Vol. 867 No. 3
6. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the plans in place to locate a new enterprise at a vacant plant (details supplied) in County Tipperary; the number of visits to the site that have been organised by the Industrial Development Agency in 2014 and 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5843/15]
This question concerns the Johnson & Johnson ALZA plant at in Cashel, County Tipperary, which has been vacant for some time. It is a state-of-the-art facility and I am looking for an update on the situation.
I am informed by IDA Ireland that the former Johnson & Johnson ALZA plant in Cashel is in the process of changing hands. IDA Ireland understands that discussions between the company, Johnson & Johnson, and a private investment entity are ongoing. IDA Ireland is contacting the new owner through Johnson & Johnson. I have asked IDA Ireland to work with the new owner to try to deliver high value sustainable jobs for Cashel. The Deputy appreciates that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
The agency informs me that there were three site visits by potential investors to County Tipperary in 2014. In respect of Cashel, I am informed by IDA Ireland that it is also working with the Ranbaxy pharmaceutical facility in Cashel in supporting plans to boost productivity on the site. In County Tipperary as a whole, there are 11 IDA Ireland client companies employing 3,370 people in full and part-time employment. Cashel, located in south Tipperary, is marketed by IDA Ireland as part of the south-east region along with counties Waterford, Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny. The main clusters that have emerged in the south east are high-value manufacturing, pharmaceutical, medical devices and engineering, and international financial services.
We are developing a regional enterprise strategy for the south east and for the mid-west. We seek to develop all aspects, multinational and the much larger domestic enterprise sector, in the course of those plans.
The former Johnson & Johnson ALZA plant in Cashel is a state-of-the-art facility. Unfortunately, it has been vacant for some time and I thought there would have been a stronger push by the IDA to fill the plant. In the town of Cashel, 1,060 people are on the live register. The town needs employment and there is no doubt it should be possible to install a new occupant in the plant. This is particularly true in light of the other flagship pharmaceutical and medical industries in the county, Abbott Ireland Vascular Division, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boston Scientific and others. I ask the Minister and the IDA to ensure the plant is occupied as soon as possible.
I assure the Deputy that no effort is spared by the IDA to pursue opportunities for the site. It is state of the art. If there was any slacking on the part of the IDA, the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, would keep them up to their job. He is regularly in contact about opportunities in the area. The plant is owned by Johnson & Johnson and it is not an IDA plant. There is more than one party to this. There is close collaboration between the IDA and Johnson & Johnson and we intend that the same relationship will be developed in the hands of the new owner. We are anxious to see the facility, which is a fantastic asset to the region, fully utilised.
7. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to ensure transparency and openness, in and about the trade talks, relating to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6093/15]
We have broached the subject a number of times. It was interesting to see comments by the former Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, who said: "One should not forget that traditional methods of conducting international trade negotiations, characterised as they are by confidentiality and limited public participation, are ill-equipped to generate the legitimacy necessary in such high stakes talks." She argues that things need to be different from now on and that citizens need a stronger role. She has been critical of the lack of citizen participation in the TTIP negotiations to date.
To be fair, that has been reflected in the approach of Commissioner Malmström. There is a whole new approach being adopted, with greater engagement by citizens than has occurred previously in trade negotiations. The purpose of the TTIP negotiations is to generate jobs and growth by reducing barriers to trade and investment. As I mentioned to Deputy Seamus Healy, there is potential for 400,000 jobs across the EU and 8,000 additional jobs in Ireland from an ambitious trade agreement.
I welcome the wide interest in these negotiations and the opportunities it presents for constructive engagement and discussion on issues arising in the negotiations. I have sought to provide opportunity for open discussion. During the course of the past year, I have briefed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. In June 2014, I hosted a conference in Dublin Castle for stakeholders, including Oireachtas Members. Last December, I participated in a round-table discussion with a range of stakeholders organised by the European Parliament’s office in Dublin. I plan to continue these engagements with the Oireachtas and MEPs. The publication in the next few weeks of the study commissioned by my Department on the opportunities of the TTIP for Ireland will provide further opportunity for engagement and openness on the issues of interest to us in these negotiations.
