The County Enterprise Board (Dissolution) Bill 2013 was referred to the Select Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation by order of the Dáil on 6 February 2014.
County Enterprise Boards (Dissolution) Bill 2013: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Dara Calleary. Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“6. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the enactment of this Act, bring forward a report to assess—
(a) the impact of the measures contained in this Act on the overall level of funding available to local authorities carrying out functions prescribed under this Act, and
(b) the challenges faced by local authorities in trying to achieve matching funding with that provided by Enterprise Ireland.”.
I thank the Chairman. I welcome the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton and his officials.
The relationship between Enterprise Ireland and the local authorities is crucial to how the local enterprise offices, LEOs, will work. On Second Stage I welcomed the provision of the service level agreement, which is a very detailed document and contains measurable targets. I want to ensure that local authority funding is robust and open to scrutiny so that people will be able to see that funding levels do not change and that enterprise-related funding does not get subsumed into the overall budget when the local authority comes under pressure. Let me give an example. Many local authorities will be under pressure as a result of the storm damage. I do not want a situation to arise that will allow the funding allocated to enterprise to be moved to another subhead to alleviate specific pressures.
Amendment No. 3 refers to performance targets agreed in service level agreements, SLAs. In order for the SLAs to have real effect there needs to be consequences if Enterprise Ireland or the local authorities do not meet their targets.
The Minister referred to the various schemes such as the micro-finance scheme, the credit guarantee scheme and the essential and very important work of the local enterprise offices in rolling out those schemes. However, unless there is a consequence for not meeting the targets, the service level agreement will fall and will fail. We want to introduce a business environment into how the service level agreement is administered. I refer to amendment No. 4. The level of funding from the departmental subhead to the county enterprise boards can be identified. We know how much money the boards have available to spend on local enterprise. I would like that money to be available to provide local enterprise offices with a separate funding line in the Department so that it can be seen how much the Department is spending on local enterprise.
I can assure the Deputy that we will continue to have that separate line and this is confirmed in the service level agreement. My Department will be providing the funding for enterprise support and there will be no question of it being absorbed into the other works of local authorities. The key to the success of the local enterprise offices is, as the Deputy says, the forging of this new relationship between the staff who were in the county enterprise boards and who will continue to be deployed and the local authority staff who will be coming in. There will be 120 staff from the county enterprise boards and also 50 staff from the local authority side. In addition, we estimate there will be the equivalent of approximately 40 staff on the local authority side to provide access to services such as planning advice, who will not be deployed full-time to the local enterprise office. We reckon that there will be a substantially enhanced service available to local enterprises but it will be made up of enterprise budgets coming from our Department and the provision of staff for some enterprise support services from the local authority. That is the structure.
This year's budget will be better than last year. We are protecting that budget. It is our view that forging a relationship between the business service units of the local authorities and the enterprise delivery functions in the existing county enterprise boards will result in a one-stop shop with a broader range of services available in a single location. A key to its success will be to achieve a genuine buy-in to the enterprise agenda by the local authorities. One of the strengths of the proposal is that local authorities have very significant networks and it is our ambition to harness that network. The Deputy may know that the City and County Managers Association last year published 2,000 initiatives by different local authorities, approximately one third of which would be specific enterprise supports. Our ambition is to encourage more of that local innovation from local authorities to support enterprise.
The Deputy raised another issue which is very much on the money, so to speak, the issue of what happens if a local authority is not delivering. The approach is not to impose an immediate penalty clause whereby the funding is slashed because that would only mean that local enterprise would suffer. I refer to the special delivery unit in the health sector which examines individual areas that are not performing to the desired and expected level. In the same way, the Enterprise Ireland centre of excellence will look at the reasons for any failure with the service level agreement. The ambition will be to build it up to the expected standard. There is the possibility for reductions or mergers whereby another local authority could take on the task if there was a complete failure on the part of the original provider but that is not envisaged because we envisage that the delivery will work. A strong technical support unit within Enterprise Ireland will be a centre for innovative thinking and will help to develop that network to a national standard. Like most performance-enhancing initiatives in the public service it is about supporting a higher standard of delivery, monitoring and setting standards, encouraging, recognising and rewarding success and supporting those who are not delivering while ensuring that they can enhance service delivery. We are not planning to take the approach of immediately slashing the budgets of a county that is not performing. Instead, we plan to work with that county in the interests of the enterprises in that area and to bring them up to the standard that we expect.
