Digital Hub Development Agency Bill 2002 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
I welcome Deputy John Browne, Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and his officials, Ms Patricia Foreman, Ms Rebecca Minch and Mr. Niall O'Donoghue.
I advise the members that this committee room is required at 5 p.m. today to accommodate another committee in its consideration of a Bill. If we have not concluded consideration of the Bill by 4.30 p.m. we may by agreement suspend until the considerations of the other committee have been concluded, and at that stage continue consideration of the Bill this evening.
The last amendment in the list of amendments is in my name and it states section 38 instead of section 37.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 2, after "Finance" to insert "and the Houses of the Oireachtas".
This is an amendment which relates to a decision or an order that may be given by the Minister to extend the area to which the digital hub applies. I accept the Minister may have to get the consent of the Minister for Finance for most of the orders he makes in relation to the digital hub which would have financial consequences. Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas should have an opportunity to comment on the extension of the hub to another area, whether in Dublin or elsewhere. For example, if it is decided to extend the digital hub outside the Thomas Street area to another area of Dublin, it would be appropriate for Members of the Oireachtas to make a contribution in that regard because such a decision would effectively change the shape of the digital hub as opposed to just sanctioning extra finance, which is something the Minister for Finance and the relevant Minister could do.
A decision to extend and vary the digital hub area would appear to be an executive function, not a legislative one, therefore, it is not appropriate for the Dáil to approve such a matter. As the section follows the precedent of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
It should also be noted that any extension may include only lands contiguous to the boundaries of the hub.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2, therefore amendments 2 and 3 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 3 and 4, to delete ", contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub".
This amendment relates to an issue Deputy Broughan and I raised when we were briefed on the legislation. I said on a number of occasions when discussing the legislation that the digital hub is a good concept. I would like the concept to move to other areas of the country, and possibly other areas of Dublin.
My amendment proposes to give the Minister and the Minister for Finance the power at some stage in the future to extend the digital hub concept outside areas bordering the current digital hub areas. The Minister is currently just providing for the extension of the boundaries. In other words, if there is sufficient interest in the digital hub, there is a bit of wriggle room for the hub to extend within the Thomas Street area. I would like to be a bit more ambitious and at least leave it open for a Minister at some stage in the future to decide there is an area in another part of Dublin or Cork where he or she would like to see the digital hub agency, so to speak, going to work to attract companies to that part of the country or city. Removing the last line in section 3(1) would give the Minister the capacity to do that at some stage in the future, which is the purpose of my amendment.
I do not fundamentally disagree with the tenor of Deputy Coveney's amendment. My amendment No. 3 proposes to make the project a bit more ambitious. I am looking at an aerial photograph of the digital hub from the MediaLab in Dublin Corporation down to the end of the Windmill site. When one looks at it all together it is a very small site, even though it is identified clearly on the back of the Bill.
The Minister may recall that on Second Stage I referred to cities such as Kuala Lumpur, Seoul and various other cities in East Asia, who had effectively chosen a similar concept but were far more ambitious than we are. We had a debate in the sub-committee yesterday about what exactly is broadband. There is a particular influence on media, linking in with media and the use of all the digital media, art and so on. Like most local authorities, the city is now divided effectively into five district councils, some very large. My district of Dublin North Central comprises a population of approximately 150,000. The South Central areas, the heart of which is the Liberties, have a clearly defined remit. When one looks at the aerial photograph, it is quite striking how close the College of Art and Design is to the boundaries. It is just a few buildings up the road. If one goes further up Dame Street, one is nearing Trinity College. Our civil servant colleagues will recall that when the issue was first mooted there was grave dissatisfaction with our academic communities, particularly the local third level colleges, of which there are approximately four, if one includes Trinity College, the College of Art, Kevin Street Dublin Institute of Technology and one other college further down. It is a strong centre of third level activity. This interface - it begins with MIT in Massachusetts - between digital academia, new enterprises and cutting edge developments is something which should be included.
I am easy in relation to removing "contiguous to the boundaries. . . ". There are specific boundaries when one looks at the last page of the Bill. Perhaps it would be fair to leave it open. On the other hand, perhaps we could include the whole of South Central, which has a clearly defined role both in terms of the local government community and the Dáil constituency, which has its own character. As this is a huge development, I will press the amendment.
The digital hub area is located in the Liberties-Coombe area of Dublin. One of the crucial success factors of this type of project is the clustering of like enterprises. Therefore, any move to build on the competitive advantages of the area would mean that any physical extension would have to be adjacent to the existing hub. This is not to say, however, that there could not be other digital content projects in other parts of the State. While it would be desirable to have links to the hub, they would not be managed by the agency. There are similar projects such as the National Digital Park at Citywest, Plessey Park in Limerick and the National Software Centre in Cork. These would not be managed by the agency as set up in the Bill.
In relation to what Deputy Broughan said, it was felt we should begin with a confined area which would be workable, manageable and could be extended at a later stage. Under the Bill, and given the clustering of like enterprises, it was felt that the Liberties-Coombe area was the most manageable area. There is scope to extend the areas at a later stage. Broadband was not confined to particular areas, it was allowed to extend if necessary. What we are looking at here today is the confined Liberties-Coombe area, which is the best way to deal with the initial project.
I agree with much of what the Minister said and I understand why he made that decision. However, there is no downside to my amendment. If one removes the words "contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub", it is still effectively up to the Minister if he wishes to extend the boundaries of the digital hub in the future. That is done by ministerial order. It is not as if acceptance of my amendment would mean opening up the capacity for the digital hub to spread across the country. That decision must be made by the Minister in any case.
I do not see why we have to restrict ourselves so tightly to only adding on to the boundary. If, for example, the digital hub agency tells the Minister there is a building two or three buildings away from where the digital hub is located, that it is an ideal site and people are interested in it and that it would like to extend the hub to that location, the Minister is prohibited from doing that because there is open space between the boundary and any new property that may be added to the hub. The provision is too restrictive. Removing those words will give a future Minister more room to manoeuvre. It certainly does not force a Minister to take decisions unless he or she sees fit to do so. I do not see a downside to the amendment or why the legislation should only allow a Minister to make an order that adds to the existing boundary as opposed to giving him or her more room.
When the Bill was being drafted there was much discussion about it. It was felt that the key to this was the clustering of the projects so there would be shared facilities. Deputy Coveney's amendment would result in the clustering effect being lost. It is also important for branding and marketing that the hub would start with this confined area and make a success of it before extending at a later stage. The view from this side of the House is that the clustering effect, through sharing facilities and keeping them together, is more important than going on a broad base initially. If it is a success, we can do as Deputy Coveney and Deputy Broughan suggest and extend it.
The point is that the Minister cannot extend it unless it is an extension to the boundary. I agree with the Minister that we need the cluster to work in the first place but we should at least give a future Minister the opportunity, if the cluster has worked, to extend it to another area. The Minister will decide whether it is appropriate to break out of the cluster. Nobody else will make that decision.
Would the Deputy not accept the need to have a defined physical space for international recognition?
It is defined unless it is changed and that can only happen through a ministerial order. It is defined internationally as the digital hub and it is on a map. It will not change except through ministerial order with the agreement of the Minister for Finance.
I am not advocating that within the next 12 or 18 months the digital hub should spread to Cork, Limerick or Galway. The State has invested a huge amount of money in this project and needs to make it work before moving it elsewhere. However, if after two years the digital hub has become a massive success, the expertise in that agency should surely be used either to extend the digital hub in this part of Dublin but perhaps starting two or three buildings away or, if we want to be even more ambitious, the agency could be used in Limerick, Galway or Waterford.
Under the Bill it can be extended to adjacent areas. There is nothing to stop that.
Does it not have to be contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub? Am I misinterpreting the provision?
It is contiguous to an area, not a building.
That would include the midlands, Cork and so forth.
That would not be the intention. It is contiguous to the area of the Liberties-Coombe.
It is not contiguous to the area, it is contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub. Am I reading this correctly? Does it mean that if it is not an addition to the existing boundary, it cannot happen?
Could contiguous mean what is provided for in my amendment? In other words, could we include Trinity College?
Contiguous means adjoining areas.
In other words, if this were a farm, one would have to buy a field bordering that farm. That is what I understand by contiguous and it would severely tie the hands of a future Minister in extending the project, should there be a building between the hub and where he or she wishes to extend it. That is my concern. There is no downside to removing that phrase. It will simply give the Minister a free hand in the future.
If something is in the way, it can be removed. One can exclude or include land described in the order contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub.
Does the Minister mean that one can remove some of the land that is currently in the hub?
Let us suppose that Guinness chose to sell its storehouse and the digital hub had become a phenomenal success internationally. Could it become part of the digital hub if there are buildings between the storehouse and the digital hub site? Under this wording, it is not possible because it is not contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub. In other words, it would not add to the boundaries but would create a new boundary.
Under the legislation, one would not have to buy every property. One could buy the property that is relevant to the company that wants it. One would not have to buy every property along the way. If it wanted to purchase a particular property, it could do that without purchasing all the properties in the area.
At present it owns little property in the area.
