Amendment No. 7 is related to amendment No. 1 and both may be discussed together by agreement.
Digital Hub Development Agency Bill 2002 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 7, after "AS" to insert "AN GHNÍOMHAIREACHT FORBARTHA DON MHOL DIGITEACH, OR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,".
The Labour Party warmly welcomes this Bill but it is unfortunate that, as with a number of Bills from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, there is always a series of last minute amendments. As far as I am aware there is no printed version of the Bill following Committee Stage, which is an extraordinary state of affairs. We had the saga of the fisheries Bill which was dealt with adroitly in the House by the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, and as the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, probably knows, I asked the Taoiseach to consider Deputy Browne for promotion to the Cabinet given that he had taken—
Reference available.
Yes, and Wexford could do with a senior Minister. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has the second longest list of outstanding legislation after the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The fisheries Bill grew like Topsy with a series of additional amendments and, at one stage, we had amendments to amendments to amendments to the Bill, which was extraordinary. We somehow got through that and are now dealing with this Bill of which there does not appear to be a printed copy. I could not get one and Deputy Coveney did not get one. The Minister will have to bear with us as we are operating from—
I was informed that the Bill was not amended on Committee Stage.
No, but was there not a printed version?
The Bill is as it stands.
Normally one expects to see some indication of what happened on Committee Stage. I know that amendments were not accepted. Amendment No. 1 is a very simple amendment and I ask the Minister to accept the translation of the title into Irish.
First, on the procedural issue, a copy of the Bill is available, namely the Bill as passed by the Seanad as there were no amendments on Committee Stage. With regard to these amendments there is a precedent for not accepting this type of amendment in the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act 1998 and the IDA Act 1950 in that the name of the agency was not given an Irish translation. The reason is that those Bills and this one have an international remit. The Bill will be translated into Irish generally in any event, but it is not proposed to specify the agency's Irish title in the legislation.
I omitted to mention another point which was part of the general dissatisfaction I have with Bills emerging from this Department. A major amendment is proposed on page 27 between lines 18 and 19 concerning ComReg and the provisions for the members of ComReg. That could have been anticipated so the Minister will have to bear with me in my general point. When I was my party's spokesman on social welfare and Deputy Ahern was Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, we worked on what we received in the initial Bill but this has not been the case here. I do not want to take up my colleagues' time as we have only 45 minutes in which to discuss the end of this important Bill which is being guillotined. It was on the agenda three or four times at least as a back-up Bill and was never taken. It should have been passed three years ago.
I accept the Minister's comment about this amendment although I do not see what harm it would do to have the title in Irish.
The Minister's reply to the amendment is scandalous. The first official language of this State is Irish and next week we will debate the Official Languages Bill, which proposes to put the language back in first place in dealings with all State bodies. Here we have a Minister saying that because the digital hub is international, its title should be in English only. The titles of other international bodies, such as Bord Fáilte, are in Irish. The first title for this body should be in Irish. I have no problem with it being translated and if the title of the IDA and other bodies were in English only in the past, we should not replicate those mistakes. We should ensure that the first and official title of this body would be in Irish.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes, in deference to the good argument advanced by my Sinn Féin colleague.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, line 2, after "Finance" to insert "and the Houses of the Oireachtas".
As we do not have much time, I will try to skip through my amendments as quickly as I can. I recognise that most of the decisions regarding the digital hub need to be matters for Government in order that it can make a decision and move on. I have tabled this amendment not because I want the Oireachtas to be involved in every decision regarding the digital hub, but because if a decision is made to extend the hub or to move a section of it to another part of the city or country that should be a matter for the Oireachtas to discuss. We have invested a large sum of money in the creation of the hub which I hope will be a great success and if we are extending or expanding that project, it will involve significant sums of money which need to get the go-ahead from the Minister of Finance. It is not unreasonable to suggest this needs to be debated and decided on by the Oireachtas as well as by the Minister.