The European Commission is the EU’s negotiator in TTIP. Last November, the European Council of trade Ministers, which I attended, underlined the importance of better communicating the scope and the benefits of TTIP and called for enhanced transparency and dialogue with civil society. Commissioner Malmström’s response to this call for improving transparency and openness in the negotiations has been positive. The European Commission is making public more EU negotiating texts and is providing access to TTIP texts to all Members of the European Parliament. Fewer TTIP negotiating documents are classified as EU restricted.
Engagement with stakeholders during the TTIP negotiating rounds is now a permanent feature. Last week in Brussels, during the eighth round, in excess of 80 stakeholders from both sides of the Atlantic presented their views on the various aspects of the negotiations. This provides further opportunity for openness and transparency in direct stakeholder engagement with the negotiators.
The Minister is telling us that everything is open and transparent but many people feel otherwise. The Minister is aware of the group, Corporate Europe Observatory, which has taken a close look at this. There is fierce opposition to the far-reaching rights for foreign investors in this treaty. There are fears they will be given the right to undermine existing legislation. It is almost as if they will be given the opportunity to write their own legislation.
Going against what the Minister says in his answer, Ms Emily O'Reilly has raised the point that the US has sought to veto access to some documents. She is concerned. For the US to say that it will be unhappy if certain documents are disclosed is, according to Ms. O'Reilly, not good enough. It gives the US a veto over disclosure of certain documents, which is worrying. Coming up with the final document, presenting it to people, telling them that this is what we are doing and letting them say "Yes" or "No" to it at that stage is not good enough. There must be greater engagement with the citizens throughout the process if people will be content with the final outcome.
There is exactly that. We have had eight rounds and after every round there has been an open and transparent opportunity for people to express views. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It is a rolling process.
I acknowledged that there are people who are critics but I ask the Deputy to look honestly at what is in the document. I quoted to Deputy Healy what went into the Canadian document to protect investors. They can only call on the investor dispute mechanism if they are faced with a fine denial of justice in criminal or administrative procedures, if there has been a fundamental breach of due process, if there has been manifest arbitrariness in the way they have been treated, or if there has been targeted discrimination. The elements that go into the improved investor-state dispute settlements, ISDS, over time are narrowing the ranges where they can pursue complaints and these elements are improving the process. In the mandate, we have excluded rafts of things that the agreement cannot enter into, including GMO, the right to regulate or the right to have public services provided through the public sector.
These things have been ring-fenced and are not party to these negotiations. One must distinguish between opposition that simply is opposed to any trade and that which is founded on elements and consideration of weaknesses or whatever. This is an important distinction, and the reason there has been so much consultation is in order that there can be a rational debate in which people examine each item. It is a negotiation, and not everything will be fully in the open. The Deputy will not know final positions until the end, and if he ever has been in negotiation, he will know that that is the way negotiations evolve.
It is not radical to state that, generally speaking, large corporations in the developed world and probably in the undeveloped world have more power than ordinary people. That is not rocket science. I am not against everything but I am concerned about whether the interests of the citizen will be best protected by whatever we end up with. In her latest book, Naomi Klein has addressed the point that the TTIP and many other extant trade and investment rules actually make it difficult to challenge corporations in how they deal with fossil fuels, for example, and so on. They have incredible rights.
I believe there probably is more discussion on this issue in Europe than in Ireland. Given that the mainstream media do not appear to have an interest in the TTIP, can the Minister provide for Members an analysis of his perceptions on what has been negotiated thus far and what is being discussed? Can the Minister give Members a breakdown of what it currently means to Ireland in black and white? There is confusion at the moment. If the Minister could do away with the confusion, he might get greater acceptance from those who are in opposition to this process. It would be great if the Department were able to state how this would and would not affect Ireland.
One can be sceptical of enterprises and investment, but just a moment ago Deputy Healy stated that there was not enough international investment and that big corporations were not coming in and investing enough.
What I said was that we were not getting our fair share of it.