The defined area for the digital hub is clearly marked by boundaries. If we want to extend the digital hub to a new area, does the new area have to be tagged onto the existing boundary or can it be a separate area? It needs to border the existing boundary.
One can designate the area and then buy the properties one might want.
Designate it as part of the digital hub?
It is an extension of the digital hub.
The Minister is saying it does not have to be contiguous. Contiguous can mean anything.
My interpretation of contiguous is that it must be attached to the existing boundary.
The properties do not have to be contiguous but the area does. One can extend the area and buy the property one wants without buying every property in that area.
I am sorry for labouring the point. If, for example, in the area marked in the document - the area referred to by Deputy Broughan on his map - we decide to extend the digital hub at some stage in the future, can we create a new area, a new border, that is perhaps a quarter of a mile away from the existing hub? Would that be considered an extension of the digital hub contiguous to the boundaries, as distinct from the area? If so, I do not think that is correct. "Boundaries" is the word the Minister has supplied.
One would extend the area and then buy what one wants within that area.
The new area is not contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub.
It is all based on the clustering. Common sense would suggest one would not buy a property ten or 15 miles away. One would buy a property beside——
I am talking about 100 yards away, and there may be some buildings in between. One would not then be contiguous to the boundary, though one would be in the same area.
One would then extend the area around the building one wanted to acquire - the area from which one wanted to acquire the building.
Which would include other buildings which would not necessarily be part of the hub, but would be within the boundary of the hub. Is that it?
Within the boundary. One might not need to buy those properties and would simply buy the property one wanted to buy.
I understand what the Minister of State is saying.
It is not extended on property, but on the area of land. One would extend the area of land and then purchase the desired property.
Could we ask the Minister of State to consider this matter for Report Stage, so that he would have time to reflect on Deputy Coveney's proposals?
That would be acceptable. There is an element of confusion and the Minister of State may be able to clear it up. I would like to move my amendment but I withdraw it for the moment in an effort to move on. I would like a future Minister to be able to have the capacity to perhaps extend the digital hub to another city, but clearly that is not in the view of the current Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
It is important to recognise that currently, with regard to the area defined under the Bill, very little property is owned by the company. It owns a few buildings but not all of the property within the defined area.
Between now and Report Stage we might have more clarification.
I can give an example. Guinness is based in that area, and the digital hub company does not own Guinness. A lot of property in the area will probably never be owned by the company.
Would the Minister of State consider the points raised before Report Stage next week?
Regarding Deputy Coveney's amendment——
That is a matter for me. I may well move the amendment on Report Stage. If the project turns out to be the success we hope it will be, within the next three or four years, I would like any future Minister to have the capacity to create a new digital hub area somewhere else, managed under the same scheme. I will wait for Report Stage to make that argument.
As regards amendment No. 3, when the digital hub was first mooted, there were different locations suggested. There was a certain amount of annoyance that more widespread discussions had not taken place with the community. What brought that home to me, regarding locating the hub in the greater territorial area of Dublin city, was seeing a television report on the children engaged in one of the digital hub projects while we were on Second Stage. The children were very impressive, but the likelihood is that none or hardly any of those children would have Internet access in their home. If one had looked at some apartment complexes adjacent to the digital hub area, it might have given us an opportunity to give these children and their families in the south inner city a leading role in the digital field. We discussed a similar point yesterday regarding our report on broadband.
That was the genesis of my thinking. One of my colleagues from the city council is present and he would no doubt support my latter point. The population needs to be deeply involved. We will turn to that matter in other amendments. I withdraw the amendment for now.
With regard to Deputy Broughan's remarks, I understand that the Taoiseach recently launched a project for 11 apartment complexes, both inside and outside the hub area, with PC rooms and training to be provided. There is a move in that direction.
The Minister of State should be aiming at every household, not just in Dublin South-Central, but in the whole of Wexford as well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, lines 8 and 9, to delete subsection (3).
I tabled this amendment because I thought the import of section 3(3) was that the Minister might be in a position to reduce the territory of the digital hub as it now exists, and I wanted him not to be able to do so. If the boundaries were extended, I would wish that the Minister would leave them extended.
This is a standard legislative provision and a precedent exists in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997. This provision is usually co-joined with such orders and provisions in legislation.
I will return to it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, line 21, after "Oireachtas." to insert "The details of any monies paid out, provided for by the Oireachtas in the administration of this Act, shall be available to the public in legible electronic form.".
This amendment speaks for itself. It is an effort at transparency. It asks that when moneys are or have been paid out - moneys provided by the Oireachtas in the administration of the Act - that the detail and the amount of the money paid out would be available to the public in legible electronic form. That is probably the case already. If people were to look for it, they would probably find that detail. It is probably accessible on the website of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, but it would be no harm to have this provision in the Bill. There has been a move in this direction in recent legislation, to the effect that when money - in effect taxpayers' money - is being spent by the Oireachtas or by a Department, people should be entitled to see where it is being spent, and how much is spent. There was an example in the fisheries Bill.
Under section 2 of the Bill, publication includes electronic modes of publication which are capable of being read in legible form and cognate words shall be construed accordingly. The wording of this section follows the precedents of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 and the Family Support Act 2001. Details of Exchequer funding will be available in the annual report and in the accounts of the agency, which will be published. They will also be available to the Oireachtas, voted in the annual Appropriations Bill and published in the Book of Estimates. Accordingly it is proposed not to accept the amendment.
No, it is not. Publication in the annual report is merely a one-off publication. The voting on the Estimates is not a common procedure either. If money is being sanctioned by the Minister for Finance and is being paid out by the Oireachtas, the details relating to it should be available in electronic form once the money has been paid out. I do not see what the difficulty is or why people should have to wait for the annual report to get that detail. The annual report is really just a collection of figures for the preceding 12 months. If people are obliged to wait for 12 months to find out how much money has been paid or sanctioned by the Oireachtas, that is not a very transparent way of doing business. I am open to a different wording and perhaps there is a provision elsewhere in the Bill which covers this. We are dealing with the provision of taxpayers' money for the Digital Hub Development Agency and people should have access to information regarding how much is being spent.
All of us wish to have openness, transparency and accountability. However, routine day-to-day accounting transactions of a company would not normally appear on its website. The chief executive of the company will be answerable to the relevant Oireachtas committee.
Is that the case even if it is a State-funded company?
The position as I have outlined it has been the normal legislative practice since the foundation of the State. It would not be good practice to have day-to-day accounting transactions of a company posted on its website.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 6 is in the name of Deputy Broughan, Amendment No. 36 is cognate and they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 25, after "as" to insert "an Ghníomhaireacht Forbartha don Mhol Digiteach, or in the English language,".
I am advised that it is standard practice to have an Irish title. Accordingly, I propose the insertion of "an Ghníomhaireacht Forbartha don Mhol Digiteach" at this point in the Bill, where the first reference to the agency appears.
The Bill has not been given an Irish translation for everyday usage because of its international remit. This wording follows the precedent of the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act 1998 and the Industrial Development Authority Act 1950. In the normal manner, the Bill will be translated into Irish.
Many people will be unhappy with that situation. However, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, subsection (2)(c), line 35, after “property,” to insert “equity or investment holding,”.
This amendment is somewhat related to amendment No. 11, which I understand has been ruled out of order for reasons I accept. I hope I may be in a position to amend my own amendment prior to Report Stage, or perhaps the Minister will bring in an appropriate amendment to fit in with the statutory requirements. The essence of my amendment is to assist entrepreneurial culture as much as possible, in line with the point I made on Second Stage that it is difficult to encourage enterprise by statutory remit. One approach would be to give the agency a role, if it so wished - not an enforced role - as a provider of seed capital for very small businesses setting up operations within the hub by acting similarly to a venture capital operation. In return for such seed capital, it might take out an equity stake in a company.
In my opinion there is a useful role for the agency in this regard. As it will have a close understanding of the operations of companies involved in the hub, it will be in an unique position to provide seed capital. The amounts of money involved are quite small. Typically, the type of business going into the digital hub will not be capital intensive but, largely, labour-intensive. From a very small seed capital base, we may get significant returns. I have personal experience of the extreme difficulties in raising capital at the start-up stage of a small business. Conditions set by banks are often very onerous and the conditions set by traditional venture capital companies do not tend to apply to very small, or even medium sized companies. This role should be open to the agency if it considers it appropriate in future as a means of kick-starting and assisting entrepreneurial activity.
While I believe the structures of the Bill are appropriate and the legislative and administrative provisions are to be commended, it needs more teeth in terms of how we promote entrepreneurial activity. As simply a property company or an administrative agency, it does not stretch far enough, in my view. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to allow the agency, as well as holding property, to also hold equity investments which could come from such activities as involvement on a venture capital basis.
I appreciate the Deputy's approach to this matter. However, section 13(3) states very clearly that the agency, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, may acquire, hold and dispose of shares or other interests in a company and become a member of a company. That adequately covers what the Deputy is suggesting. In addition, there is nothing in the legislation to preclude IDA Ireland or Enterprise Ireland, both key stakeholders in the digital hub, from taking equity stakes in hub-based companies.