There needs to be a provision in the legislation. The Minister will move on and another colleague may take over the brief. The commitment for some form of performance review of the relationship needs to be included in the legislation. The Minister mentioned that another local authority may take over the function. I do not recall seeing a provision in the legislation for that to happen or perhaps I missed it. The Minister could be setting up super-LEOs and there is only one of them.
He is not here today.
I refer to section 2(3) which states:
The Minister may by order declare that, for the purposes of this Act, the administrative area (including, in the case of a county, the administrative area of any town council situated within that county) of a local authority specified in the order forms part of the functional area of another local authority specified in the order.
It would not be envisaged as an action because the county is a robust unit which people understand. The purpose of this provision is to encourage counties and local authorities to understand that the success of their county depends on the success of their enterprises and in particular the smaller enterprises. Our aim is to enhance our capacity to reach enterprise by enlisting the support of what is a very significant economic player in the county. There are long-stop powers to have the service provided by a different local authority but this is not something we would envisage. A service level agreement of this nature will be organic.
We want Enterprise Ireland to be innovative. For example, micro-finance is an innovation which is being delivered through the local enterprise offices. We would like to enhance mentoring and perhaps reorganise the system of mentoring so that in cases where a county would not have access to specialists that these could be provided through the network. The service level agreements will emerge and evolve over time but the performance metrics are an inherent part of them so they will be published. The service level agreement will set out the metrics that are to be delivered. The allocation of the annual budget will be revised based on demand and quality of service. If a county is not delivering and is unable to justify the level of activity as against the budget allocation, the first issue will be to examine whether the continuing level of budget allocation is justified. This is the conversation we envisage.
Service level agreements are at an early stage of development. The Department has service level agreements with IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and all departmental agencies and offices and we are learning to use them. They are a very important way of empowering a Department such as ours to have a better policy input, better monitoring and a better capacity to understand and to drive change.
That is what a central policy department should be about. We very much see these as way of the future but we could not lock such agencies into having to come back to get them approved every time modifications are made. I envisage whoever is on the Opposition benches will make sure that no Minister will slide back on expecting high levels of service delivery and insisting on publication of the standards.
I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 6
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(c) A local authority will only provide financial support by way of loan or grant aid to a company that is compliant with all employment law and labour court judgements.”.
Compliance and regulation are very important issues in this whole process. One of the major problems we have in this country is that we do not enforce compliance and regulation, which often leaves workers and people within the system vulnerable. One of the reasons we have this problem is due to the lack of funding going into enforcement and the lack of processes to incentivise proper compliance with regulation. We can do this at no cost to the State. While I have a particular problem with the local property tax, what the Government did was logical. If a person who puts an extension onto their house wants to apply to claim back VAT over a few years, he or she must make sure he or she is tax compliant. Therefore, it incentivises people on a cost free basis to be compliant with local taxes.
From speaking to subcontractors, a number of them would say that the legislation is positive. However, there is no enforcement with regard to subcontractors. We could incentivise compliance among subcontractors by providing that unless they are fully compliant they cannot tender for Government jobs. We could provide for the same with regard to compliance with employment law and Labour Court judgments. We could provide that unless they are compliant in that regard they will not be entitled to draw down grant funding or any other service from a local enterprise office in the future. That no doubt would improve compliance on a cost free basis to the State and would have a positive effect on the experience of workers in businesses. That is the idea behind this amendment.
I agree with the sentiment that we should ensure that people who get State support are compliant. We propose there will be a procedures manual for the local enterprise offices. We are currently working on that and a requirement of compliance with labour law will be included in that review. We will examine exactly what the Deputy has set out. We must strike a balance. Some of these are very small micro start-ups. We do not want to set up excessively onerous compliance statements. We need to use judgment here. Clearly, our intention is that compliance with tax, labour and basic environmental law and all of those areas will be requirements. We need to examine what nature of compliance presentation we would expect.
The Deputy's amendment provides that companies would be compliant with Labour Court judgments. We have a voluntary system of industrial relations. I would not envisage getting involved in industrial relations and mixing industrial relations into this area. That would not be the right approach to take. On the issue of compliance with Labour Court judgments, both sides can put forward reasons where people are in dispute or are unhappy with a Labour Court judgment and we try to deal with those issues but we do so within the tradition that we have in place. Therefore, I do not think the inclusion of that area is appropriate here. However, on the main thrust of what the Deputy has said, namely, that we should ensure that clients of our local enterprise offices are compliant across the law, that is certainly something we will seek to build into the procedures manual and to have a way of certifying that.