Any decision to extend or vary the digital hub would be an executive function of the agency, not one for this Legislature and there is precedent for this in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997. I do not see that it would—
The Bill states quite clearly: "The Minister may order with the consent of the Department of Finance" so it is not an executive function.
I am coming to that. Any orders that I or a Minister would make would, in effect, be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas but the decision to extend or vary those would have to come from the agency, not from the Legislature.
The concept of the digital hub came from the Government at some stage. My understanding is that the Minister may order, presumably on the recommendation of the Executive, that the digital hub be extended or expanded. Such a decision would involve pumping a significant amount of taxpayers' money into the hub, and that decision should be taken by the Oireachtas collectively, as opposed to a decision ordered and sanctioned by the Minister for Finance.
It is a matter for the agency to make decisions about any changes.
It is a recommendation to make the order.
We either pass legislation to put bodies on an independent basis or not. If it must come into the Dáil and the Seanad every time to—
I am talking about ministerial orders.
In respect of any decisions required under this existing legislation, it would be necessary to bring forward orders to this House but a decision to extend or vary would not be within the remit of the legislation as we are passing it.
Does the ministerial order we are talking about here need to come before the House? The Bill states that the Minister may order by consent of the Minister for Finance, but the Minister is saying that it must come before the House.
Yes, under section 5, an order would have to be laid before the House, and that could be debated if the Dáil so decided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
It is proposed that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, lines 3 and 4, to delete ", contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub".
We had a long discussion on this on Committee Stage. The Minister was not there, but the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Opposition parties had a long discussion. It was their view that the existing wording in the Bill may be too tight in its meaning, since it is essentially saying that, if the digital hub is to expand, it can only do so if the area of expansion is attached to its existing footprint. My proposal is that we leave everything else intact, deleting only the words ", contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub". That gives the Minister and the Government the option of extending the digital hub concept and reality to perhaps half a mile away from where the existing digital hub is. I see no downside to accepting my amendment. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, said at the time that the reason for having the present wording was that he wanted to keep the digital hub in a specific area of the capital which he was revamping to make into an IT centre, with all the other positive aspects which the digital hub has to offer. We can keep that strategy intact if we accept my amendment. There is no threat to it. However, if we decide for whatever reason in the future that we wish to extend the digital hub perhaps a mile away from where the existing footprint is, we are prevented from doing so under the existing wording, and that is why I propose that the last eight words of that paragraph be deleted.
I am supportive of amendment No. 3, since, like my own amendment No. 4, it seeks to offer the possibility of expanding the idea of the hub. On Second Stage, I referred to several foreign cities, including Seoul in Korea and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, where about 500 sq. km. – an area about the size of the old County Dublin – is effectively a digital hub with very fast broadband, media, e-learning and all the other kinds of facilities which are clustered here. I tabled amendment No. 4 because it seemed to me that there is a very coherent district represented in Dublin City Council, one of our five area committees, or "boroughs" as one might term them – the south central area. It is in the old historic heart of the Liberties, the old industrial centre. I am looking at an aerial map of the existing plans for the hub.
Obviously, there is logic behind having closely clustered e-commerce, e-media and e-learning facilities. However, it seemed to me when we made the choice, and going on the early discussions, that some of our third-level institutions such as Trinity College, Dublin Institute of Technology and so on, felt discomfiture that they had not initially been involved and that we had looked to the United States. There is an opportunity to say from the start that we could expand the hub to the whole of the south central district of Dublin city, perhaps as a prototype. I am not ruling out similar developments in Cork, the Acting Chairman's own important centre of Killarney or elsewhere around Ireland.
And Dundalk.
I have no problem with Dundalk.
I am sure that if it expands in Dundalk—
Obviously we often see the Minister on the news.
Did the Deputy see me there? Did I look well?
Yes. However, the key criticism being made by the reporter was that he was only really offering a narrowband sort of service. We are still behind in the area, and the Minister has a chance to highlight—
Let us face it. The Deputy did not know what FRIACO was when I mentioned it.
