With the agreement of the House, I wish to share my time with Senator McGowan and Senator Roche.
Adjournment Matters. - County Enterprise Boards.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
County enterprise boards were established following discussions held under the 1992 Government. The early indications were that there would be no room for elected county councillors on the boards. This was subsequently modified to include the cathaoirleach of the local authority involved and one other elected member. This matter exercised the minds of many of my colleagues in this House. We made several representations to the then Fianna Fáil Ministers who were steering the legislation through the House, sadly to no avail. The view was that the county enterprise boards, in their concept and execution, would be more widely representative of the communities in which they operated.
However, the lobby did not end with the change of Government and continued into the Labour and Fianna Fáil Administration where the Minister's predecessor, Minister of Finance, Deputy Quinn, was charged with tidying up the legislation and introducing the statutes which established the boards. As a result of the representations made to him, he agreed there should be an expanded role for elected councillors and that there would be four members of the council and no distinction would be made between the cathaoirleach or an elected member. However, although he did not state publicly in the debates at that time, I know, because of the interest I and others had in this case, that he was not inclined to introduce expenses for members. It was a debatable point as to why he would not and was more philosophical and ideological than policy driven. He believed that because these boards were, in the main, of a voluntary nature "a better quality of county councillor" would serve on them if the carrot of expenses were not dangled in front of them when the local authorities concerned were making the decisions as to who would be the four members. I found this argument spurious. In effect, it suggested that county councillors were only interested in going to board meetings and being nominated to committees because of the expenses.
This has resulted in a growing discomfort and chorus of disapproval at what is seen as the somewhat discriminatory nature of this decision. While many of those serving on these boards do not receive expenses from the Exchequer or any Department, they receive some form of allowance from the representative organisations. This means that locally elected councillors now have to rise at all hours in the morning. In County Mayo, Councillor Pádraig Cosgrave says that in order to discharge his duties as a member of the Mayo County Enterprise Board, he has to rise at seven o'clock in the morning. Most of his working day is gone and he, as a farmer, finds this an intolerable burden on him and his family. He believes it should be ended. I concur with that view. I have experienced the functioning of the county enterprise boards and seen proof of the integrity and commitment of councillors on boards. They continue to play a significant role in the development of county enterprise boards. The least the Government can do is to give them some form of travelling allowance which will help to defray the financial burden placed on those who are loyal and voluntary public servants.
Senator Mooney and I are not concerned about the money but about the humiliation of an elected local authority member who is in a minority on a county enterprise board. County enterprise boards were set up in a blaze of publicity. We were told communities would decide on matters but the boards are useless. They would be better if there were a greater input by local authority members who should have some responsibility. I listened to Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, who is responsible for regional development, speak about accountability. My county enterprise board is laced with people who have no experience but have an allegiance to the Labour Party. Our county manager, who is an excellent manager and chairman, was not able to attend the last county enterprise board meeting. Although there were four local authority members on the board, none could act as vice chairman. We had to ask a Labour Party hack with no experience which was embarrassing and humiliating for elected local representatives.
While I accept the Minister for Enterprise and Employment's concern about employment and job creation, county enterprise boards are going nowhere. People have no confidence in them nor is there commitment at any level. Funding is used to pay administration costs and the expenses of staff going out to look at small jobs. Last December the Donegal County Enterprise Partnership Board had projects worth £1.1 million but it only received £90,000 on 1 January. That was the most embarrassing situation I have faced as a member of a body.
Senator Mooney was right to focus attention on the position of council members on county enterprise boards. I urge the Minister to reappraise the value and experience of council members who would be enthusiastic about participating in these boards. I look forward to the day when the Minister restructures the county enterprise boards without lacing them with people who only have an allegiance to the Labour Party.
There is a fundamental need to rethink the county enterprise boards, a point which has been well made. The principle we are discussing is one of equity. It is neither just nor fair but downright iniquitous that councillors who, by and large, give voluntarily of their time should not be recompensed for the time they invest on county enterprise boards or for out of pocket expenses, such as travelling expenses. That is not a mean-spirited suggestion nor is it to say that councillors are in it only for what they can get out of it. Councillors who represent their communities make a value contribution and it is not fair or reasonable to expect them to do so without being recompensed for, at least, out of pocket expenses.