I agree with the Minister of State that section 13(3) has the same intent as my proposed amendment. If he is happy that it is not necessary to repeat the same provision in the section with which I am concerned, it would make sense to change section 7(2)(c). In one section, there is provision for taking up equity. Its inclusion in the other section would make sense. While I do not feel very strongly about the issue, I believe this slight amendment would be useful.
In my view, the term "property" includes equity.
Before withdrawing the amendment, I would have wished to refer to the issue again on amendment No. 11 but, as a member of one of the smaller parties, I have to cover several bases, including Priority Questions in the House later.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are out of order, as the Deputy has been advised already.
Yes. However, I will have an opportunity to amend them for Report Stage.
Is all of amendment No. 10 out of order?
Yes. It involves a potential charge on the Revenue, as is also the case with amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
At least that solves my time problem for today. However, on the basis of my rephrasing amendment No. 11 for submission on Report Stage, I would be interested to have the Minister of State's views on the question of an agency taking on that type of role in the provision of seed capital.
In principle, does the Minister consider it is a role that would be suitable for the agency?
I understand where Deputy Ryan is coming from with regard to holding equity and seed capital. From my own experience I have some reservations about the way the Bill provides for it, though I have not tabled an amendment. For a national development company which is a property owner and has major concerns for its own progress and development it can be complicated it if has holdings within companies which operate in some of its property and in some of its own territory. Given the history of the project I would have some concerns. Some of those who spoke to me about the history of this development would have raised these concerns. We have to ensure this project is transparent from now on and nobody will be able to make allegations against any aspect of its operation. I am wary of those who may have holdings from the agency also being funded by the agency. It is one possible basis for conflicts of interest.
On amendment No. 11, section 13(2) and (3) will empower the agency to do exactly what he suggests. On the reporting question, which is most important, it would be a standard requirement for the agency to include any investments in its report under the Department of Finance code of practice for governance of State bodies. What the Deputy seeks is adequately provided for already.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
Yes. The issue relates to a point raised by Deputy Coveney. In my proposed amendment I suggested there would be a separate annual report outlining the status and extent of such investments. The point made by Deputies Broughan and Coveney is a valid one. It may be beneficial in agents such as this to go outside the norm and just have the annual report or certain return procedures, which are statutorily correct and for which there is a precedent, but may not be issued in a public manner which would be appropriate for the agency.
We do not want to overburden the agency with bureaucracy. It exists for development purposes and there are already enough areas where it can report through the code of practice for governance of State bodies. The matter is adequately dealt with under the code of practice.
Perhaps I can make one final point in terms of legislation. I agree that section 13 provides for the possibility of carrying out what I had intended. Is there not a case in legislation for explicitly setting it out in that it encourages an agency to go in a certain direction? Section 13 outlines it but it does not have the same intent as set out in my amendment. Is there a role for legislation to give a signal of intent or a signal encouraging an agency in a particular direction?
Its functions are adequately set out in the Bill. We do not want to be too prescriptive in what it is being asked to do. It has to be given a certain amount of discretion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, subsection (1)(b), line 2, before “enterprises” to insert “new or expanding”.
The reason for tabling this amendment is my concern that at some stage in the future the digital hub may be the place to be if one is an IT company. It may suck companies out of other parts of Dublin or Ireland into the hub and may cause as many problems as it solves. My amendment proposes the inclusion of the words "new or expanding", before "enterprises", in order that the digital hub would do what it is set up to do - to promote new enterprise or an expansion of an existing enterprise - as opposed to merely relocating an enterprise from elsewhere into the hub. We have had experience of this in Citywest which is a superb industrial estate with a fantastic communications infrastructure in comparison with most other parts of the country.
We should not pump State money into creating a hub which will result in existing companies relocating into the hub. I am not suggesting it will happen in an industrial estate on the same scale as in Citywest. It is important to have included in the legislation that the purpose of the hub is to promote new and expanding enterprise. The concept is to attract new entrants as opposed to existing enterprises merely relocating, the result of which would be a detrimental effect on other areas in Dublin which may be reliant on IT companies in their areas.
Obviously we hope new entrants would be encouraged to participate. For this venture to be successful a mixture of companies will be needed. In a free market, companies will decide where best to locate. If companies want to become involved they will decide that themselves based on their own strategy and marketing capabilities.
Section 8(1)(b) states:
The functions of the Agency shall be to-
formulate strategies to encourage individuals and enterprises engaged in digital content and related activities to locate in the digital hub;
What I am proposing is that the function of the agency is to formulate strategies to encourage new or expanding enterprises. I am not restricting existing enterprises from moving to the hub but the focus of the agency should be to encourage new enterprises or expanding enterprises into the hub. In other words, public moneys are going into the promotion and encouragement of new enterprises to develop within the hub, that is not to say we are restricting other companies from voluntarily moving into the hub. The agency has been paid and set up to encourage new or expanding entrants into the hub in order that new jobs and new technologies are provided. I am not suggesting people would be banned from relocating within the digital hub area. Surely the function of the agency should not be to encourage individuals and enterprises engaged in digital content to relocate into the hub. The agency's purpose is not to go out and get people to relocate because we are providing a better infrastructure in a better location. Its aim is to promote new enterprise and innovation.
The digital hub can facilitate small companies to expand. I feel strongly about this amendment and I intend to press it. Will the Minister consider what I am saying? I am not suggesting that existing companies cannot relocate. However, the purpose of the agency is to attract new entrants to the market and encourage innovation - whether it be educational or otherwise - in the hub. That should be the role of the agency as opposed to the wording as it stands, where the focus seems to be on encouraging individuals and enterprises engaged in IT to, effectively, move into the hub.
I am not totally in agreement with my colleague on this point. In terms of cutting-edge digital media companies, it could well be that an established company might invest here or give us new techniques or ideas. This was the background to getting involved with MIT in the first instance. I accept Deputy Coveney's point that it would not be useful if companies are merely going to be sucked from other regions of the city or country. Given what we have seen in the various reports from the company so far, I am not sure that it would be the best thing to restrict it when we want to create a type of flux. It is almost like trying to get a new machine working that is going to eventually burst into life. It is probably just starting to splutter a little at present. If one was too restrictive on the enterprises, it could cause some difficulty.
I am inclined to agree with Deputy Broughan. The idea behind clustering is to have a mix of sizes and types of companies, both new and old. I do not think they are going to be looking for Microsoft and Intel and other such major companies, but if any of them wish to set up a new related business within the cluster we should not restrict them in any way. Its success will be based on clustering and the fact that the companies are working together and sharing facilities.
To date, the support for small businesses in the hub has been central to the strategy. Deputy Coveney need not have any concerns in regard to companies being poached from other areas. It is important that we have a proper mix under the structure that is being set up in order for it to be successful.
A few years ago, as a member of a delegation from the then enterprise and trade committee, we visited Silicon Valley. We tried to encourage a company called Silicon Graphics, which was responsible for the technology used to generate images of dinosaurs in the film "Jurassic Park", to come to Ireland. On the visit we had dinosaurs running around after us. The company was probably as large as Intel. It must have moved on even more dramatically now. It would have been interesting if it had come to any part of the country but, unfortunately, it did not. That is the kind of company which comes to mind in this regard.
——or the likes of Disney World.
Is Deputy Coveney pressing the amendment?
The wording in my amendment does not restrict anything. It would be great, for example, if Microsoft wished to set up a specific element of its enterprise in the digital hub. This would come under the category of expanding enterprise. The emphasis should be on new technologies, new companies and the expansion of existing companies. It is important to have that element within the wording, while not restricting the agency in effectively disallowing companies that wish to relocate. There is nothing to prevent them relocating.
I am aware that a number of amendments will be accepted later. I will put the amendment. Is the Deputy withdrawing it?
Does the Deputy not accept that it is very important for us not to send negative signals to companies suggesting that they might not be wanted in the digital hub? It is important that we get a mixture of companies, new and old, that will learn from each other.
Does Deputy Coveney wish to respond before I put the amendment?
The Minister of State is consulting his officials. Is there any addition to what he has already said? That is not the message I wish to send out. This is about formulating strategies rather than about who is allowed or disallowed. I do not wish to send out negative signals to anybody. We are discussing the function of the agency in respect of formulating strategies. When the agency is formulating strategies it should be to encourage new or expanding enterprises into the hub. That is a better wording than "strategies to encourage individuals and enterprises". One puts the emphasis on the creation of new enterprises or an expansion of existing ones while the other seems to suggest that existing companies may relocate.
I think we have exhausted the subject.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, subsection (1)(g), line 12, after “interests” to insert “and their representative social, economic and cultural development bodies”.
The Minister of State had started to indicate why he would not accept this amendment. The reference to consulting with local community interests does not go far enough. One of the fundamental problems with the evolution of this project, which we discussed on Second Stage, was that there was not enough consultation with the localities. As the Minister is aware, since 1987 we have had a form of district government structure which is composed of all the local bodies such as local development boards and so on at local council level that are associated with our democracy. This is a very historic area of the city. As the Minister knows, it is referred to in song as the "rebel Liberties". A strong community structure has developed over the past two decades with such groups as SICTA and the south inner city partnership. A plethora of bodies has grown up and it is my intention to try and encompass them.