We are learning big time, and we want the Minister to go much faster. I do not disagree with amendment No. 3, but there is a coherent area in the south central area of Dublin city, and perhaps we might say upfront that the possibility is there. I know that the Minister has specifically and very clearly designated the area at the end of the Bill, but I thought he should consider it. I tried to reflect that in other amendments too, since I felt that the south central community should be directly represented on this board, particularly given the history of the project.
I cannot accept either amendment, for the whole rationale behind this legislation is to ensure that companies have a competitive edge, and to do so they must be clustered within a small area. If we extended it, or allowed it to be extended, more broadly, even over relatively short distances of a few miles – not to mention down to Cork, the north side of Dublin, Dundalk or Killarney – that would dilute the whole rationale of what a digital hub is about. It is an attempt to have a centre of excellence within a very small geographical area. That was the specific reason those words were inserted into the Bill. However, any new areas added need not be exactly adjacent to the existing area, even under the wording that is there. It would depend on the circumstances in each case.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify what the words ", contiguous to the boundaries of the digital hub", mean.
Relatively close to the boundaries but not necessarily attached to them.
That is as vague as one can be. I agree with the Minister when he says that for the digital hub to work it must be a confined space. We should not extend it to other areas until we have proof that it works here. However, if in a year or two we decide that the concept of a digital hub should be expanded somewhere else to create another centre, perhaps in Dublin, it surely makes sense for the executive that has been successful in this digital hub to be able to expand its power somewhere else. We are attempting only to leave the option open. No one is suggesting that we double or treble the size of the digital hub and spread it across a ward of Dublin. It is eminently reasonable, but clearly the Minister is not going to accept it.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 4, in the name of Deputy Broughan, has already been discussed with amendment No. 3.
I move Amendment No. 4:
In page 7, line 4, after "hub" to insert "and in future may extend to the whole of the South Central Administrative Area of Dublin City Council".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, to delete lines 8 and 9.
I heard the Minister's reply to the earlier comment regarding section 5. The spirit of this amendment was to curtail the power of the Minister, who had extended the narrowly-circumscribed boundaries.
I would still prefer if it were open to the full expansion of the south-central district of the city. The spirit of my amendment seeks not to leave it open to the Minister to reduce the area in question. In other words, the Minister would have to come back to the Oireachtas if it is covered by section 5, as he said in respect of an earlier amendment.
This is a standard provision for which there is precedent in the Dublin Docklands Act and it is included in the orders provisions as a purely practical detail to ensure the possible eventuality is covered from a legislative perspective. The Deputy's point about section 5 is correct. These are orders which would be made by the Minister. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, line 25, after "as" to insert "An Ghníomhaireacht Forbartha don Mhol Digiteach, or in the English language,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 35, after "property," to insert "equity or investment holding,".
Could we also take amendment No. 11 with amendment No. 8 because the two are related although they are not grouped for discussion?
Acting Chairman
I am advised they must be taken separately.
I accept that. I shall address No. 8 first, but my arguments may wander slightly. While no amendments were accepted on Committee Stage, we had a good and lengthy debate. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, has conveyed to the Minister his opinion that amendments Nos. 8 and 11 should be considered as he thought they contained much wisdom and would add to the Bill. Unfortunately, we did not pass it on Committee Stage but, hopefully, we can do so on Report Stage.
The concept I have is not necessarily that the agency would become a major equity or stockholder in its work, but at the same time I wanted to leave the option open. On amendment No. 11, I was seeking to provide the agency with the ability to be as enterprising as possible in its operations. There is a great deal of concentration on bricks and mortar in the digital hub and already most of the money has been spent in this area. Many of the provisions in the development plan for the Bill relate to property. Coming as he does from one of the most enterprising areas in the country, the Minister will be aware that enterprise does not come from bricks and mortar but from imagination, communication, innovation and sometimes from parties and strange circumstances.
Geography.
