I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 33, after "transferred" to insert "and a copy of such Schedule shall as soon as it has been approved by the Minister be laid before each House of the Oireachtas".
SECTION 4.
I accept that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, lines 39 to 45, and in page 5, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) Where securities have been transferred and subsequently the controlling interest changes, the boards of IDA Ireland and Forbairt will agree the appropriate agency to hold the securities in keeping with their primary development mandates as set out in legislation.".
My concern in relation to this section is that it may create fresh bureaucracy. This arises in the giving of powers to Forfás to switch shares in IDA Ireland and Forbairt. Surely IDA Ireland and Forbairt can agree to this among themselves rather than have it go to another committee or whatever. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I have difficulties with this amendment. The idea is that a subsequent decision to alter the assignment of securities or property would reflect a strategic change, for example, if you made a decision that some element of companies which were formerly multinationals, or that the approach to companies which were formerly regarded as on the foreign side, should in future be dealt with by Forbairt.
What we have in mind in the section is that first, Forfás, being the agency charged with co-operation and taking a strategic view, has a role here and, second, where the two agencies might not agree, we want Forfás to make a final arrangement. We do not see this as an unnecessary impediment to agreement. We see the role of Forfás in this as one of an honest broker facilitating agreement. Essentially, that sort of strategic role, in bringing about changes in direction, is a core element of the brief of Forfás. I am satisfied that this is a sensible requirement and I am not disposed to accept the amendment.
I remember speaking on the 1993 Act in the Seanad. It was envisaged that Forfás would have that type of umbrella role with regard to the other two agencies. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Surely its province is not so finely honed that it cannot deal with matters such as this. The amendment refers to matters which I raised on Second Stage. I accept that it is the province of Forfás.
We have examples where such agreements are not easily facilitated between the agencies. They can have implications for revenue and other areas. Agencies might jealously try to defend patches, so to speak. The stragetic role of Forfás in this was to take a long view of what was in the best interest of industrial policy rather than leaving it exclusively to individual agencies. Instead of patch warfare breaking out where disagreements were unresolved over a period, we feel Forfás is the honest broker to deal with these cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendent No. 5. Amenment No. 6 is related. We will take amendments Nos. 5 and 6 by agreement.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (9) (a), line 27, to delete "means" and substitute "includes".
This is self-explatory. "Means" does not embrace enough for what should be in the Bill so I wish to replace it with "includes". The Minister has taken an excessively narrow view in the wording which he espouses here in page 5, line 27, and that is the purpose of my amendment.
I agree with Deputy O'Rourke. Amendment No. 6, in my name, is consistent with hers.
It might be argued that the word "loans" includes debentures, but it is a specific type of loan and it is much more a security than an ordinary loan. The word "loan" primarily means an unsecured loan. What is important in this context are secured loans because they nearly always would be secured. For that reason it is important that the word "debenture" is included as well as "loan". Subsection (9) (a) would be helped by using the word "includes" rather than "means"; otherwise anything that does not come narrowly within it is excluded, which would not be the intention.
I have no problem with either of these amendments. They sharpen up the definitions and I am happy to accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, subsection (9) (a), line 27, after "shares" to insert ", debentures".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
When the Minister replied on Second Stage he said that I found fault with the existence of Forfás especially. That is not true. I know the genesis of Forfás in some detail. Much of the genesis of what is here is rather painful, especially its timing in 1992. Nevertheless, I do not find any great fault with Forfás. It is supposed to fulfil the policy functions recommended in the Culliton report. However, the report recommended that these should be carried out in the Department. I always thought and still believed that it would be better if this were the case. Nevertheless, it is not the case and it is done by a separate body, to which I have no objection. If we must have it, then Forfás fulfils its functions well.
However, I was surprised to find that it employs a surprisingly large number of people. Perhaps when the division of various powers, securities and so on between the other two agencies are divided it may be that some people will go to either the IDA or Forbairt. These securities should have been vested, in the first instance, in the two agencies. However, a number of things happened in 1993 when efforts were being made to rush through the previous Act, just before the summer recess, and this was one of them. If we must have Forfás, I have no objection to it as it stands now.