Investment is good for countries, but it will only come if there is a reasonable level of protection. That is why these things have been there. Investors must be protected from arbitrary actions by Governments or other bodies such as courts. That is why investment protection is part of these agreements. Ireland has not needed it because it has a strong Constitution that provides that to people, and we have not had experience of huge exploitation or abuses by foreign enterprise investing in Ireland. These mechanisms are designed to ensure that rules are applied in a fair manner. That is their purpose, but to take the Deputy's point, the Department has commissioned work that will provide a sector-by-sector indication of opportunities and threats for Ireland, which will be published in the near future. I hope this will add to the debate. Moreover, of course there are concerns. As the Deputy is aware, there are concerns about beef coming into Ireland, but there also are hopes in respect of cheese going to the United States. Any such trade negotiation is a two-way process and, ultimately, the Government must balance them out. That is always an element of negotiation.
8. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in view of the fact that the Workplace Relations Bill failed to include a mechanism for retired workers to access the State's industrial relations machinery when their pensions are affected, his plans to deal with this issue. [5858/15]
The Workplace Relations Bill passed by the Dáil a few weeks ago was a missed opportunity to deal with an issue that, as the Minister has previously acknowledged, must be addressed. Normally, when an employee severs his or her relationship with an employer, he or she no longer has access to the State's industrial relations machinery. In most instances this makes perfect sense, but the one instance in which it does not is of course with regard to people's pensions. People must be given a voice when their material living standards can potentially be dramatically affected. Given that this has not been done within the Bill that Members just passed, what will the Government do to deal with this issue?
I thank Deputy Clare Daly for tabling this important question. I fully appreciate the concerns of retired and deferred members of pension schemes whose schemes are being restructured, particularly where such restructuring may have an impact on existing or potential pension benefits. In this regard, the question of pensioner groups having access to the State’s industrial relations machinery in pursuing pension scheme grievances is an issue in which I have a deep interest and to which I have given careful consideration. In so doing, I have borne in mind that the industrial relations system in Ireland is voluntary in nature as regards access to both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. Any change to that principle which would put in place a mandated right to be part of the process would fundamentally alter the conduct of industrial relations. As it stands, where changes to pension schemes are negotiated at company level, whether as a result of a crisis in the scheme or otherwise, the outcome of that engagement cannot, of itself, change the pension scheme. Rather, any proposed changes to the scheme are effected through the trust deeds and rules of the scheme and are at the discretion of the parties so designated in the rules or deeds of the scheme. In my view, it is within that framework, rather than through the State’s industrial relations machinery, that a collective approach would be most effective.
In terms of changes to pension schemes generally, the trustees of a particular pension scheme are required by law to act in the best interests of all the members, be they deferred members or pensioner members. Until recently, this has been done on an individual basis. The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection has recently provided for the recognition by trustees and the Pensions Authority of groups representing the interests of retired and deferred scheme members of a particular pension scheme. The required revised section 50 guidance has been published by the Pensions Authority. From now on, the trustees of a pension scheme are required to notify the groups representing the interests of retired and deferred scheme members where the trustees of a scheme propose to apply to the Pensions Authority to restructure scheme benefits under section 50 of the Pensions Act. This notification affords the representative group an opportunity to make a submission to the trustees of the scheme with regard to such proposals. In addition, the Pensions Authority is now required to notify groups representing the interest of scheme members where the Pensions Authority proposes either to issue a unilateral direction under section 50 of the Pensions Act to the trustees of a scheme to restructure scheme benefits or to wind up a pension scheme under section 50B of the Pensions Act. This notification affords the representative groups an opportunity to make representations to the Pensions Authority in respect of such proposals. Furthermore, in such situations, the representative group also will have the option of making an appeal to the High Court on a point of law regarding such proposals.