We need to include such representatives around Dublin city. I am not sure how it operates with the partnerships outside Dublin or with the Leader programmes. We are used to the idea of calling general meetings of the public who are members of a body and they elect the directors who represent the area to Government at whatever level. My party raised this issue in regard to the serious cutbacks which are occurring in all of these bodies at local representative level on Private Members' business. The key words are: community, representative, social, economic and cultural as evidenced in partnerships and the development bodies. This would be another area of major cultural focus in terms of different types of sporting and artistic bodies which existed before any concept of the digital hub and may have been one of the reasons the Taoiseach and his advisers said the declining industrial district, an historic region which was once probably a leading district, needed a key element to spark it back into full flower. We have projects in Temple Bar, the docklands, O'Connell Street and so on. My colleagues in Cork city would be familiar with similar type projects as would the Minister of State in Wexford which have developed over the past 20 years. I am simply saying people should be consulted and not in vague terms of a community interest. Mr. Philip Quinn, chief executive officer, and his colleagues should be obliged to consult these bodies. The same idea underlies my proposal in relation to the board. We need to get the people on board. A few weeks ago we watched the children of the Liberties on "Six-one" learning about digital media which is fantastic and which, hopefully, will be replicated all around the country. It is important that feeling is not lost, that the digital hub belongs to the Liberties and the south-central part of our city and is a project of which the community becomes increasingly proud, one which will result in people wanting to work and live in the area.
In the past, I often held similar views to those of Deputy Broughan in regard to Ministers implementing Acts without consultation. In this case, there has been widespread consultation with residents associations, community groups, business representatives and public representatives. More than 150 meetings have taken place, contacts have been established with over 140 community groups, a questionnaire was sent to 10,000 postal addresses in the area, and following feedback from the initial phase of the consultation an informed discussion document, "A Vision for the Digital Hub" was published. This is one of the first Bills to provide for community consultation and shows how seriously I take the role of the community in this project. All of us would have been aware in the past that Bills were introduced and legislation passed with very little consultation, but in this case wide and varied consultation occurred before any final decisions were made.
I do not see what would stop us from specifically saying we must consult representative bodies. Those bodies could even be specified. To include them in general terms would prevent the perception that this is something that is being imposed on people whether they like it or not in their home district.
We specify local community interests within the Bill. Does that not cover what the Deputy is suggesting?
I just wanted to ensure we included their representatives.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, lines 36 to 41, to delete subsection (7).
Amendment No. 13 seeks to delete section 8(7) which reads:
Where an agreement or arrangement was entered into by Digital Media Development Limited on a date before the establishment day and was entered into in good faith, then the agreement or arrangement, as the case may be, shall have effect and be taken to have had effect when the agreement or arrangement was entered into.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to delete section 9(6) which reads:
Every act done by or on behalf of Digital Media Development Limited before and in anticipation of the establishment day in respect of this section shall have and be deemed always to have had all such (if any) validity and effect as it would have had if this section had been in force when such act was done. . .
Both of these subsections refer to the history of this project. I want to ensure that the digital hub agency as established would not be responsible for actions that took place in the early days of the project. The history of this project was castigated in this House by the Comptroller and Auditor General at the Committee of Public Accounts. The basic point he made was that it should never ever be the practice again that a private company would make proposals and enter into financial arrangements which would involve the State and public money without Oireachtas approval. I do not want to go into all the political history but I relate this to the fact that the Taoiseach had two major projects he wanted to develop. It is clear he is still pursuing his big project as he got upset yesterday when one of our Fine Gael colleagues asked if Abbotstown was finally buried. He is still desperately anxious to progress that project.
There was nothing wrong with Abbotstown.
There is nothing wrong with it but the Taoiseach has never told the House the full story.
Deputies must confine their comments to the amendment.
The Taoiseach has big plans for Abbotstown as the Minister of State is aware but he has never mentioned them to anyone in public as far as I am aware. In fact, he had two projects. Abbotstown was his big project and the little project, as it increasingly became, was the digital hub which he tended to put on the back burner. He almost forgot about it. This was highlighted for us when the executive chairperson, Mr. Paddy Teahon, was forced to resign from the Abbotstown board as it transpired he was also involved as a director of a company which was buying property in the digital hub. That was an extraordinary and mind-boggling state of affairs.
The Comptroller and Auditor General said this is not the way to do business in the future; the way Abbotstown and the Digital Hub were handled is not the way to do public business. That was a castigation, in particular, of the Taoiseach whose Department was responsible for both projects. In a nutshell, it is important from now on that the House and those we represent, particularly those in the Liberties and south-central Dublin, can be assured that this company will operate to the highest standards of accountancy and administration. For that reason, those two subsections should be deleted and we should take responsibility for the company as it is and will be in the future.
Both sections provide a statutory underpinning for the work undertaken by Digital Media Development Limited in formulating a development strategy for the hub prior to the establishment of the agency. The retrospective sanction provision in section 8 is necessary to give legal certainty with regard to any contracts already signed to advance the development of the hub. The retrospective sanction provision under section 9 is to ensure that work already undertaken under the development strategy has legal validity. A similar provision is set out in section 246 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997. These provisions, therefore, provide continuity between the work and undertakings of the DMDL and the agency and underpin the transfer of functions and undertakings. I can understand some of Deputy Broughan's comments. We are dealing with contracts for architectural services and public private partnerships to refurbish the property, the contracts made by the board of the company and the community learning initiative. They must be given legal validity to enable them continue in the new company.
Before it becomes an established semi-State company, is it not the case that all the property contracts entered into and other initiatives undertaken by the company were done in good faith in a manner similar to the operations of private companies and, if so, why should this guarantee be provided? Given the debate, and the interest taken in this matter and the Abbotstown proposals by the Committee of Public Accounts, should there not be a reluctance to stand over undertakings and agreements made before the date on which the company becomes a semi-State body?
At present the agency does not own any property - it is owned by the Office of Public Works - and when the Bill is passed, it will be handed over to the agency. The contracts were entered into by the board, not by individuals. The concern is to ensure the continuity of the projects by giving legal validity to what has been done. I do not see how the company can operate and transfers be effected without this.
I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, subsection (2)(d), line 5, after “provision” to insert “in close liaison with first, second and third level educational institutions based in or near the hub and in Dublin City”.
This relates to the strategic development plan and the debate among third level institutions about the role of MIT, an American institution, in this area. I note the good work being done in terms of the links with primary and second level schools. The amendment seeks to ensure that the educational strategy is devised through close liaison with the schools and third level institutions based in or near the hub and in Dublin city. The university on the edge of my constituency, Dublin City University, has specific interests and a specific vocational structure that is close to some of the entrepreneurial work we hope will be undertaken in the hub. In this regard, the area around Ballymun, Glasnevin and Coolock could also have been considered as a location for a digital hub. In view of this, all the institutions provided for in the amendment should be included in the strategy for educational provision, including the country's most historic university, Trinity College, which is located a couple of hundred metres from the boundary of the hub.
Section 9(2) provides for liaison with educational institutions irrespective of location. In view of the type of educational provision described, that is, digital art and technology, the Deputy will appreciate it would not be useful to signal a preference for local institutions, although extensive work has been undertaken with local schools through the Liberties learning initiative and with Media Lab. I, therefore, do not propose to accept the amendment.
Why not refer to third level educational institutions and specify that there should be an ongoing relationship with them?
Such relationships are provided for.
I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, subsection (2), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(f) the setting of targets for the type of employment and the members to be employed within the hub.”.
When the agency compiles a development plan it will set targets on budgeting, educational provision and the management and refurbishment of property. It is, therefore, appropriate to provide for another target, as set out in the amendment, requiring management to set targets for the type of employment and the numbers to be employed within the hub. This will indicate the quality of the skills base targeted by the management.
This is not an unreasonable suggestion, especially as almost every other requirement is covered, including the acquisition of suitable property, the management and refurbishment of property, the disposal of property, a strategy for educational provision and the setting and delivery of a budget. The amendment introduces an employment element to these requirements. It will not ask the agency to do anything in which it will not already be engaged, but it is important to specify as part of the plan the type of employment to be targeted and the quantity of jobs the agency plans to provide in the hub.
I strongly support the amendment. In the past, the streets where the hub is to be centred constituted the biggest centre for employment in the country. The brewery employed 5,000 people, perhaps more, and was a massive presence when the Republic was founded. It was a huge area of what was then considered to be rich employment for the city. In view of this, it is reasonable to expect the agency to know the levels and types of employment it aims to provide.
I do not consider it would be useful to include targets of the kind provided for in the amendment as the section mainly deals with strategic issues. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 does not contain any specific employment targets regarding financial services employment. While I am in favour of targets, the agency has a development strategy and will set its own targets. In view of this, the Bill should not provide the kinds of targets it should meet. It should be left to the agency to continue its work in developing a strategy. From there it should be left with the discretion to set its own targets.
