It is a pleasure to be here to address this issue. As Members know, the county enterprise boards are a strategy to foster "bottom up" development in counties. For too long we developed on the basis of centralised decisions on grant aid and passed over the potential of many local communities to create enterprise and devise strategies for their area. The county enterprise boards are filling that gap; they are drawn from trade unions, employers, the community and the agencies and give people an opportunity to look at their strengths and weaknesses and devise approaches which would be most attuned to their needs. At the heart of this approach is the development of a plan for the county.
By way of background I will set out the development of the county enterprise boards and outline some of the work they are engaged in. This will give Senators an impression of what we are trying to achieve. I will be interested to hear the contributions, because this is an evolving area of policy about which we can learn and improve as we go along.
The county enterprise boards are now well established and have, I believe, been actively addressing the mandate they were given to provide a new source of support for local enterprise initiatives. The original purpose of the boards was to fill a gap which had been identified in the range and scope of enterprise support services available to small and, especially, start-up businesses. They were developed as a countrywide scheme which would enable small enterprises to obtain funding from a variety of sources in order to assist local economic development. It was envisaged that they would tap into local knowledge, energy and commitment and help maximise the efforts of the existing State agencies.
Public intervention in the promotion of local development activity is a relatively recent phenomenon in this country. The main initiatives in this area heretofore were initially, the western development scheme which operated through county development teams in 11 counties and, subsequently, EU supported programmes such as Leader, INTERREG and the small and community enterprise scheme, a sub-programme of the operational programme for rural development. These approaches to local economic development in a sense constituted a response to an industrial policy strategy which some believed over-emphasised the attraction of internationally mobile capital. The perceived failings and limitations of this essentially "top down" model led to a growing recognition that action is also required at a local level to support small firm growth, given that the benefits of national economic prosperity do not automatically trickle down to local areas and communities.
In the interests of drawing on past experience and ensuring that the wheel would not be reinvented, the western development scheme was used as an initial operational model following the establishment of county enterprise boards in 1993. Primary responsibility for the duties of the county development teams has now been assumed by the county enterprise boards, and the activities which were previously assisted by the western development fund and SCES are now embraced by the broad remit given to the new boards.
County enterprise boards represent a first effort to put in place a comprehensive but flexible local enterprise support mechanism on a countrywide basis. They take as their starting point the need to promote the know how of local development by switching the emphasis from support for centrally selected and funded projects towards investment in developing the knowledge, skills and entrepreneurial abilities of the local population and in changing attitudes. This is by no means an easy task and it depends crucially for its success on the capacity of those involved to develop a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy and to proceed on the basis of a strategic plan to implement sharply prioritised activities.
To appreciate the significance of the shift represented by the establishment of county enterprise boards as part of a new model of local development, it is useful to compare the level of resource allocation to the new boards with the provision for their predecessors. Throughout its history, the western development fund — operating through the county development teams in 11 counties, namely, Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, Mayo, Galway. Roscommon, Longford, Kerry, and west Cork, was modestly funded and addressed a relatively limited range of enterprise support activity. In more recent years, from 1987 to 1993, the underlying per annum funding within the western development fund was £750,000, higher amounts shown in individual years being a result of special circumstances applying in those years. As a result, most counties in the system could be guaranteed enterprise support capacity to a maximum of only £48,000 per annum for small grants, with the possibility of securing a limited amount of additional approvals in the form of main grants reserved to the central development committee.
The position was improved when the county development teams assumed responsibility for the implementation of the small and community enterprise scheme in the western counties. However, overall amounts were still modest — between August 1992 and December 1994 only £2.9 million was drawn down between all western county development teams and Shannon Development.
By way of contrast, the direct cash supports for capital projects, feasibility studies, etc., provided in the period ending 31 December 1995 by the county enterprise boards established in the same 11 western counties amounted to £6.44 million, or approximately 35 per cent of the total expenditure on direct grant support by boards throughout the country. It is clear that the levels of funding available to the county enterprise boards for enterprise support purposes in the former western development counties is on a considerably larger scale than that formerly available to the western county development teams at any time.
On the wider national front, I am satisfied that the funding currently being provided to all 35 county enterprise boards will enable them to achieve the board targets set for the initiative in the Operational Programme for Local Urban and Rural Development, 1994-99, under which the boards are supported by EU funding. The planned investment by both the State and the EU under the OP for this initiative is IR£81.77 million for the period 1995 to 1999.
