. It is a local issue and they have to work out the most cost effective way of handling that. We cannot grant aid the purchase of a building for them. They have a budget within which they have to arrange for the rental of suitable space and the recruitment of their staff. There are clear benefits to be had from doing that in a way that gives the best local service by having an integrated service.
Through our soft supports we support the idea of a first stop shop advice content and they have access to funds from my Department to fund the advisory element of that. If they establish a first stop shop location they have soft support funds to make that an effective service so that when people walk in they have access to suitable information. In that sense we are developing that idea as best we can.
The other issue the Senator raised is that of specific job content, particularly in relation to tourism. The county enterprise boards follow a national tourism policy by which they must abide but a significant number of tourism projects come forward within the county enterprise board. There have been tourism projects and Leader would be more involved in the tourism related area.
My understanding is that they can only grant aid in relation to specific projects but they have plans to develop other concepts that would help develop the tourism strategy of the county. The Senator is correct that, where someone comes with a project there must be a job content, they will not give out money unrelated to an employment content but through their other mechanisms of activity they can support, for example, a specific training initiative related to tourism where an infrastructural weakness in the training area had been identified with a number of local tourism businesses. They could support the development of a response to that but there is a difference between doing that and giving out grant aid so they would have to have identified a specific service as an area where there is a gap with an opportunity for them to fill it through soft support. There is some flexibility there. The position is not quite as black as the Senator might feel, that is, that they cannot support anything that does not have a broad infrastructural lift for the county. They can do that but not through project grant aid.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for his elucidation of the various aspects of this legislation which effectively is a technical legislative measure. I am grateful to him for having allowed us to tease out the various aspects in the context of property and also the whole concept of the county enterprise boards. The Minister's capacity to develop ideas in this area is well known and I wish him well.
I add my thanks to the Minister and his staff.
I thank the Minister on a day when he announced 1,000 jobs, some of which came to the north-east. Many young people in Meath will be pleased about that. I know the Minister has a great grasp of employment and problems relating to it. The county enterprise boards are new and I have no doubt that when he gets the opportunity to review their findings and the work they are doing he will change them, when the change is required, for the better.
I thank the Minister for this Bill and for the debate and I look forward to further debates on the county enterprise boards.
I thank the Senators who took part in the debate. This is essentially enabling legislation but there are the bases for good initiatives there, even in some of the sections we did not discuss today. Developing venture funds with Forbairt participation is filling a gap. I thank Senators for their support of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next.