That is not adequate at all. The reason this difficulty has arisen is that, under existing procedures, trustees already must inform everybody. Notifying people of something is not the same as engaging or negotiating with them. This is the difficulty. I will use the example of the Irish Airlines Superannuation Scheme, IASS, because it highlights well the point being made in this regard. At the heart of this issue, existing and deferred pensioners stood to lose an enormous chunk of the income to which they had a reasonable expectation on retirement, based on having paid into a pension for all their working lives. The retired members have made the point that €500,000 per month is being taken out of the local economy in cuts to that group alone. The people who made that decision were existing employees, trade unions, the trustees and everyone on the expert panel. The people who voted on that decision were members of trade unions in employment who were not even members of that pension scheme. The very people whose pockets have been pilfered of this money did not have a voice at the table and did not have an input into the process. I did not hear anything in the Minister of State's reply that tells me they will have a input in the future either. It simply is not good enough to suggest that someone should go to the courts or whatever when people are retired and have limited income anyway. I wish to hear in concrete terms what is going to be done about this.
The Tánaiste and I are anxious to seek to address this issue, and she and I are familiar with the circumstances Deputy Clare Daly has outlined. It was felt that the appropriate way to address concerns in the future would be through the Pensions Authority, where people would be provided with the opportunity to make submissions to the authority in the type of circumstances outlined by Deputy Daly. Previously, the views of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court were canvassed as to the possibility of using the industrial relations institutions of the State to address some of these issues. They responded with a couple of fundamental points. The view was taken, on foot of meetings between officials from the Departments of Social Protection and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, that it was clear that the solution to addressing the concerns of retired and deferred members of pension schemes with regard to representation rights might best be achieved in the context of the pensions legislative framework. The Tánaiste has made provisions for this in terms of the details I outlined earlier. In future, this will be done through a process with the Pensions Authority rather than in the industrial relations arena.
I am afraid I do not agree. Sadly, if we do not change tack, I imagine I will be proven right. There are problems with the Pensions Authority and with trustees taking decisions that members are not happy with, and there is a problem with having an appropriate investigation into some of the activities. The difficulty is that we are talking about people's retirement in their twilight years. It is very serious considering the sums of money involved. I do not understand why the Labour Court could not be opened up to people just as a trade union can negotiate therein for its members although some of the employees under discussion may not be in that trade union. Retiree groups such as the Retired Aviation Staff Association and other registered retired groups could do the same for pensioner groups. It is about having their voice heard on an ongoing process. I refer to circumstances where a company may be involved in broader discussions on issues other from pension-related issues and where the discussions become part of an industrial relations discussion also. There has to be a voice for those concerned in this regard. There would have to be a complete overhaul of the Pensions Authority, which people feel does not have any teeth in terms of delivering justice for people who have legitimate concerns. The IASS is a very good example of that in that, despite serious questions of investment irregularity having been raised, a decision was taken to allow pensioners' incomes to be cut rather than answer some of the points.
Deputy Daly raised a couple of fundamental points on the industrial relations machinery of the State. Access to the industrial relations machinery of the State is governed by the definition of “worker” in section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, which provides, inter alia, that a “worker” means any person aged 15 years or more who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer.
Legal advice received by the Labour Court on a number of occasions suggests that a person who is retired cannot be regarded as a worker and cannot be party to a trade dispute capable of investigation by the court. Where a person is retired, he or she cannot have a dispute concerning his or her employment or non-employment.
The court is, however, entitled to investigate a matter that arose prior to an individual’s retirement and which was referred to the Labour Relations Commission or Labour Court prior to the individual’s retirement. The introduction of access rights for individual retired workers to the industrial relations machinery of the State under the industrial relations Acts where they have not referred their claim prior to retirement is currently under consideration. However, with regard to the very important pensions piece, a decision has been taken that the Pensions Authority represents the appropriate mechanism by which the issues can be explored. As I stated, an opportunity would be provided to people in certain circumstances where fundamental changes were being made to their scheme. They would be provided with the opportunity to make submissions to the Pensions Authority where those issues were being considered.
9. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will provide a list of the sites owned by IDA Ireland in County Tipperary that have potential for use for inward investment in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5839/15]
In view of the very significant level of unemployment in County Tipperary, which is much higher than the national average, and the fact that the county is not getting its fair share of foreign direct investment, I ask the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, to provide a list of sites available for of inward investment in the county.