The level of public expenditure on direct financial assistance to small firms by the county enterprise boards has already exceeded the projections in the operational programme. In total, over £18.5 million has been provided to date in grants by the 35 boards, resulting in the creation of over 4,663 full-time and 1,078 part-time jobs. An additional sum of £1.421 million was provided to the boards in 1995 to facilitate their indirect or "soft" support activities. The 1996 Estimates for my Department provide £19.736 million to cover the running costs of the county enterprise boards; of this amount, some £10.250 million is available for project payments and £4.75 million for indirect enterprise or "soft" supports.
Since the boards first commenced operation in 1993 their access to funding support for projects has been on the basis of uniform allocations. In 1993 all boards were given a grant commitment quota of £250,000. None of the commitments from this quota actually matured for payment in 1993 and so the projects fell due for payment in the following year. I understand that in 1994 all boards were initially permitted to make new commitments up to a limit of £500,000. This ceiling was soon reached and the Government subsequently raised the limits with the result that by December 1994 commitments of £24 million had been incurred by county enterprise boards, of which only £5 million had been drawn down by project promoters. In this period the rate of draw down of funds was unfortunately out of kilter with the level of project approvals.
In 1995 all boards were allocated a total approval capacity of £500,000, which comprised two separate elements: first, a maximum approval capacity of £365,000 in direct financial assistance and, second, an allocation of £135,000 to cover the new range of "soft support" measures introduced under the operational programme which came into effect for county enterprise boards in 1995.
This total allocation of £500,000 in 1995 was intended to enable boards to fund a wide range of activity, including financial assistance in the form of capital grants in respect of the four specific measures under the local enterprise sub-programme of the operational programme for local urban and rural development. These include promoting an enterprise culture, business information, advice, counselling and mentoring financial assistance and management development.
As the boards had always been envisaged as an administratively slim structure working in partnership with other public sector bodies, a separate administrative budget of £120,000 was also allocated to each board last year. The same provision applies in the current year.
The introduction in 1995 of a fixed approval allocation reflected a concern on the part of the Government and the European Commission to ensure that boards took action to prioritise the areas of enterprise they wished to support, in accordance with their completed enterprise plans, so as to bring a focused and more positive outcome to their deliberations. Concern had been expressed that some boards seemed not only to assume that there were no limits to their capacity to access public funds but also appeared to have devoted inadequate analysis to projects at approval stage in the interests of maximising their approvals. An unfounded assumption that there would be unconstrained access to public funding support would leave boards with no incentive to seek additional private sector funding for projects, an important feature of mobilising local support for sustainable local development.
After the experience in 1994 of escalating levels of approval capacity being made available through the course of the year, the introduction of new financial arrangements for county enterprise boards in 1995 brought greater consistency and stability to their operations. It ensured that the commitment, payment and financial control procedures essential for the management of this kind of programme became more firmly established and that the rate of drawdown of funding increased significantly. Having regard to the need for a balanced programme of grant approval activity to be undertaken by boards throughout the course of the year, I initially confirmed the application of a maximum grant approval capacity of £180,000 per board for the first six months of this year.
Approval of grants is now a matter of day-to-day responsibility for each board. Boards have been advised to consider the phasing of their supports over the course of the calendar year. In this context, boards were advised, as in previous years, to prioritise projects in accordance with their enterprise plans. A balance must be struck between addressing the pressing claims of projects already on hands and retaining some flexibility to cope with anticipated demand at later stages in the year.
I am at present examining proposals for the differentiated allocation of this funding between each county enterprise board. A final decision on the allocation for each county enterprise board in 1996 will be communicated to each board as soon as possible. Differentiation will not have an adverse effect on rural areas. On the contrary the approach to determining budgets will take account of the diversity of needs and the particular opportunities for developing rural enterprises. Moreover, all county enterprise boards will be assessed for the quality of their plans and on the basis of their performance to date.
The county enterprise boards will continue to play a key role in promoting small business growth at local level and will continue to expand their role as they deepen their co-operation with other local actors and with State agencies in the delivery of a comprehensive range of support services in every area throughout the country. The Government remains committed to the success of the initiative, the key to the success of which remains jobs and, in particular, the sustainability of the jobs created. These factors will determine the success or failure of the county enterprise initiative and will be carefully assessed and monitored.