The purpose of the digital hub is to promote a certain type of industry and employment that will be highly skilled, technology oriented and will promote a high standard of, and links with, education. This is why the hub will receive so much funding. In view of this, it is not unreasonable to expect the agency when devising its strategic plan to outline the type of employment it envisages and the estimates for the numbers to be employed. Otherwise, if things start to go wrong for the hub and the agency has to struggle to attract the kind of investment or businesses envisaged, it will fall back on companies with a lower profile or involvement in IT to fill the space at its disposal. It is important that we nail down, from the outset, the type of employment we want to see in the area. It is to ensure that this happens that we have pumped so much money into it. I would be more insistent on the type of employment rather than the numbers to be employed within the hub because that is difficult to estimate.
As already stated, I have no objection in principle to targets. The agency will have a development strategy that will be reviewed each year. This is an area in which the technology changes on a regular basis and digital content covers everything from editing the proceedings of the House to software development. It is a frontier area that is changing rapidly and it is up to the industry experts to set targets rather than their being set in legislation.
We should be open to targets and the agency has a strategy that will re-evaluate annually the targets set. I do not see how targets can be set in the Bill. It should be left to the agency, which will be answerable to the Minister, to set the targets. The agency will have a board that will assess its performance and operation. If it falters, I am sure it will be the responsibility of the board to take account of that. Given the areas in which the agency is involved and the rapid changes taking place in the area of technology, we cannot set targets in the Bill.
The amendment does not ask us to set targets in the Bill. It requires the agency to do so, which is what the Minister of State said it should do. Why does he oppose the amendment?
It is a new company. It is too soon to set targets. The company should be allowed to do that and take on board the suggestions we make.
Is Deputy Coveney withdrawing or pressing the amendment?
I shall press it because it is not unreasonable.
One report, which was cited on Second Stage, states that the agency was established to bring in the region of 700 companies and 30,000 workers, students and residents to live and work in the area. It was intended that there would be some targets for its development so that there could be a proper cost-benefit analysis of expenditure of public money. I support the amendment.
I shall examine the matter before Report Stage.
I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. We are not trying to create difficulties for the agency, but it is important, given the money being spent on the digital hub, that it promotes the type of skills base and employment we want to see located there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, subsection (3)(a), line 13, to delete “have regard” and substitute “engage in close liaison with Dublin City Council with reference”.
One of the many press releases of the very active publicity machine of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, stated recently that the cyber crime unit would be based in the digital hub. Other than the fact that it is a digital unit, I do not see what connection it would have with the type of development we are trying to encourage in the area. There has been a considerable degree of spoofing in connection with this project. It is perhaps one of the issues from which the company will have to move on as the legislation is passed.
The amendment seeks to strengthen liaison with the city council. Like all local authorities, the city council has begun to implement its development plan. It has already initiated the first phase, while Fingal County Council will do so in a few weeks. It is hoped that every plan is better than the previous one. We have specific area action plans and the integrated plan for the Liberties and the Coombe will be upgraded in conjunction with the new development plan. Dublin is one of the first local authorities to draw up its new plan, the process for which will last until the end of 2004 and will come into legal effect in 2005. Most counties have a similar timeframe. I specify in the amendment that the agency would have to liaise closely on an ongoing basis with the city council and its area plan.
Cyber crime has nothing to do with the Department. I understand the European Commission wishes to locate its cyber crime project somewhere so obviously——
Why did the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, try to claim it for the digital hub?
Perhaps Deputies could confine their comments to the amendment. There are another 20 to be discussed.
It is not proposed to accept the amendment because the term "having regard to" is more appropriate for this type of legislation and section 9(3)(b) provides for consultation with Dublin City Council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 18, after "Minister" where it firstly occurs to insert "and at least every two years".
This amendment relates to development and strategic plans. There should be regularity in this regard and a two year limit seems reasonable.
The purpose of amendment No. 19 is to place a definite timescale on the Minister after he receives the development plan or after it is presented to him, rather than leaving it that the plans may be presented "as soon as may be". That is too vague.
Timescales have been laid down in other sections, including section 10(1) which contains a timescale of six months. I am not concerned whether the limit is 21 or 28 days or more. The term "as soon as may be" is not sufficiently tight wording and I would like to see the addition of "within 21 days" or 28 or 36 days or whatever limit the Minister of State desires.
It is important to ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas would see a strategic plan within a definite period. Otherwise, there is nothing to push the Minister towards doing this. The time between the plan being presented to him and subsequently to the Houses of the Oireachtas could be any period that suits the Minister.
Amendment No. 18 deals with the requirement of the agency to submit multiannual financial plans and strategic plans provided for in section 10. I acknowledge that the timespan these plans should cover is not specified. That is because this level of detail is dealt with in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies published by the Department of Finance. In common with all State bodies, Digital Media Development Limited is already subject to these guidelines and this will remain the case when it is transformed into the agency.
Section 11 of these guidelines, covering strategic and corporate planning, states that each body should, within the first six months of each year, produce rolling five year business and financial plans encompassing strategy and taking account of general sectoral policy, planned investment and appropriate financial targets. This means the agency will be required to submit strategic plans, even more regularly than Deputy Broughan requests.
As regards amendment No. 19, the paragraph follows standard legal precedent. As a similar provision appears in the Communications Regulation Act 2002, I do not propose to accept the amendment. During the debate in the Seanad the wording "as soon as may be" was accepted by the Opposition.
The wording before that was "as soon as is practicable." What is the difference between "as soon as may be" and "as soon as is practicable"?
There was an argument put forward by the Opposition which we accepted.
I thought the initial wording was fine. In other words, "as soon as is practicable" to give it to the Oireachtas but "as soon as may be" seems to be ——
It was withdrawn in the Seanad on the basis that "as soon as may be" was stronger wording.
The Seanad does not have a monopoly of wisdom on this matter.
I will withdraw my amendment on the basis of what the Minister of State said. Why not specify the rolling plan in the legislation?
Corporate governance guidelines apply to all State bodies.
Is it included in legislation?
The guidelines are issued by the Department of Finance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendment No. 21 is an alternative to amendment No. 20 and amendment No. 34 is related. Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 34 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) A directive given pursuant to this section shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made.".
This relates to an experience I had on behalf of the Labour Party in trying to monitor the Department, particularly directives from the Minister to the Commission for Communications Regulation and other regulators in the communications and broadband area. I want to ensure that we will have sight of these directives as soon as possible. I included the phrase, "as soon as may be." Given what the Minister and Deputy Coveney said, perhaps it should read, "as soon as is practicable." The idea is that we would have clear sight of directives at an early date regarding any important matters in the portfolio, specifically the digital hub. It would be good to include that in legislation.
My amendment proposes something similar. It just happens to be a personal preference to put a figure on things rather than to use the wording, "as soon as is practicable" or "as soon as may be." That is the case consistently throughout my amendments. It generally tends to be 14 days, 21 days or 28 days. Obviously the objective here is that when the Minister issues a directive, the Houses of the Oireachtas would be aware of it as soon as possible. It is appropriate to put an absolute time limit on it so that the Minister knows it will have to be laid before the Oireachtas within three weeks, and hopefully within days. If, for political reasons, the Minister may want to delay bringing a directive before the Oireachtas, he or she should not be allowed to do so for more than three weeks. Twenty one days gives more than enough scope to get a report on a directive together and lay it before the Oireachtas.
Having examined the precedent set out in section 13(8) of the Communications Regulation Act 2002 in the context of the directives to the Commission for Communications Regulation, I will be tabling an amendment on Report Stage to address this matter. Section 13(8) of the Communications Regulation Act 2002 requires publication of directives in Iris Oifigiúil. I will also table further amendments to the Bill on Report Stage.
Will the amendment include a maximum time limit?
I will consider that matter for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 42, after "members" to insert ", two of whom shall be persons nominated by bodies appearing to the Minister to be representative community bodies in the digital hub, one of whom shall be a person elected by workers in the Agency or by companies affiliated to or supported by the Agency in the digital hub and one of whom shall be a City Councillor nominated by the South Central Area Committee of Dublin City Council".
I did this in a different form originally. I wanted to include it under six but one of the advisers changed it to the way it is now. I wanted to include a number of sections under six. The original wording was probably better. The wording of the amendment was meant to read, "one of whom shall be a person elected by workers in the Agency and by companies. . . . " rather than, "one of whom shall be a person elected by workers in the Agency or by companies affiliated to or supported. . ."
I am proposing that the local community should be directly represented in the agency and it should not be at the discretion of the Minister. Under the legislation, two of the 14 should be directly representative of the people who live in the digital hub area. Despite all the meetings to which he referred, I am informed that the local community, certainly in the early days of the development, felt left out of what was happening. They thought that some remarkable thing was being imposed on them from the top. It is a bit like Iarnród Éireann in my constituency and the building of the DART network. Consultation meetings are held after planning permission is sought to develop the stations, most of which we welcome. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse because the transport users should be consulted first. However, it is somewhat analogous to this.
There is a precedent in relation to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, to which the Minister of State has referred several times. Although I am not a member of that body, I know there is at least one city councillor who is, as well as at least one community representative. It is directly representative of the development. At a later stage there may well be major developments in relation to some of the properties and physical infrastructure of the area associated with the digital hub. As members may be aware, the authority is remarkable in that it has the power to issue planning permission to a developer. There should be representation from the South-East Partnership or one of the other local development bodies.