The functions to which I referred should ideally be performed through the Department. It has lost a certain standing, in the manner in which the Culliton report especially recommended it, by the loss of the policy function. Many of those in the Department will now spend their time watching agencies to ensure they comply with all the various laws and regulations, which is not especially satisfying. If I were Minister for the Department, I would prefer to see it fully seized of the policy making power, especially as this power should, in my view and in the view of the Culliton report, be exercised in close conjunction with all other relevant Ministers and Departments. It is a great weakness that this has not been done and it makes Forfás a little incongruous in the way that it is now out of the mainstream of things, when the policy making function should be central to the mainstream of collective Government thinking, rather than merely Departmental, or divided thinking.
The issue of the Culliton report has been raised in the context of policy owning remit. Over the last few years there has been a yearly audit of the follow up of the Culliton report, as recommended. It took place in the two years I was a Minister of State of the Department, when in May a progress report was compiled. We are now in July 1995 and to date we have not had an exposé of how far the report has been implemented in the past 12 months.
The policy making role of the Department of Enterprise and Employment is somewhat blunted if that role is taken on by reports and statements by Forfás. The Culliton report was the mechanism whereby the Department advised what it had done, in a policy way, each year in implementing the various strategies outlined by Culliton. It was especially strong on how one would act in an inter Departmental way, and how one would address some of the issues, which, confined within the Department of Enterprise and Employment, one would not have the means and authority to do so.
From my own experience within the Department, it is apparent that officials wish to take on a far greater planning and developmental role. The Culliton report and the reportage on it was a mechanism whereby other Government Departments were compelled to row in with their observations and advise on how far they had advanced on the parts of the report which related to their Department but which were taken over by the Department of Enterprise and Employment, which was to oversee the follow up to the report for other Departments. I was in the Cabinet when Deputy O'Malley brought the Culliton report to Cabinet, when it was fully discussed around the Cabinet table and when the Moriarty committee to oversee it was established. In view of this, why have we not had a progress report on the implementation of the Culliton report this year?
I sympathise with the arguments put forward by Deputy O'Malley that we should have a stronger policy unit within the Department. It is my recollection of what the Culliton report envisaged. The report also envisaged the consolidation of the marketing arm as well as the industrial development arm of industrial policy, which subsequently happened. The marketing — An Bord Tráchtála — was left in another Department. The evolution meant that Forás then emerged with a umbrella role, having on its membership representation from an Bord Tráchtála, FAS, Forbairt and the IDA.
One can reform and continue to reform the structures of industrial promotion and development and there will always be good arguments for doing so. However, these are relatively recent agencies. They are bedding in, and there is a good relationship between Forfás and the Department in developing policy thinking. It is working well at present. Deputy O'Malley is right when he envisages that the employment levels in Forfás will diminish when it no longer has responsibility for the National Standards Authority or for handling of industrial property and lands. It will then be slimmed down to more of a policy core. I would accept the arguments put forward by the Deputy if we had a clean sheet and were starting afresh. However, we are not doing so. We have enacted legislation as recently as 1993 and we wish to see it work.
Deputy O'Rourke made the point about an annual review of the Culliton report. It would be timely but I have not initiated such a review as we are working continuously on outstanding issues. The issue of certification is one on which we have been working over recent months with the Department of Education and we have a resolution. As the Deputy said, there are now interdepartmental issues. Inevitably, progress is slower on the remaining difficult issues, dealing with a more competitive environment and considerable change. I am sympathetic to the Deputy's point and in the policy review on which I am working at present I will include a review of the Culliton report.
That is satisfactory. When working towards an objective in a Department I have found that at political and administrative level work is done if one has a deadline. In 1993 and 1994 a deadline was set for the Department and we all had to meet it. I was alarmed when there was no sign of this review appearing, I am glad it is pending and I look forward to it.
Question put and agreed to.