I am informed by IDA Ireland that it owns two land banks in County Tipperary with potential for use for inward investment in the future. One of these is located in Ballingarrane, Clonmel, and consists of approximately 20 hectares, or 49 acres, while in Tipperary town there is a site of approximately 3 hectares, or 7.42 acres, available.
I am informed by IDA Ireland that pending the securing of a suitable investment for these locations, the lands are rented by the agency on a short-term basis. I understand from IDA Ireland that it is working to ensure each region has office and manufacturing buildings, other buildings and greenfield sites available to potential foreign direct investment and Enterprise Ireland clients or other appropriate job-creating enterprises and will work with local authorities and relevant infrastructure providers to influence the delivery of appropriate infrastructure in each region.
South Tipperary is located in IDA Ireland’s south-east region along with counties Waterford, Wexford, Kilkenny and Carlow, while North Tipperary is located in IDA Ireland’s mid-west region along with counties Limerick and Clare.
I thank the Minister. No matter what way the Minister looks at this and no matter what he says, the fact of the matter is that the creation of 64 jobs in County Tipperary in 2014, when IDA Ireland created 15,012 nationally, means the county has been abandoned by the Government. It is not getting its fair share of inward investment and that is the reason I have tabled a series of questions on this today.
It is quite clear that the Minister's announcement yesterday worsens the situation and disadvantages the county and its towns to a much greater extent. It excludes those towns from the programme of building manufacturing and office facilities. This is occurring in nine towns throughout the country, but not in a single town in County Tipperary. What does the Minister intend to do to create jobs in the towns of County Tipperary? Will he amend the regional strategy to include those towns?
First, the Deputy needs to understand the Government does not allocate enterprises or jobs to counties, towns or regions. Enterprises make decisions. To improve the attractiveness of certain regions, additional supports can be made available by IDA Ireland. In the south east and mid-west, additional support is provided by IDA Ireland to enterprises that wish to locate there. The supports are actively marketed as an additional incentive beyond some of the stronger areas. In addition, we have made a decision that there will be, in the next three years, advance facilities in each of the six regions. Those have been selected by IDA Ireland based on their ability to attract and be a magnet for the region.
Approximately 30% of the money that IDA Ireland is providing for property solutions will be for the nine facilities. Some 70% of the additional money for property will be available throughout the country on foot of strategic decisions to strengthen business parks, provide strategic sites, etc. Every region has an opportunity. I ask the Deputy to regard the regional strategy as an opportunity for the region to develop new enterprises and make the county and region attractive. We are seeking to bring forward the best ideas to build on the strengths of the region. The Deputy's region has many strengths on which we seek to build. This is not a story of neglect but of an opportunity being offered to the Deputy and his region. We hope the region will take up that opportunity.
This is clearly a story of exclusion. The Minister has certainly make decisions and choices but those he has made have excluded every town in County Tipperary from the regional strategy. As I stated, those towns have significant levels of unemployment. The unemployment rate in Carrick-on-Suir is double the national average. There is no site or advance factory there. In Nenagh and Roscrea, there are sites but no advance factories, and there are no proposals for the latter. The same applies to Thurles and Tipperary town. The Government needs to ensure County Tipperary is not forgotten and, specifically, that the building of advance factories in the county is undertaken immediately.
The Deputy insists on repeating what is simply an untruth. Some 20% of the money being made available is being made available to advance facilities — nine in each of the six regions, including the Deputy's own, the south east, and the south west.
It is not in the Minister's statement.
However, he wants to list every town and village and say it has been excluded.
Not a single Tipperary town is included.
That is not the way in which decisions about investment are made in this country.
I am long enough in this House to recall when decisions were made in the way the Deputy talks about, whereby buildings would be pushed up in wildernesses and stand there as white elephants because of the waste of public money. What is happening now is that IDA Ireland is making strategic decisions. It will support opportunities in every single county and region.
Some 80% of the money is still available for people with strong ideas for developing their enterprises. Enterprise is not about politicians moving pawns around on the board; that is not the way jobs are built.
That is what the Minister is saying, however.
Enterprise is about strong commitment and people being courageous enough to make investments. The Government and IDA Ireland are in place to support them, as is Enterprise Ireland. That is the strategy that will build employment, not that of the Deputy.