It is important to encourage the agency to develop an enterprise culture to look at the option of setting up venture capital funds, innovative sabbaticals or schemes where students can work part time in companies or workers can leave companies and go into the third level research field for a certain time. It should seek to strengthen specifically the educational links between a national college of art, Media-Lab Europe and companies in the digital hub, and concentrate not on a bricks and mortar centre but on a place where social and cultural activities take place which would enhance an enterprising culture. I do not want the budget to go down the Swanee of chardonnay and press receptions where expensive budgets are thrown at PR consultants. It is important to recognise that if the digital hub is to work, it must be more than bricks and mortar. If the agency is to have a valuable role, it will have to consider innovative techniques, such as setting up venture capital funds not necessarily for the State or the agency to invest in but primarily for outside bodies. We should not rule out the possibility of the agency taking seed capital in a small holding. That is the spirit and the purpose my amendment.
I appreciate the Deputy has put much thought into this amendment. However, I draw his attention to section 13(3) which states:
The Agency may, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, acquire, hold and dispose of shares or other interests in a company and become a member of a company.
What the Deputy wishes to achieve is already provided for. Therefore, I do not see any need to accept the amendment.
I take the Minister's point about section 13. I would argue that the purpose of any such holdings, largely with regard to subsidiary companies, is that they carry out the work of the agency rather than hold equity stakes in companies which may not necessarily be involved in the actual bricks and mortar work of the agency on a day to day basis. I take the point that section 13 allows the agency to have a shareholding in another company. My reading is that it is primarily for the purpose of its own operations, rather than holding investment stakes in other companies. Even if it duplicates section 13, there is no harm in replicating that intent in the section with which I am concerned.
If the Deputy examines section 13(2), he will see that the agency is allowed to enter into joint ventures or partnerships for the purpose of fulfilling any of its functions. In effect, it could enter into the type of liaisons suggested by the Deputy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 2, before "enterprises" to insert "new or expanding".
I pressed this amendment to a vote on Committee Stage and was unsuccessful. I understand the point the Minister made at the time that we do not want to give the impression by the wording of the legislation that certain enterprises are not welcome in the digital hub. Certainly, that was not the intention of my amendment. I was attempting to emphasise that we are trying to promote and drive new and expanding enterprises, as opposed to facilitating existing enterprises or businesses that may be accommodated in Citywest or wherever at present. The whole idea behind the digital hub is that it would offer something new in Ireland, a facility that would attract new business or encourage existing business to expand. I had hoped the Minister would bring forward a wording to address those concerns but he chose not do so. While I understand the point the Minister made, we could have put a wording in place that would emphasise that we are seeking to attract new or expanding businesses as well as welcoming existing firms in Ireland to come to the digital hub should they be deemed suitable. The wording of my amendment does not eliminate the possibility of an existing company in Ireland relocating in the digital hub. All it does it put a change of emphasis on what the hub is for, which is to attract new and expanding businesses or technologies. This was the whole purpose of the digital hub and hence the reason for the amendment.
I understand what the Deputy is seeking but the words "new or expanding" would restrict the type of enterprise that could go into the digital hub – neither I nor the Deputy would want that – particularly a company which is successful abroad and may wish to set up a sub-company in the digital hub for a particular reason. From that point of view, we could not see how we could put one's view into words other than in the strategic plan which the authority would bring forward from year to year. The intention is that it would be new, innovative companies but we cannot be prescriptive. If we were we might well exclude an agency or company that would be of benefit to the digital hub in the future.
The reason I was comfortable with this wording was that this section of the Bill states, "The functions of the Agency shall be to. . . " It then formulates strategies to encourage. It asks the agency to formulate strategies to encourage individuals and enterprises to come to the hub. Existing agencies may well come to the digital hub but we do not need strategies to attract them. The strategies required are ones which will attract new investment or expand existing businesses. By accepting my wording we would not exclude a Microsoft, Dell or Apple from relocating into the digital hub. However, the strategies we are asking the agency to follow should primarily be about new and expanding businesses.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, line 12, after "interests" to insert "and their representative social, economic and cultural development bodies".