My party and the trade union movement, which are closely affiliated, have always considered that workers should be directly represented on company boards. This issue also arose recently at another Oireachtas committee, in relation to the proposed Oireachtas Commission, where it was suggested that a representative of Oireachtas staff should be a member of the commission, in addition to the Secretary General. In a similar manner workers in the Digital Hub Development Agency or affiliated companies should have representation. Perhaps the Minister of State may not share the view of a section of Fianna Fáil which is strongly represented in the Cabinet and which would wish to turf out worker representatives at all levels on the basis of their view that it is not in the interests of the economy to have worker representatives involved in decision-making at board level. My point relates to the third seat of the 14 on the board of the agency.
Also, on the precedents of the Dublin Docklands Development Agency, Temple Bar Properties Limited and various other comparable bodies around the city and country, a local public representative should be included. It is a well established practice in the city and, I believe, other local authority areas that local councillors sit, as of right, on local partnership and development bodies. That should also apply in the case of this board. Although Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas are in the process of being precluded from membership of local authorities, there is no reason to exclude local councillors from involvement in bodies such as the agency to which the Bill relates. This would enhance the democratic mandate of the agency. While I note the specified requirements for digital media expertise and so on, there would still be plenty of room on the board for such people. I am aware that the new chairman and chief executive of the agency have valuable experience in that area. However, the democratic aspect should also be taken into account with a view to maintaining a close relationship with the local area.
In the absence of Deputy Éamon Ryan who has tabled amendment No. 23, that amendment falls.
Deputy Éamon Ryan's amendment reflected an interesting approach. Members of Dublin City Council, including the Minister of State's Fianna Fáil colleague, Councillor Donnolly, one of our leading financial experts on the council, have been involved with New York where they have been studying arrangements whereby businesses in a locality are involved in the creation of a fund - I am not sure if Cork city, our great southern capital, has embarked on this course - which is used for additional services for the public and the business sector. It has been very successful in the boroughs of New York and Dublin City Council is now in the process of following a similar approach. Our city treasurer is progressing the idea in collaboration with the city manager. I mention this by way of background to Deputy Éamon Ryan's interesting idea based on his knowledge of the area concerned.
I will begin by responding to the last point. As the BIDS programme is the subject of legislation which has yet to be brought to Government, it would be premature to make reference to it at this stage. However, there is nothing to preclude the involvement of somebody connected with the organisation specified, to which the attention of the agency will be drawn.
In relation to Deputy Broughan's point, section 15(6) of the Bill provides for the appointment of "a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, has a special interest or expertise in matters relating to the functions of the Agency". On that basis, the Bill already includes provision for the appointment of community or local representatives. Is the Deputy not happy with this provision?
There has been an unfortunate history in that regard - I will not embarrass the Minister of State by referring to prison visiting committees——
The Deputy will not embarrass me in the least.
——and various other bodies for which people have travelled up to 300 miles up and down the country, accumulating substantial expenses in the process, regardless of their lack of special knowledge or expertise. There has been a dismal past record with regard to political appointees. There should be provision for strong local representation. At a minimum, this should include a local community representative and a local councillor. I wish to press the amendment. I appreciate that the city manager, a very distinguished personality, will be involved. He and his area manager report regularly to the planning committee of Dublin City Council. However, there should be more democratic representation.
I have no doubt the Minister will take a very responsible approach in the appointments he will make to those positions. On a personal basis, during my term on the back benches, I always advocated representation of local interests in the context of various Bills, whatever about involving public representatives. It has been my view that local interests should be directly represented, rather than confining representation to county managers and senior officials. I will have another look at the section prior to Report Stage and consider how the issue might be dealt with.
Some development bodies now provide for local membership - quite independent of the political process - and people actually turn up for annual general meetings. Over the past two decades, in which I acknowledge the part played by the Minister of State's party, a form of district government system has emerged, in addition to the county and city council structure. While this may have applied in the context of town commissions and so on, it was not a feature in Dublin until relatively recently. The system of district government is a very good development and should be reflected in the context of this Bill. I welcome the Minister of State's comments, on the basis of which I will withdraw the amendment at this stage.
In a situation involving some 140 groups and organisations, how does one select a person? The Deputy may wish to consider this aspect prior to Report Stage.
There would be no problem in that regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In relation to Deputy Éamon Ryan's amendment, I am advised that it can be moved by another member.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 12, subsection (6), lines 14 and 15, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) a member of Dublin City Council and the City Manager of Dublin City Council or an officer of Dublin City Council nominated by him or her, and
(c) a representative of a local ’BIDS’ business development organisations as approved by Dublin City Council.”.
Is the Minister of State ruling out the possibility of placing a councillor on the board also?
We might have a look at that, but my preference is to place a local person. We will see and come back to the Deputy.
I cannot see why we cannot have both.
The councillor could be the local person or the local person could be separate. We will look at the matter. There is no legislation regarding Deputy Ryan's last question. The matter still has to be brought before Government.
I will put Deputy Ryan's amendment.
Before he left, Deputy Ryan requested that we withdraw his amendments to allow him to carry them forward to Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 13, lines 8 to 11, to delete subsection (15) and substitute the following:
"(15) The Minister shall ensure that at least 40 per cent of members of the Agency shall be women and at least 40 per cent shall be men.".
We should have gender equality in practice. The Labour Party has followed the practice set out in the amendment for many years which is why almost 40% of our Oireachtas Members are women as are our candidates. In the early 1990s when we were in the partnership Government with Fianna Fáil - that late, lamented period - we introduced the 40% rule, but Fianna Fáil removed it when we left Government.
The Deputy's party should probably have stayed with us.
I ask that there be a requirement that 40% of members be of each gender.
I notice Deputy Broughan speaks about 40% men and 40% women and I am wondering about the other 20%. The gender balance on the board is already provided for in section 15 which follows standard legal precedent. The changes required by Deputy Broughan's proposed amendment would shift the emphasis purely on to a member's gender. I am sure the Deputy will agree, as would any future board member, that selection should also take into account the experience and digital content industry skills of individuals. Therefore, I do not propose to accept this amendment.
I will press the amendment.
Gender balance is very important, but enforcing quotas while ignoring other factors would be a very dangerous precedent to set in legislation. I find it difficult to support this amendment, although I would like to see women comprising 40% of agency members or maybe 60%, if possible. The criteria under which they are selected must be based on merit rather than on gender alone. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 14, subsection (6), line 37, to delete "without the consent of the Agency".
This is a reference to the chief executive of the agency. Section 19 outlines his duties and provides that he shall not hold any other office or position without the consent of the agency. This is a huge job, which should be full-time and I welcome the progress that has been made under the current chief executive. The section should provide that the chief executive shall not hold any other office or position. The implication in the section is that he might.
It has come to my attention that our colleagues in the transport committee held discussions with Iarnród Éireann and the CIE affiliate companies yesterday. Somebody raised the issue of a senior executive in that company who is publicly identified with a major job in a different company in the telecommunications field. There was a good bit of coverage of the committee on "Oireachtas Report" last night as everybody is interested in developments in bus and rail services and in transport generally. The Department of Transport is red hot at the moment. Most people feel all the jobs in that territory are full-time jobs and I am trying to ensure that the chief executive of this agency will be full-time. There should be no way to dilute that given what has to be done.
I do not wish to go back to Second Stage of this debate, but we highlighted then the fact that the expected private investment has not come on stream in the amounts predicted. A number of companies like RTE which were on board in terms of the digital hub withdrew suddenly. When one compares the early speeches the Taoiseach made on this project with the state of affairs a year and a half later, it seems that much private sector investment has not been forthcoming. In the electronics section of the Irish Independent a few Thursdays ago attention was drawn to ongoing concerns regarding the funding of the hub and the resources it will be able to draw on. My job, the job of the Minister, the job of the chair and the job of any colleague here is full time and in the context of the digital hub, I want to ensure that will be the case for the chief executive.
The chief executive will hold a full-time position. It is not intended to employ a part-time chief executive. In some circumstances it may be appropriate for the chief executive to hold another position, perhaps on a local board connected with the work of the agency. However, as the legislation provides, this would only happen with the consent of the agency. The Deputy's amendment would impose undue restrictions on the chief executive and could impair his or her ability to discharge the job effectively.
The section has legislative precedent in the Family Support Agency Act 2001 and in section 15(2) of the Sustainable Energy Act 2002. Section 19(6) provides that the chief executive shall not hold any other office or position without the consent of the agency. Obviously, if the agency feels the chief executive is too busy, it will withhold its permission. However, in circumstances connected with the work of the agency it may be advantageous to allow the chief executive to sit on some other board.
I highlighted the matter again because of the history.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 16, lines 5 to 12, to delete subsection (1).
Over the years, I have advocated that a number of agencies should have as a member a city councillor. I am mindful of what I have just said about the full-time nature of the chief executive position. The Administration seems always to prefer to exclude Members of the Oireachtas from these types of bodies. We are asked to serve on certain development bodies in relation to community projects on the north side of Dublin. All of this is part of the dual mandate issue. These have been standard provisions in legislation over the past decade or so. I am not sure it is always the case. Like many Members, I sit on a number of boards of a development nature. Therefore, I do not see why there should be a knee-jerk reaction to exclude Members of the Oireachtas from this type of organisation.