On Question No. 10, the Deputy is not present and therefore we will move on to Question No. 11.
11. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to encourage greater levels of research and development here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6096/15]
This is merely to discuss with the Minister the area of research and development and where we are in attaining the Horizon 2020 targets. There is some superb work under way. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation visited UCD and UCC. Where is the work with SMEs and how are SMEs being encouraged to get involved in the research and development agenda?
All of our agencies have policies in place to encourage greater levels of research and innovation and to build the innovation capacity of our enterprises. Enterprise Ireland directly supports companies which engage in innovation, with instruments designed to support companies at different levels of engagement in innovation. IDA Ireland also has a suite of supports for client companies which invest in research and has been successful in attracting new research and development activities to Ireland.
Both IDA Ireland and EI collaborate in the establishment of clusters of companies to engage in innovation through technology centres. Nine new technology centres have been established under this Government, the most recent of which was launched last week in dairy processing where huge opportunities exist for Ireland.
Science Foundation Ireland is a major funder of enterprise-focused research. Through research prioritisation it has ensured that investment is made where Ireland has the capacity build competitive advantage. Its flagship investment in 12 world-class research centres has made industry partnership a prerequisite for success.
A major focus of all the efforts of State agencies has been to increase the impact of investment in research on job creation. To this end, Knowledge Transfer Ireland was established in 2013. It has built upon the new IP protocol by taking initiatives to increase the uptake in terms of licences and spin-outs. The opportunity for successful commercialisation is supported by EI programmes for high potential start-ups and by the commercialisation fund.
These policies are having an impact. The levels of business expenditure on research and development has increased from €1.86 billion in 2011 to an estimated €2.09 billion in 2013, and approximately 300 companies have committed €200 million towards SFI's 12 research centres. Collaborations between industry and researchers continue to grow and now involve more than 2,200 enterprises. Overall the number of research active enterprises is steadily growing.
I endorse the Minister of State's remarks about SFI. It is doing a superb job and its research centres are excellent. To drill down into those statistics the Minister of State quoted, foreign-owned enterprises are responsible for 70% of research and development expenditure in the country. That means Irish indigenous companies are far behind the curve when it comes to research and development expenditure. Almost three quarters of the total expenditure on in-house research and development was by companies with more than 50 employees.
Some of the work that SFI is doing with small companies is excellent. No doubt small companies are the nucleus of much amazing research and development work, but either we are not engaging with traditional small companies directly to get them onto this agenda or we are failing in bringing the benefits of Horizon 2020 and the research and development programme to SMEs. What kind of partnerships would the Minister of State envisage for organisations, such as the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, the Small Firms Association and, in particular, the local enterprise offices, to bring them to the stage where research and development is the future? We have had a lot of regional discussion here this morning. Perhaps there are companies in that county or some of those towns which could be getting involved in research and development to create employment.
There is a range of different activities going on at present. One company that I am particularly knowledgeable about is called Combilift. It is an amazingly successful company that is dedicated to the area of research and innovation, and the benefits of that have really borne fruit with its major jobs announcement last week. Three quarters of research and development active companies are our own SMEs, many of which are exporting and are encouraged and supported by Enterprise Ireland and - progressively so - by the local enterprise offices to engage in research and innovation. There are, through Enterprise Ireland, progressive options for participation. There are opportunities to obtain research and development vouchers, innovation vouchers and grants and to develop partnerships as well with third level institutions and other actors in that space.
From travelling around the country and talking to people in local enterprise offices, it is my experience that their growing connections with third level institutes of technology and universities will be increasingly important in ensuring that our SMEs can occupy that research and development space. Deputy Calleary will be familiar with all of that. Good work has been undertaken by this Government and the previous Government in the research and development space. It is an area in which we have invested considerably in recent years and we now can see the benefits of that.
Combilift is a fantastic company. There is a range of companies in the north east - they seem to be an innovative lot up there - but we should be looking for the next Combilift or McHale Engineering. This is the chance, with the extra resources allocated to Horizon 2020. I would urge the Minister of State to push the LEOs harder in this space because these offices have the business organisations on the ground and they have the potential to spot who will produce the next Combilift.