This refers to one of the functions of the agency and seeks to amend section 8(g) which is to “consult with local community interests in or adjacent to the digital hub”. I wish to extend that to include the phrase, “and their representative social, economic and cultural development bodies”. It is a weakness of the Bill that as a result of the behaviour of the Government in imposing guillotines, it has wasted many weeks since last July and we are now trying to run our way through important legislation in a couple of minutes.
This amendment is related to my amendment No. 23 in which I seek that of the 14 members of the digital hub agency at least two would represent community bodies in the digital hub and adjoining districts. One of these should be a worker representative from the companies working in the agency area and one should be a city councillor. It is astonishing that it is not proposed that a locally-elected public representative be here. We have the city manager. I do not expect we will get to that amendment because my colleague has yet to move amendment No. 11, which is important. If we had time, this is an issue on which I would call a vote. I ask the Minister to reconsider amendment No. 21, and this related amendment.
The south central area of Dublin city includes our rebel Liberties, historic Thomas Street and James's Street and the historic echoes of Robert Emmet, Theobald Wolfe Tone, Henry Grattan and the great fathers of Irish republicanism, the historic Liberties city and the Guinness workforce and their historic contribution. It is astonishing that we do not say directly that some of their representative bodies, SICDA, the south inner city partnership, and all the other bodies, should be consulted. My part of the city learned about community development from the south central part of the city 20 years ago.
One of the problems we have with this legislation is that the local academic institutions and local community bodies received no consultation whatsoever. In regard to the private company that operated the district, we had the astonishing situation where the Comptroller and Auditor General criticised it in his report. This is what we are legislating on.
The Minister should accept amendments Nos. 10 and 21. We want people who are directly elected. We have had enough of quangos and non-elected intendants or whatever, dictating policy. We need to have community involvement. Clearly they should be expert in digital media developments, that is what we want. I applaud the effort that has been made to liaise with the local schools and local community. However, there should be direct representation for those outstanding local community bodies who have done so much to pull Dublin south-central, and this historic part of it, up by the boot straps. They should be included in the Bill.
I support what Deputy Broughan has said. In case we do not get to it, I also recognise the Minister's amendment No. 23 (a) which includes on the agency a representative of the local community in the digital hub. It also includes the city manager and an officer from Dublin City Council nominated by him or her. That is progress and clearly the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, was listening to Deputy Broughan when he made these points on Committee Stage.
I support Deputy Broughan particularly in regard to amendment No. 23. I do not have a copy of the Minister's amendment No. 23 (a). I would find it remarkable if the Minister did not accept that a member of the city council should be on this sort of body. The local authority is under enough attack at present in terms of withdrawal of its powers. In those circumstances to give the city manager a position and not a member of the actual council would be remarkable. I would put a city councillor on the board first ahead of a community representative because ultimately councillors represent the democratic processes of State and the people of the local area. They should have a position on the council.
I would not want the message to go out that there was no consultation with local communities. There was substantial consultation which involved dealing with residents' associations, community groups, business representatives and public representatives. It included over 150 meetings. Contacts were established with some 140 community groups and a questionnaire was distributed in early 2001 to 10,000 postal addresses in the area.
We have looked at the issue. As Deputies have indicated, under a later amendment I propose that we bring forward an amendment whereby we would allow a representative of a local community in the digital hub to be on the board and also the city manager or an officer of Dublin City Council. It would be possible for a member of the city council to be on the board as the representative of the local community. That is not excluded. As far as I am concerned that amendment does deal with the issue of local community interests, which is the term in the legislation and which is appropriate to cover all the circumstances required.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(j) formulate strategies to encourage co-operation between companies operating in the digital hub area and third level educational institutions in research and development projects;
(k) liaise with local educational and research institutions including the National College of Art and Media Lab Europe to promote the sharing of facilities, information and skills within the area;
(l) arrange cultural and social events to encourage interaction between those involved in different companies in the hub and in other relevant institutions;
(m) permit the provision of an employment advisory centre for small businesses operating within the hub and arrange possible internship/scholarship schemes for third level post graduate students temporarily working with companies based in the digital hub;
(n) where appropriate, establish venture capital funds for the investment equity seed capital in enterprises established within the digital hub. The Agency may publish an annual report outlining the status and extent of such investments and the criteria for the management of the fund.”.