By putting that requirement in the procedures manual, what strength will it have? Will it be watertight? Why not give it the force of law while we are at this stage of the process and have it as a guaranteed right for employees where if they are working for a company that is not compliant, that company will not have opportunities to draw down taxpayers' money to either grant aid or support its business in any way? The law itself needs to be discerning between different types of compliant and non-compliant businesses. Why not give this requirement the strength of law?
We have legislation, be it labour, environmental or law, and those laws are equipped with their own enforcement mechanisms, which will be proportionate to the offence that they identify. I do not think that we should set up a body, the job of which is to support the growth of enterprise, and in some way to try to reserve to it a policing role in regard to areas like Revenue where Revenue has a panoply of powers available to it to enforce its codes. I do not see that we would be doing anything for the quality of Revenue enforcement by having a five-person local enterprise office in a county seeking to challenge a business in regard to enforcement. I do not think this is something we would put into law. What we need is to have is a system where, like in other areas, there is an expectation that companies which apply will be compliant, but should not tie it into a legislative framework where they would be penalised and all grants would have to refunded, or whatever it would be. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
Does the Minister think that businesses that are not compliant with labour law should be grant funded?
Clearly, there are different levels of non-compliance. People can inadvertently fail to comply with any item of legislation but what we seek to do here is to provide a first-stop-shop to make sure that particularly new small businesses are aware of their obligations and opportunities. The reason we are bringing in, for example, the local authority, which is in charge of licensing in respect of their environmental or planning obligations, is that we are providing a one-stop-shop where businesses can get information about their compliance requirements but we are not moving on from that to create this as part of a more penal measure.
One of the kickbacks from the idea of the involvement of the local authorities was that many businesses were saying this will mean they will use their obligation to collect rates, in effect, with regard to the enterprise support. We need to keep responsibilities under different codes separate as well as enforcement. We do not want to create an environment where the attitude would be that businesses should not engage with certain bodies because all they are after is to see if one had paid one's rates on time or whatever it would be. This is not the function here, rather it is to support enterprise in the local area. That is what we want to do. While compliance is fine, to start implying that no grant will be applied and having a penal dimension to this would not be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve here. We are trying to promote new start-ups.
This is an opportunity missed.
We could, at little or no cost to the State, incentivise good practice among businesses and encourage companies to treat their workers with respect. All we are asking is that companies abide by employment law, which is not an onerous task. We do not propose penalties but that additional benefits such as grant funding and supports would be withheld from companies found not to be treating their employees in accordance with the law. If we fail to make such provision, it will be an opportunity lost.
That is not the case because we will, through the procedures manual, create an expectation of compliance with all obligations. We will also go further in establishing a first-stop shop to allow companies to access information in respect of relevant areas. They will also have access to a service in respect of local obligations, including licensing, health regulations and planning regulations. We will promote compliance and make it easier for companies to be compliant. One of the features of a first-stop shop is that it makes compliance easier. We will not, however, require local enterprise offices to perform the Revenue task of enforcing compliance with the tax code. To do so would be a step too far. The Deputy is arguing that a small office with five staff should ensure compliance before paying out any grant. We will not require these offices to enforce every element of the tax code.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(4) Funding for the activities carried out by local authorities on behalf of Enterprise Ireland under the terms of this legislation shall be identified as a separate item in the annual estimates and shall not be included in the overall Enterprise Ireland vote.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“7. (1) Any alterations to an arrangement or service level agreement (as provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 6) between Enterprise Ireland and a local authority for the provision of services under the terms of this Act shall be subject to the approval of the Oireachtas.
(2) Any arrangement or service level agreement between Enterprise Ireland and a local authority shall be subject to review every three years from the date of the enactment of this Act.”
While I accept the Minister's explanation as it applies to my proposed subsection (1), I do not accept it in respect of the proposed subsection (2). The service level agreement must be reviewed formally every three years. It must not be allowed simply to evolve or become the subject of an informal process. It would be prudent to provide that a formal review will be undertaken every three years to ensure the agreement is current and reflects technological developments in business practices.