There is a propensity by central Government, in particular at administrative level, to downgrade the role of the county councillor and the elected representative in every area. This is part of that thinking which is centrist, negative and antidemocratic. To regard councillors as some form of lesser being, which is implicit in this attitude, is to turn one's face against the evidence. Elected representatives have a unique feature which places them above representatives of the Civil Service, local government, local enterprise or the staff members of the functional areas of Government, the State sponsored bodies, that is, they have a democratic imprimatur. They are selected and go before the people who pass judgment on them. We do not have the right to pass judgment on county managers, county secretaries or on other public servants who serve on these boards.
The negative approach being adopted to county councillors and elected representatives is reflected by the mean-spirited attitude adopted by central Government which goes back a number of years. I ask the Minister to take on board Senator Mooney's well-founded proposition. It is not only in the interest of Fianna Fáil councillors but those from Fine Gael, Labour, Democratic Left and Independents who serve the people. We should elevate and celebrate the role of the local elected councillor and accede to the request in this case.
I thank Senators for raising this issue and a wider debate on the role of the county enterprise board which was implicit in what was said. My response is geared to Senator Mooney's original matter. When the county enterprise boards were established it was recognised that local authority members had a distinctive role to play. Unlike many other local initiatives, the councillor's role is a core part of the county enterprise board.
The blanket policy has been that travelling expenses are not provided out of money available for enterprise and development. That has been applied across the board. It is easy to understand the decision that uniform entitlement to travelling expenses would not be part of this. It was an attempt to harness community support which was live and strong and to develop and channel that into the creation of enterprise. There was a sense that we had to focus resources on enterprise creation rather than on administrative overheads.
Having said that, it was implicit that if participation caused hardship for people, the board could use its administrative funds to ease the problems of those who might be at a disadvantage. If we want representatives of the unemployed to participate, we must be sensitive to that. The approach was that, on an exceptional basis, the county enterprise board would be able to ensure broad participation by meeting such expenses. That is different from providing in statute for the payment of travelling expenses for every member. I understand why that line was taken. I accept it creates difficulties and people will be out of pocket if they participate but it is applied uniformly to all members.
It applies only to councillors. Representatives of trade organisations are paid.
That is their affair. The setting up of these boards was designed to harness local enthusiasm and to give communities a vehicle in which to become involved. They were not designed to cover incidental expenses. If disadvantaged groups suffer a particular hardship, the county enterprise board could make provision for them.
I reject the suggestion that this is a useless vehicle. Any vehicle must be evaluated and I would like to see the impact of such evaluation. Some 4,663 full-time jobs and 1,078 part-time jobs have been created at a cost of approximately £3,500 per job, which is a good performance. People will ask if these jobs will survive in the long term. It is important to determine if these are better projects because of the support of the county enterprise boards. The county enterprise boards have not taken the easy route of grant aiding everything which comes their way. People on the board must be able to say they have a limited budget so they cannot help everyone. Part of the task of the county enterprise boards is to sift through the projects and decide which is the most viable. They must also develop supports to make these projects a success. While the jury is out on these boards, I am happy they are having an impact and that they will prove themselves in the long term.
Senators said there should be a stronger democratic input to these boards. I would like to see how such bodies interact with local authorities. For example, Dublin Port should present its plans to Dublin Corporation for scrutiny by local authority members and many local bodies should have that degree of scrutiny in relation to local authority members.
This is a novel vehicle which has the support of many people, including trade unions, employers and community and voluntary groups. The early indications are that it is adding value and we should review it to see if it needs greater democratic scrutiny. We must take a pragmatic approach to this issue. If people are experiencing hardship, money should be given to them at the board's discretion. However, we should not set up a permanent payment structure for travelling expenses for all members.
I respect the Minister but he used this opportunity to justify the existence of the boards, which was not my argument.
It was the argument of the Senator's colleagues.
I accept that, but the motion was specifically about expenses for elected county councillors. Does the Minister believe it is right and fair that all trade representatives——
Acting Chairman
I ask the Senator to conclude because the Minister has already given his answer.
——pay travelling expenses to their members, including representatives of the local authorities? Does the Minister believe that local authorities which nominate elected members should be sanctioned to pay their expenses, as happens in almost every other area?
I dealt with the Senator's issue and the other issues raised.