Another example where a cultural centre worked or where a cluster was created which produced creativity, ingenuity and other activities relates to the Spanish poet Lorca. If I remember correctly, he was based in Madrid for a time in a state institution which was deliberately designed, built and developed to encourage cross-fertilisation between different artistic disciplines. In that period of time he met Picasso and Miro. They were brought together by this institution at a young age. A remarkable flowering resulted from that. Clusters can be very successful when trying to develop creativity.
How do we develop that type of creativity? I mention Lorca and Miro because it is people of that stature we should attract into the digital hub. We want people with imagination and people from outside the loop who will provide the products people will want tomorrow. They will provide the digital content we will want. That is what we should aim for if that is the type of centre we want to create.
We must think beyond the bricks and mortar. We must look at things like venture capital, as Enterprise Ireland is already doing. Venture capital funds allow small seed capital stakes to be taken in small businesses. We must look beyond that also. We should look at scholarship systems for educational establishments which would link in with the companies in the hub. We should look at cultural and social events so that we get the type of creative hub for which we are looking. We must go beyond the bricks and mortar.
I hope the five sections I include in my amendment, which would fit in well with any potential development plan, would be an addition to the Bill. They would not restrict the agency in a manner that it would have to be compelled to include them in its thinking. Rather, it would have the option of doing so and be steered towards it.
I appreciate the efforts the Deputy has made in regard to this amendment. Much of what he refers to will be dealt with in the development plan that the agency will bring forward. It has already produced plans for the development of the hub and an updated plan, in line with this section of the Bill, is already in place.
In regard to paragraphs (j) and (k), I refer the Deputy to section 9(2)(d), which adequately caters for the situation to which the Deputy refers. The digital hub has already been involved in a number of successful cultural events in the area involving the local community and some of the companies in the area. The support for small business, as referred to the Deputy's suggested paragraph (m), is central to the strategy which has been enunciated by the DMDL to date. The digital hub offices have been designed to include facilities for this very purpose. In addition, the digital depot, previously known as the Guinness printworks building, is being refurbished as a joint venture between DMDL, Dublin City Council and Enterprise Ireland. In effect, that means that small companies will have access to the expertise of this development agency as well as the support and advice available from DCC in the context of the integrated area plan for the Liberties and the Coombe.
The reference to the internal scholarship scheme also goes into detail which probably is unnecessary in legislation. However, such arrangements form part of the longer term aims of the digital hub. This will be dealt with in the development plan that the agency will produce. With regard to the proposed paragraph (n), I agree that there is considerable potential for the agency in its role as a supporter of new enterprise. Again, I draw the Deputy's attention to sections 13(2) and (3), about which we had a debate earlier.
Regarding the question of reporting, it is a standard requirement of the agency to include any investments in its annual report under the Department of Finance code of practice for governance of State bodies. Therefore, on that basis, many of the Deputy's suggestions would be better dealt with in the development plan.
I take the Minister's point that aspects of the amendment could be read into various sections, including section 13, regarding the venture capital fund. However, it is stretching it to suggest that the idea I have proposed could be included under section 13.
If we are setting direction to the digital hub development agency, all we are asking it to consider in the development plan is the management and refurbishment of property. That is down to fairly basic minor detail, its having to consider the disposal and acquisition of property and setting a budget. We are setting the board a fairly straight-laced approach in terms of what it can read into the legislation.