The background to this is that we are not providing a legal framework for the service level agreement. This is technical legislation which moves the functions previously located in the country enterprise boards to Enterprise Ireland and allows them to enter into arrangements. We should not set out a legal obligation in this sphere. I accept, however, that we should re-examine the service level agreements every three years. I will be pleased to make this a policy expectation and report back in three years to make an arrangement that we will have a three-year review. That is a reasonable expectation on the part of the Deputy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order.
This amendment has been ruled out of order because it purportedly imposes a charge on the State on the basis that it provides for oversight of local enterprise offices by representatives of local authorities and business. Will the Minister explain where it is suggested in this relatively simple amendment that a charge to the State would arise? Many in the business community believe local authorities do not fully understand business, especially small businesses. Some local authorities, including Mayo County Council, are making serious efforts to make this model work, while others treat businesses as a charging centre for development levies and rates. They do not necessarily get business.
Under the service level agreement, the local enterprise office will be subject to the usual oversight at local authority level. This involves reporting to plenary meetings which are nodded through without much discussion. I want elected councillors from all parties and none to engage in oversight. There should also be some form of business input into an oversight board, particularly in the early years.
The Deputy may raise that issue when we discuss the section.
I am anxious to find out where the charge on the Exchequer arises.
The amendment proposed that each local enterprise office be subject to oversight by a board comprised of representatives of the relevant local authority and local businesses. Under Standing Order 156, this could - that being the key word - have the effect of imposing a charge on the Exchequer. That is the reason given by the Bills Office.
There is also a second reason. One of the main principles of the Bill is to dissolve the county enterprise boards. The amendment would reinstate a similar board in an oversight position and would, therefore, be in conflict with the principle of the Bill, as read a second time. The amendment is also ruled out under Standing Order 131(1). The Deputy should seek a full explanation from the Bills Office. There is no problem discussing the theory behind the amendment at the end of the section. We will move on to amendment No. 7 before discussing the section.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“7. In carrying out the functions as set out in this Act, a local authority, acting on behalf of Enterprise Ireland, shall have regard to the needs of domestic firms in the non-exporting sector.”.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am not convinced that Enterprise Ireland understands the needs of local enterprises which are not interested in exporting. I have in mind companies which provide a service in the local community. While Enterprise Ireland has stated it will make every effort to understand such companies, its focus, understandably, is on companies that want to export and high-potential start-ups. It does a very good job in that respect. The amendment would require Enterprise Ireland to focus on the needs of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker, as it were, which are currently supported by country enterprise boards, for example, through training. Businesses need to be trained and briefed in areas such as employment law, an issue raised by Deputy Tóibin. Many enterprise boards used to provide such training. We want to ensure this continues and the basic needs of business are not forgotten when Enterprise Ireland moves into town.
The Deputy makes a reasonable argument. The reason we established a small business centre of excellence in Enterprise Ireland is to do just as he proposes. We need to create within national policy institutions a drive to improve the capacity of small businesses at local level to establish and grow. Implicit in this is that the domestic economy and export orientated sectors are equally important. We have established a small business unit, whose role, through the transfer of functions, will include the domestic economy, not only the exporting economy. We are transferring functions that require the small business unit to deliver in this area. It will be up to the Department, through oversight and the delivery of services, to ensure we continue to support the non-exporting sector.
There is a clear desire to have a thriving domestic economy as well as export sector. We are bringing a wider range of business into the heart of Government policy-making on enterprise. We will not support companies by providing grants but softer supports such as mentoring will be provided. We continue to believe that grants are not appropriate because if one grant-aids one company in the domestic economy, one is effectively supporting one competitor against another.
That rationale, which has always been behind grant giving and has been exercised by county enterprise boards as well, will remain. The remit is clearly wider and, for example, the likes of the seed capital scheme tax relief has been broadened from exporting to include all enterprises. Micro-finance will also be for all enterprises. Increasingly, the types of incentives and vehicles being put into the market by the State are available to a wider range of sectors. I take the Deputy's point but the purpose of this is to broaden the base, and Enterprise Ireland knows that. It is important to also bear in mind what will not be there, as we will not provide grant support to domestic economy businesses for the reasons that have always been applied by the State.
Is the amendment being pressed?
In general, what kind of incentives exist for city and county managers or local authorities to drive this? Is there a specific section dealing with their responsibilities regarding performance of local enterprise offices, LEOs, and other machinery?