The prohibition on Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and Members of the European Parliament from becoming members of statutory bodies is a standard legislative provision and a precedent exists, inter alia, in the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. The rationale is that membership of State agencies represents an executive function and should, therefore, be separate from the legislative functions. This particularly applies in respect of accountability to Oireachtas committees. It would be difficult to see how a Member of the Oireachtas could sit on a State board and then effectively discharge an oversight role on an Oireachtas committee. However, Members will note that section 22 does not exclude councillors in this regard.
I do not know how many Bills I have opposed over the years, but I oppose that before us because sometimes it makes it difficult to operate. I cannot see what is wrong if, for example, I spoke in the Dáil about north side partnership, the budget of which has been slashed dramatically by one of the Minister of State's colleagues, but stated at the outset that I was a director. However, I understand that this is an agency for which we have a statutory responsibility. Deputy Noel Ahern was an advocate of a movement which believed that Members of the Oireachtas should, of right, be members of local development bodies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 22 agreed to.
Sections 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 1, after "Minister" where it firstly occurs to insert "and to the Standards in Public Office Commission".
This amendment seeks to require the chief executive, agencies and directors of subsidiaries to make a declaration "in such form as the Minister, following consultation with the Minister for Finance, may specify" and that it should be placed with the Standards in Public Office Commission. This would create a precedent in respect of semi-State bodies, but perhaps that is necessary. When it is drawn to the public's attention that a chief executive is running another company or is associated with it, people are taken aback. Given that Deputies and public servants have to make these declarations, should the leadership of such a company not have to do the same?
The wording for this section follows the precedent in the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 and the Aviation Regulation Act 2001. In addition, members of the new agency will be obliged to comply with the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies published by the Department of Finance. This is already required of the board of DMDL.
Is that already the case under regulations?
It is under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, which is given effect under the code of practice for the governance of State bodies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 20, subsection (2), line 29, to delete "€2,000" and substitute "€10,000".
This amendment refers to the circumstances in which a member of the agency would find themselves if they were found guilty of an offence. For example, if they were found guilty of abusing their position on the agency for personal benefit. This would be a serious charge and a maximum fine of €2,000 is a pathetic response. What I have proposed is, at €10,000, perhaps too low.
The section states that "a person shall not, without the consent of the agency, disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing or as a result of having performed duties as chairman of the agency, chief executive, member of the agency or member of the committee" and so on. If the chairperson or chief executive of the agency is abusing their position in relation to confidential information or anything else, a maximum fine of €2,000 is not right.
We need to increase the maximum fine dramatically and if the person is convicted of a relatively minor offence, it can be set at much less that the maximum. I am sure there are circumstances when €2,000 is appropriate. However, if there is a serious breach of confidentiality which results in serious consequences, a serious punishment should apply.
The value of the fine at €2,000 follows the precedent of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. In any event, the fine for this provision across a wide range of legislation is no more than €3,000. On further reflection, the Deputy might agree that a fine of €10,000 would appear excessive for the offence set out in this section, which not only applies to the chairman or chief executive but also to lower paid employees who might not have the money. I am prepared to go to €3,000, which is a normal rate, but €10,000 would be seen as excessive. Perhaps that is the socialist side coming out in me.
I do not want to get into a bidding process. We are looking at a fine, on summary conviction, not exceeding a certain figure. If a person is found guilty of a relatively minor offence and cannot pay €10,000, perhaps €500 would be appropriate, which would be allowable under my wording. However, if it is the chairperson or chief executive, they are likely to be people of considerable ability and can therefore pay a serious fine if they are found guilty of an offence. I am not hell-bent on €10,000, but we should make it clear that an abuse of one's powers, as a chairman or chief executive in particular, will be taken seriously and people will be fined accordingly. Perhaps the Minister of State will examine the matter before Report Stage.
These people are also subject to the code of conduct, which could mean suspension or loss of their job. Therefore, there are other punishments to be considered. A fine of €3,000 is normal across all sectors.
Could there be a conviction on indictment in this regard?
I understand the point being made by Deputy Coveney. However, for most people who hold such positions, the moral opprobrium is a serious enough shock. Therefore, fines are not always the answer, but there should certainly be a fine. In most cases, if the chairman or chief executive was involved in something out of hand, I am sure they would be severely reprimanded or removed from office.
I will look further at this matter. The answer to Deputy Broughan's question is that it applies on summary conviction.
It is good that the Minister will look again at this. The only reason I picked the figure of €10,000 was to get a brief debate going on it. For some people, certainly a chairperson or chief executive of the Digital Hub Development Agency, €2,000 is an irrelevant figure. It may perhaps be a large figure in the case of a member of the committee or a member of staff. We should have the ability to fine and make an impact on people through the fining process, but I am not hell-bent on any specific figure. I look forward to the Minister returning to this matter on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 21, line 28, after "functions." to insert "The Agency shall set out its funding programme on a three year basis. Its annual accounts shall be provided on an accrual accounting basis.".
This is a simple amendment which seeks to encourage best accountancy practice within the public sector. If possible we should try to project forward on a three year basis so that there is some consistency in budgeting. I am particularly interested in the public sector moving towards an accrual accounting-based system rather than the current system which is largely a standard accounting system. The Minister's Department is one of the leading Departments in this regard, and is one of the few which is ambitiously moving towards an accrual accounting-based system. I hope that the agency will be run on the same basis and the amendment is designed to ensure that this is the case.
Under section 10, the agency is required to submit financial plans to the Minister and the Minister for Finance. These plans would entail the detail of funding programmes and, therefore, the amendment suggested by Deputy Eamon Ryan is already covered. This timescale of submission of plans is dealt with in the code of practice for governance of State bodies, which is published by the Department of Finance. In common with all State bodies, Digital Media Development Limited is already subject to these guidelines and this will remain the case when transformed into the agency. For the Deputy's information, section 11 of these guidelines states:
That each body should, within the first six months of each year, produce annual rolling five-year business and financial plans encompassing strategy (taking account of general sectoral policy), planned investment and appropriate financial targets.
In regard to the question of accrual accounting raised by Deputy Ryan, the agency's accounts will be prepared on an accrual basis, as is the case with the existing company and other State bodies with a commercial remit.
Is Deputy Ryan withdrawing the amendment?
On that basis, yes. I have one brief question. The Minister of State said that the company will be required to set out a five year plan. Are we moving towards a system in the public service where the Minister will set out a three-year funding plan so that there is some certainty coming back the other way? The Minister for Finance has done that in this year's budget regarding the national roads programme. I am more concerned about the funding certainty for the agency rather than the agency's own five year budget going forward.
That is really a separate issue. This area is covered by the code of practice which sets out the guidelines for strategic and corporate planning.
There is no code of practice from the Minister in finance, in other words.
That is really a separate issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 22, subsection (2), line 4, after "Agency" to insert "including all subsidiaries and ventures under section 13".
This amendment relates to the earlier discussion we had about the investments in equity that the agency might make in different ventures. I tried to include all of this under the phrase "including all subsidiaries and ventures under section 13". It is unusual that we are setting up a State agency where there has already been severe criticism from the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of its early administration. It is important that we include accounts of all expenditures and income. I accept that there is a reference to all income and expenditures of the agency but I believe the amendment is more specific. We want to know the whole story of what is happening each year.
This section is a standard provision dealing with the accounts and audit of a State body. It follows other Acts such as the Sustainable Energy Act 2002. While it is not specified that the accounts of the agency include subsidiaries and joint ventures, reporting arrangements for these are provided for in the Bill. Under section 13(4), the memorandum and articles of association of the subsidiaries must be consistent with the Act and must have the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. There is also provision for monitoring of subsidiaries in the Department of Finance code of practice for the governance of State bodies. Therefore, I do not feel the amendment is necessary.
The Minister should include it. There were instances in the past where other semi-State companies were involved in ventures. From my experience as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts in the 27th Dáil, I know it is easier to follow developments if everything is clearly specified. This differs from quite a few agencies in that it will be a development-type body. The danger might arise that the position in relation to some ventures might become unclear. Some semi-State examples were brought to my attention in recent years in this regard. Perhaps the Minister should clarify it.
The Department of Finance revamped its code of practice recently to take account of exactly what the Deputy said. I will provide him with a copy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 22, lines 44 to 47, to delete subsection (2).
The reasoning behind this amendment goes back to my days on the Committee of Public Accounts and, indeed, on other committees. At a recent transport committee meeting an official of CIE gave an opinion, effectively through gritted teeth, on the policy that the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was setting down in regard to a question asked by my colleague, Deputy Shortall. She asked if it was right that we removed CIE from a particular route and replaced it with a private operator who on the face of it does not provide as good a service. In this case, the public in County Cavan was left with an inferior service from the private operator. What is privatisation all about if we are not going to get competition. Why should a public servant in a major agency not be able to give an opinion on policy? I do not see why that should be the case.