Our agencies, such as IDA Ireland, are involved in pilot mid-tier programmes to bring small and medium-sized companies up to the level that we all want them to be at. There is a lot of activity in that space.
There has been significant investment ring-fenced by Government around research and development, even during difficult times, because we could see the benefits of State investment. I have had the opportunity to participate in a number of trade missions over recent months. One aspect for which we are renowned in this country is our work in the area of innovation, and that is what the Irish SME sector can bring to foreign companies abroad. Our SMEs are strong on that sense of innovation in bringing added value to products that they may have developed, and they will continue to do that. We are focused as a Government in supporting our SMEs to grow, and the best way to do that is through investment in research and development.
12. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will provide details of each enterprise credit facility that has been created by this Government; their respective funding; job creation targets; and actual performance. [5844/15]
If Deputy Tóibín forgoes his introduction, I think I will get him the reply. We have just a few seconds left. Can I ask the Minister to reply?
Yes. I thank the Ceann Comhairle.
The Government has made a range of financial supports available to Irish SMEs to support growth and job creation in the economy. These include seed and venture capital schemes, development capital schemes, the innovation fund, Microfinance Ireland, the credit guarantee scheme and three funds put in place by the National Pensions Reserve Fund. In addition, the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland has now been established. All of these schemes are designed to broaden the options available to SMEs beyond the traditional banking system. I can report on the progress of those operated by agencies of my Department.
As of 31 December 2014, the credit guarantee scheme has 120 live facilities and 14 repaid facilities resulting in €16 million being sanctioned through the scheme by the participating lenders resulting in 649 new jobs being created and 333 jobs being maintained. As of 31 December 2014, Microfinance Ireland has approved 413 applications to the value of €6.31 million supporting 891 jobs. I am actively reviewing and improving both schemes and will be taking the necessary legislative steps to deliver changes to both.
The development capital fund has now seen the successful launch of three new funds. In total, these funds have €491 million under management with a strategy of investing in Irish companies, and they are actively seeking investment opportunities. I understand that approximately €60 million from these funds has been invested. These investments will see the creation of new jobs over time.
In 2013, Enterprise Ireland-supported seed and venture capital schemes made 153 investments in Irish-based companies with a total investment value of €59 million. Companies supported by the programme over the past five years have created more than 2,100 jobs in Ireland. These seed and venture capital schemes have been a successful funding vehicle and a new round of funding has been launched.
Under the new seed and venture scheme for 2013 to 2018 Enterprise Ireland is committing a total of €100 million to funds under this scheme which it is hoped will be matched by at least €300 million of private funding. To date, one new fund, Fountain Healthcare Partners Fund II, has reached its funding targets and has been formally announced. In total, this fund currently has €87.5 million under management and is actively seeking new investments. The remainder of funds will be announced when the fund managers reach their funding targets. I look forward to making further announcements in the near term.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the time. I appreciate it. The debt that is experienced by enterprise in the State and the access to finance still form one of the major impediments to growth. It is the brake on growth in a significant section of enterprise. Right through the four years, this has been an issue, and most of the initiatives that the Government has taken have failed miserably in terms of the level of impact and engagement. I encourage the Minister to ensure that the necessary efforts, especially with microfinance and the credit guarantee scheme, are made in order that they gain traction.
I agree that access to finance is vital to the growth of the economy, but it is worth observing that the reported refusal rate of banks has more than halved, down from 30% to 14%. Applicants appeal decisions to the Credit Review Office, CRO. Between the CRO and the banks, 70% of decisions are being overturned where applicants challenge them. That is important for applicants.
Between all the non-banking facilities, we have more than €3 billion available for SMEs. There is a suite of options alternative to the banks and we keep developing those. The Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland is a new entity this year. I hope it will bring in new entrants but also that it will make new types of product available to SMEs to meet the needs of the growing companies about which the Deputy is concerned. We are acutely aware that this a priority, and we will bring forward further proposals.