Essentially, it comes through the service level agreement.
Apart from that-----
Apart from that it is the work done by the officials and my Department-----
Is it a case of keeping an eye on things?
There are issues such as the transfer of the 50 people and the services committed to delivery in the local enterprise offices. We have met those involved and worked out the delivery expectations. That will continue and intensify as we move to the set-up process. We will be meeting all the county and city managers to drive home the opportunity and responsibility of this, and we will underpin that with the service level agreement. Most local authorities are very much aware that the future of their county depends on this. To be fair, many of them have been doing very interesting things. For example, those in Cork county hive off 1% of the rate base to support enterprise. Many counties have been doing interesting things on their own but this offers the opportunity to bring about peer review and mainstream good practices. It is about giving people a chance through the centre of excellence and Enterprise Ireland to look at what innovative local authorities are doing. Part of the budget will also be on a competitive basis, so the local enterprise offices offering to do more interesting things will have access to additional funds.
Will we hear about that from time to time?
Exactly. Each year we will consider an area in which LEOs could shape up with some innovative thinking and there would be some financial incentive to support that through the budget allocation. It would be a carrot more than a stick but the stick exists in the service level agreement.
I will come back to this on Report Stage, as this is a mistake. We are moving away from having locally elected representatives involved in this enterprise function, and it will be purely a matter for unelected officials. That is wrong. The role and oversight of local business people in the running of county enterprise boards has been important so there should be some way of involving business people in some sort of advisory function in a LEO. We will get back to this on Report Stage in a way that is amenable to the Bills Office.
If the Deputy wants the number I can supply it.
I was a member of local authorities for a long time and I do not believe members of a board are required for an effective role for local authorities in overseeing and driving an enterprise strategy. Those involved will have access to metrics and key executives. I would look to local councillors to be a big part of the enthusiastic drivers of a better enterprise strategy coming from local authorities. I see the role of local authorities not as being token members of a board but rather recognising that this is something in which there should be an interest from a strategic perspective within the county. Every councillor should be interested in the issue and report back, asking whether more can be done and driving the pace. Perhaps I have a different view or experience of local authorities. Local councillors can play a very good role in the area.
The evaluation committee will have local business people on it and we will retain that connection to the business community. We also expect that LEOs will be part of building a wider pro-enterprise network with the local authority. This means we could have a series of networks and initiatives filtering from the business community that would be taken on by the local authority and enterprise office. Part of the role is to build that necessary entrepreneurship environment. For example, I would see a very close connection between the LEO and the community enterprise centres, of which we have more than 100 scattered around the country. I saw a recent report on them and they have space which we can use as an asset, and I expect local enterprise offices to drive the use of those assets within a county to the advantage of enterprise.
I disagree with Deputy Calleary's view. Ultimately, oversight will be provided by the service level agreement through Enterprise Ireland. Local councillors and businesses will have roles and the process will be run professionally, with a national standard being applied and a centre of excellence driving innovation within the network. It is a balanced package and even if I was on the opposite side of the House, I would argue in favour of this approach rather than having a token councillor on a board. In my experience with local authorities, such membership is not anything as effective as when the council acts as a unit and takes on the view of driving initiatives across a county. That is a better role, and local councillors should take a greater responsibility in scrutinising activities occurring in the area. We are trying to devolve into local authorities an important enterprise delivery process. If councillors take this on, it could be a model for other types of devolution, which would have councillors holding to account parts of the State in a better way for a county.
I concur with the Minister. Cork will have LEOs and rural development Leader groups so the consumers will know where to go and have access to a wide range of services. People will be able to communicate in the network and there are business people from civil society. People will be asked to step up; although some are good at sitting back and complaining about the State not doing enough, there is often much going on of which they are unaware. There is a responsibility on private or civil society to get involved and influence that. I have asked about enterprise assets before and it is important that LEOs are in rural areas, even if it is just for one day per month. They must almost provide an opportunity for business people in an area to talk to representatives and express needs. That would be a really worthwhile exercise.
If councillors or business people in the local area have no formal infrastructure in which to impart experience and help the LEO - the structure outlined by Deputy Calleary - this process will not happen.
The reality is that many councils tolerate their councillors where they have to do so. Unless they have a direct input, there will be a lot of nodding of heads but no real contribution to what is going on.