The intention behind this provision is to ensure that the chief executive officer, when accounting for the financial performance to the agency to the Public Account Committee, does not speculate on what might have been achieved had the allocation been higher. The aim of including such a provision is to prevent the undermining of the Estimates process which could result from such speculation. Policy in this section specifically means financial policy rather than Government policy as a whole. Therefore, no such constraint would apply in relation to appearances before other Oireachtas committees. It does not mean that the chief executive officer would be unable to take issue with regard to funding but that this would not take place in the context of the Public Account Committee, the remit of which is to concentrate on the actual financial outcomes and performance. Therefore, no changes are proposed to this section.
This provision follows recent precedent in a number of Acts such as the Human Rights Commission Act 2000, the Ordnance Survey Act 2001 and the Family Support Act 2001. This is an important provision in regard to the way the agency interacts with the Oireachtas and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 23, lines 6 to 36, to delete subsections (3) to (7).
To remove such a large part of the section may appear drastic, but it relates to the ongoing discussion in the Oireachtas with which the Chairman and colleagues will be familiar. I am a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Chairman will recall the DIRT inquiry; I believe he was a member of the committee charged with that investigation. We have heard much in recent days about the tribunal on Abbeylara and so on. From my reading of the situation, it is, to some extent, proceeding to accept the restrictions placed on the Oireachtas by the courts in respect of investigations by the Oireachtas. I do not accept that. The courts are the creature of the Oireachtas, which is the people's assembly and we have the right to investigate whatever we want and we cannot be stopped by a group of senior counsel saying this and that will not apply, as happened with the mini-CTC inquiry, on which Deputy Brady and other Members were embarking. Perhaps it was not the mini-CTC inquiry, but that into Abbeylara.
It was the Abbeylara inquiry.
We were shot down in creating an investigation and there were those who referred to people's constitutional rights, etc. I still consider that the people are supreme and their representatives have the right to investigate what they wish and to pursue matters. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is supposed to introduce a Bill to get us out of the situation in which we find ourselves. That legislation will relate to the operation of tribunals and will allow for fast-track approach. My party leader, when a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, proposed the introduction of parliamentary inspectors, who would be appointed by us and who could investigate matters at length. Given the recent speculation that the Flood tribunal will continue for a further 15 years, the tribunal method and the courts may not be the most efficient means by which to investigate matters of importance. From my reading of the Bill and the subsections dealing with the accountability of the chief executive to Oireachtas committees, a large number of areas we may want to investigate in the future would be excluded and would have to be the subject of investigation by the courts.
The Committee of Procedure and Privileges, which is chaired by the Ceann Comhairle, discussed the new Oireachtas commission. The chairman has three able public servants to assist him while the three of us on the opposite side of the table are like one man and a dog. We are desperately trying to keep all the balls in the air and invigilate this legislation. We hope that, under the commission, there will be fundamental changes, particularly in terms of providing resources to the Opposition. Perhaps a Government can only be as good as its Opposition. That may not say much for the Opposition at present because the Government does not appear to be satisfying the public. My gut feeling was to eviscerate this part of the Bill because we are giving in to people who are trying to take away the powers of the House. We are the people's representatives and we should have powers of investigation.
Deputy Broughan has covered many issues that are probably more relevant to another forum, although I notice that there is a good legal background to many of the amendments he tabled.
This is a necessary provision where a matter arises which may be the subject of court or tribunal proceedings and where there is a difference of opinion between the committee and the chief executive as to whether the matters in question should be discussed. Members of the Oireachtas would not, to a large extent, wish to put any chief executive in a position where he or she would have to discuss issues which could have legal consequences for the chief executive. There is a precedent for this provision in the Human Rights Commission Act 2000.
I do not agree with it if it restricts the right of our committee or, more particularly, the Committee of Public Accounts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 33 agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Sections 34 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
Section 38, with which I am uncomfortable, provides that the agency and all its members are immune to any form of prosecution, regardless of how they work or what is set out for them. It reads:
No action or other proceedings shall lie or be maintainable against the Agency for the recovery of damages in respect of any injury to persons, damage to property or other loss alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a failure to perform any of the functions conferred on the said Agency.
In other words, if the agency does not do its job properly nobody can take an action against it should they suffer personal or financial damage as a result of its being negligent. I am not comfortable with that. If the agency does not perform the job set out for it in the Bill and if, as a result, a person or business suffers damage to property or to persons, it needs to be accountable legally. This section provides that the agency is immune to any form of prosecution. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply and the reason for this section.
This is an unusual provision. I presume what is envisaged here is protection against civil cases rather than any criminal or other issues. In other parts of the Bill, sanctions are imposed on the agency and its members. I presume what we are talking about is protection against any civil action arising out of negligence in which the agency may be involved. Deputy Coveney has raised an interesting point and I await the Minister of State's response.
This is a standard provision whereby the agency cannot be legally responsible for a failure to undertake any of its functions. The same provision appears in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997. The section is not about negligence; it is not saying that the agency is immune from prosecution or above the law. Its purpose is to cover frivolous and vexatious claims.
While I accept what the Minister of State says, I am not sure that the wording is consistent with it. I also wish to prevent frivolous claims or people from trying to con the system, of which, unfortunately, there is far too much in Irish society in what is a compensation culture. However, the agency needs to be legally responsible for the functions set for it. If there is genuine injury to a person, persons or business arising from the failure by the agency to do its job property, it should not be immune from prosecution. I will accept the Minister of State's assurance that there is no cause for concern in this regard but perhaps he will examine the wording of the relevant provisions before Report Stage to ensure that is the case. Reading them as a layperson, I formed the impression that immunity would be provided. The section has even been designated the heading, "Immunity of Agency". The situation regarding the Dublin Docklands Development Authority is not relevant. We are concerned here with this legislation.
I will consider the matter further for Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 25, subsection (1)(b), line 27, after “day” to insert “and which were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.”
Section 41 is concerned with the transfer to the agency of assets and liabilities of the former company and the Office of Public Works. The Comptroller and Auditor General's criticism related particularly to the management of the establishment of the company by a private contractor. One of those concerned was the executive chairperson. The amendment seeks to ensure any liabilities incurred by the Office of Public Works during that era would have been seen and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I welcome the provisions dealing with his involvement with the agency and in that regard, the public can rest easy.
The amendment deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities. The Comptroller and Auditor General is already auditor to the DMDL and will continue to be so for the agency, as provided for in section 31(4). It follows that the Deputy's requirement will be met.
Has the Comptroller and Auditor General been in a position to audit every aspect of the development so far?
We are concerned here with the transfer of property to the new agency which has been subject to audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
There is a big investigation under way in England on some PPPs. We will need to monitor closely the way they have developed, especially with regard to how they are envisaged in terms of progressing the digital hub. In the most extreme case in the United Kingdom the Inland Revenue was encouraged to sell, and sold, all its buildings which ended up in the ownership of a tax dodging company located in a famous tax haven in the West Indies. We must, therefore, be very careful about similar developments in this country. While this company is only at the establishment stage, examples from the housing area point to a range of deals between the public and private sectors on affordable housing developments. The amendment seeks to put down a marker in this regard. However, I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 41 agreed to.
Sections 42 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
I thank the Minister of State, his officials and members of the committee for participating in today's session.
I thank you, Chairman, members of the committee and the officials for facilitating the progress of the Bill through Committee Stage. I also thank Opposition spokespersons for their amendments, some of which we will consider for Report Stage. I thank my officials for their support and help.
I thank the Minister of State for concluding this Stage in his usual affable and gentlemanly way. He is always easy to work with on a Bill. I hope we got it right. I also thank you, Chairman, for your efficient chairing of the committee in the requisite timespan.
I tried to ask the Taoiseach this morning about the status of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, Report Stage of which is due to be taken in the House tomorrow. It would be useful if the Minister was present because there is dramatic news regarding the Irish Box and the implications for the country in terms of possible reductions in the size of the box and allegations against the Minister for Defence. While he wants to send troops to the Congo, he is apparently unwilling to look after Irish national assets off the west coast. Is the Chairman aware of this critical moment in the fishing industry and would it be possible to seek the attendance of the Minister in the House tomorrow to enable us put questions to him? He is due to visit Brussels on Monday when I hope he will not sell us out.
Perhaps I misunderstood when I was told that some of the Opposition amendments would be accepted.
I concur with Deputy Broughan's remarks about the Chairman and Minister of State. They have both been easy to work with. I look forward to the passage of the Bill and the successful establishment of the digital hub.
I share Deputy Broughan's concerns regarding the Irish Box. It confirms some of the suspicious questioning at Question Time three or four months ago regarding the lack of enforcement within the box. Anyone who has read The Irish Times today will see this. It is regrettable. Some serious questions remain to be asked of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Minister for Defence regarding our approach to the box in the past six months and as to whether, from an enforcement point of view, we had thrown in the towel a number of months ago when members of the Opposition did not know it. However, that is for another day. This legislation will be of massive benefit to an area of Dublin that needs it. I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing it forward.
I will convey on the views to the Minister. I have every faith in his ability to protect the interests of Irish fishermen at EU level. I will convey to him the views about the need for a meeting.