I take the Minister's point about paragraphs (j) and (k) in my proposed amendment in that paragraph (d) caters for the educational aspect. Therefore, I will not press those points. However, the other three proposals are a valuable addition to the Bill. If we do not insert them, the new manager of the digital hub may say that his or her job is to run a property business, keep the budget tight and occasionally involve educational institutions. I hope the Minister sees the wisdom in using this legislation to make a statement that we are looking for an agency with pep, one which is innovative and one which is making creative decisions. If we maintain it as a property management company and merely require its budgets in the development plan, we are setting a narrow agenda for this agency from the start.
I concur with the Deputy. It would be helpful if these five additional paragraphs were accepted because it would set out in law, from the start, the need for the hub to remain innovative, to have a dynamic and to be creative. Otherwise, we cannot guarantee that whatever dynamism or innovation is there at the start remains in future. There may be some repetition involved but if it is laid out in the five paragraphs, in addition to the other specific responsibilities which are prescribed in the section, it would be helpful and encourage the type of ethos and vision that is in line with the thinking of the people behind the digital hub. The amendment should not be rejected.
I cannot say any more than I already have said. All of the issues to which the Deputy refers will be taken care of in the development plan under the functions of the agency. It is unfair to say that the agency will be a property development company. It is not. The whole idea is that the agency will work with the local community from an entrepreneurial and enterprise perspective, but also to integrate with the community and make it a vibrant area, not just for enterprise, but for culture. That has already been taken care of and is identified in the Bill.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 12 and 17 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, to delete lines 36 to 41.
These amendments were prompted by the history of the project. I do not want to go back over the Second Stage debate. However, I made the point that the two major projects launched by the Taoiseach were perhaps to be a memorial to him when he passes on to some other destiny. The way in which this and the Abbottstown project were established through private companies left much to be desired.
In this case, we had the extraordinary situation whereby the chief executive of Digital Media District Limited, Mr. Paddy Teahon, had to resign when it became known he was on the board of a property company, Insignia Richard Ellis Gunne, which was involved in the purchase of property for the portfolio of the digital hub. The Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, said this referred to ancient history. However, since we have had this situation, it is correct to raise it in the House. The project and the first company which ran it was seriously criticised by our distinguished Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Purcell, on the basis that great public projects such as this should not be managed by private companies. The Taoiseach should have looked after the project at Abbottstown, which was his big one, and this one, which was a minor one, of which he did not take sufficient care.
My amendments were tabled on the basis that I am fearful of events which happened before we reached the stage of the present chief executive and chairperson.
Deputy Broughan should reflect on his words in regard to a named individual in this House. He was unfair in what he said. The man named was involved in this enterprise and was successful in getting it up and running. The reason he opted out was on the basis that there was a possibility that a company with which he was involved might make a proposal, which it did do not in the end, to be part of the development of the area. The Deputy should be careful about what he says in that respect.
In regard to his gratuitous remark about Abbottstown and this project, these are flagship projects and, as the Taoiseach said today, there are not many people complaining about the aquatic centre, about which there was a great deal of controversy. The aquatic centre is now one of the showcases of the Special Olympics. The Deputy is unfair in what he said.
What did the Comptroller and Auditor General say?
If we were to accept this amendment, it would lead to great legal uncertainty with regard to the existing contracts pertaining to the DMDL in the transition to the new agency. It would also immediately envelop the new agency in a legal quagmire.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 10 p.m., I must put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
On a point of order, it is unfortunate that this Bill is being guillotined in this way. There was—
Acting Chairman
The Deputy cannot make a point of order at this stage.
I thank the Acting Chairman, the staff of the House and the Deputies on the other side of the House for the work carried out on this Bill which must go to the Seanad for its consideration of the Government amendments. I also thank my officials who have been diligent in bringing forward required amendments and in examining amendments tabled by Deputies on the other side of the House.
It is regrettable that this Bill has to be guillotined at 10 o'clock.
We are sick of guillotines. We are guillotined out.
Question put and agreed to.