Deputy Collins has a great interest in mentoring. I saw recently an interesting point in a review of mentoring to the effect that two thirds of all mentoring is of start-up businesses while only one third is of existing businesses. The point was made that this is not a proper balance. One should really be considering the strengthening of one's existing base of SMEs or micro-enterprises. That reflects the point that Deputy Collins is making. We need to look not only to the start-up businessman walking in the door but also to the assets in many micro-businesses that are already in place to determine whether the latter can be strengthened with a view to development. A general weakness of ours lies in this area. Part of looking afresh at manufacturing involves recognising that we have considerable manufacturing capability, often in rural areas, that could be the source of greater growth. I accept the point in this regard.
On Deputy Tóibín's point, we are determined that there will be local access. Since we set up the action plan for jobs process, we have had the objective of going into the communities to meet the businesspeople. We expect LEOs to be working with local business networks and to provide opportunities for people to have an input regarding their work. This is not to create some sort of detached ivory tower. I do not believe a board is necessary for what we desire. What we need is to set a standard and an expectation of how the work should be done. It is a question of having a pro-enterprise, pro-entrepreneurship location in the county and using influence and power to create the appropriate environment. An absolute requirement is that the LEOs would be networking regularly with their client base. I agree that we need to have the offices plugged into local enterprise. I do not agree that we need a board to do that as the system we have can deliver it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, line 31, to delete “Every right” and substitute “Subject to subsection (5) of section 12, every right”.
Section 12 provides for Forfás, Enterprise Ireland or local authorities to accept into their employment staff who were previously employed by the county enterprise board on terms and conditions no less favourable in regard to remuneration. Current employees of the county enterprise boards will, upon dissolution, become members of Forfás’s superannuation scheme, the Enterprise Ireland superannuation scheme or a local authority scheme, as appropriate. This is provided for in section 12(5)(a). It provides for their entitlement to superannuation benefits to be calculated and paid by the body that accepted them into its employment. This is already in the Bill, as laid down. As it stands today, Enterprise Ireland does not have a superannuation scheme but will establish one once the Forfás legislation has been enacted. The Bill allows Enterprise Ireland to become an employer in its own right.
The amendment at section 12(5)(a) is to deal with the existing and deferred pensioners from the county enterprise boards. The amendment to section 8 is input to ensure that the liability for those pensioners does not transfer to Enterprise Ireland. The amendment at section 12(5)(b) allows for the responsibility and liability for those pensioners to transfer to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and for those pensions to be calculated and paid by the Minister. The amendment at section 12(5)(c) is to ensure that the functions in regard to any existing pension schemes that were invested in a county enterprise board will now be vested in the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
I may have another amendment on Report Stage referring to the administration of the pensions for existing pensioners and it involves the existing pensioners for Forfás and Shannon Development also. My officials are currently working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to finalise this. It may be the case that no amendment is needed in this Bill and that the matter will be handled in the Industrial Development (Forfás Dissolution) Bill 2013. This was just to ensure that existing pensioners were catered for in the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, to delete lines 13 to 23 and substitute the following:
“(5)(a) Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with a recognised trade union or staff association and approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the entitlement to any superannuation benefit of, or in respect of, a person who was accepted into the employment of Forfás, Enterprise Ireland or a local authority in accordance with this section shall be determined, and the benefit shall be calculated and paid, by Forfás, Enterprise Ireland or that local authority, as may be appropriate, in accordance with such scheme, arrangements or enactments in relation to superannuation as applied to the person immediately before the dissolution day and, for that purpose, his or her pensionable service with Forfás, Enterprise Ireland or a local authority, as the case may be, shall be aggregated with his or her previous pensionable service.
(b) Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with a recognised trade union or staff association and approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the entitlement to any superannuation benefit of, or in respect of, a person who is a former member of the staff of a county enterprise board (including those former members of staff of a county enterprise board who are deceased) shall be determined, and the benefit shall be calculated and paid, by the Minister in accordance with such scheme, arrangements or enactments in relation to superannuation as applied in respect of the person immediately before the dissolution day.
(c) All functions in relation to superannuation under any scheme, arrangement or enactment that, immediately before the dissolution day, vested in a county enterprise board shall on and from that day vest in the Minister.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I thank the Minister and his officials for all their help. I thank also the members for having two meetings on the one day.