The first news the country got of this so-called Industrial Development Authority was about this time last year. It was announced publicly after we had a debate here in the Dáil on the reduction in the Road Fund grants to the local authorities. It was also shortly after the news broke that the miracle workers who had got in and promised that they were to employ every person looking for employment within 24 hours that instead of employing them, they had to send them out of the country. The news that in 1948, the first year the Coalition Government was in office, nearly 13,000 people had emigrated as against the 11,000, more who came back than went out in 1947——
Industrial Development Authority Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."— (Minister for Industry and Commerce.)
Will the Deputy relate that to the Bill before the House?
——was a bit of a shock to the Coalition.
It is a bit of a shock to the Chair.
They decided that they would have to do something about it, that if they had not started industry in the first year of office they would have to pretend that they were going to start it in the future. Some of the small Parties were insistent that the Minister should do something that would give them the excuse of telling their constituents that something was going to be done; that they would press for something to be done. The Minister, I am sure, had various questions put to him from various members of the Coalition somewhat similar to the question put to-day by Deputy Flanagan and the Minister thought that the best way out of that situation was to put himself out of power to do anything particular about it, to pass the buck to this so-called Industrial Development Authority, and he proceeded to do it.
It is certainly a handy thing for a Minister who does not want to act up to the responsibilities of his office to be in a position to blame somebody else for his own lack of activity.
The sort of world which we are living in to-day demands something more from a Government than care about their own political future. We know that a Government which wanted to tackle the situation to-day, wanted to put our people in a position in which they could survive and prosper reasonably well during the times that are ahead, would have to take risks, that Ministers would have to take risks and would have to do a bit of work. If we were back in the leisurely times of 50 years ago, we could afford to set up another tariff commission. But we are not in a situation in which, if we concentrate on producing more bullocks, as the Minister for Agriculture has been doing, we can sell them in Britain and get the dollars we want to buy wheat or the industrial products that we require. At the present time, Europe is getting a large hand-out of dollars from the United States. We are borrowing dollars to import commodities, industrial and agricultural, that we should be producing within our own shores. If the Minister and the Deputies associated with him in the present Coalition Government had been active in promoting industry during the last two years, we would now be in a much better position to face 1952 when the supply of dollars will be running out.
We cannot afford the leisurely pace that the Minister is indicating for the promotion of industry. From an economic and social point of view, we cannot afford to tell people, when they make a proposition for an industry, that it is going to be examined by a new tariff commission. The people had enough of that when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in office. In my constituency, the result was to close down several factories. Surely the members of the Coalition, if they have any thought for the welfare of the people, will not encourage the Minister to set up this new body. We know that it is difficult to get decisions taken by Governments, that there is a long process between the making of a suggestion and reaching the stage of practical proposals. Surely we should try to short-cut all these stages instead of adding, as in this case, a further stage.
The Department of Industry and Commerce will no longer initiate proposals. That job is being put into the hands of the new tariff commission, misnamed an industrial development authority. The Department of Industry and Commerce will not have the job of thinking over the problems of the State, seeing where we are weak industrially, where there are possibilities of new industries, and then getting after the job themselves. According to this Bill, that is to be given into the hands of this new tariff commission. These people will not have any real authority. They will have authority to investigate, but they will have no authority to act, to see that steps are taken to promote industry, and that is what the country requires.
Deputy Larkin pointed out that, to the extent that this authority was to examine every suggestion for tariffs or revision of tariffs, it was going to detract from its ability to do the thinking necessary for the formation of a general all-over programme of industrial development. We all know that to be true. If Clann na Poblachta and the Labour Party had their way, I have no doubt that this is not the type of body they would propose. For a long time, both of them have been advocating the setting up of an economic council which would take under review our industrial position, and make suggestions for its improvement. But that is not to be the function of this body. It has all these other things tacked on to it; it has tacked on to it work that the Minister himself should be doing.
What does the Minister envisage as a result of the setting up of this new body? Will he relate it to the actual situation in regard to output of industrial commodities or to employment? In the year 1948, the year for which we have the latest figures, 12,793 more people went out of the country than came into it, in spite of what the Minister and Deputies now associated with him stated about emigration. We know that emigration is a grave evil. In the last year of office of the Fianna Fáil Government we had immigration into this country instead of emigration.
What about the previous 15 years?
In the previous 15 years we had cut down the rate of emigration, with the exception of the war years, very much below what it was under the Cumann na nGaedheal régime.
That is nonsense.
I challenge the Minister to publish the figures on that.
Certainly I will.
In 1948, when the Minister had the chance of putting into operation his dictum that everybody who sought remunerative employment could be put into that employment within 24 hours, instead of taking that chance and putting these people into employment, he put them on the boat.
It was not we who turned the labour exchanges into recruiting agencies for the British.
The Minister indicated in outlining his policy that he was going to turn them into recruiting agencies for work in Ireland within 24 hours. Instead of that, he put the unemployed on the boat.
If I had not the Deputy to contend with, I would put a lot more into employment.
The Minister is always looking for excuses for his own failures. He said he would put all these people into employment. Instead of doing that, he shipped 24,000 of them out of the country. This Bill is yet another alibi for the Minister. If this Bill goes through, he will be able to blame, not only Fianna Fáil, but the Industrial Development Authority as well.
Deputy Larkin stated in the course of his speech that Fianna Fáil's success in developing industry had added to the difficulties of the present Minister in promoting new industries now. I do not agree with Deputy Larkin in that, but that is what he said. We all know that the inherent difficulty in promoting industry of any kind in 1932 was that there was no industrial skill or technical skill in the country. Every new industry Fianna Fáil established and it established many of them, added to the general pattern of industrial skill and industrial development. When one kills an industry, one kills not only the particular industry itself but one also destroys the possibility of having available the knowledge the technicians in that industry possess. The more industries that are established, the easier it will be to forge ahead in promoting other industries. We all know what happens in other countries. It happened here, too. When technicians have a problem, they like to discuss that with those in unlike industries as well as with those in like industries in an effort to find out a solution to their particular difficulty. Deputy Larkin was, therefore, quite wrong when he said that Fianna Fáil's success in establishing many new industries now rendered the present Minister's task more difficult. It makes the Minister's task much easier.
There is, of course, the unfortunate position that the Deputies who form the Coalition had to take into their ranks a man like the present Minister for Agriculture, a man who had denounced Irish industry and who merely wanted us to act as a counter over which to pass the goods manufactured in the four corners of the earth. It is a very severe handicap to the Coalition in the promotion of industry, should they wish to promote industry, that they are dependent for their remaining in power upon a man who denounced everybody who put a penny into Irish industry as a "tariff racketeer."
That Minister is not responsible for this Bill.
I would say that he is responsible to a very large extent for certain elements in the Bill. He is responsible for putting into it those clauses which turn this body into a new tariff commission to act as a delay and a brake on the establishment of industry rather than as a means of promoting industry. Not only has the present Government, by its attitude, delayed the development of industry but they have also, in their frantic efforts to be different from Fianna Fáil, destroyed industries which Fianna Fáil had established or promoted. No later than last Saturday there was an advertisement in the public Press for the disposal of machines for which Fianna Fáil had gone to the extent of making dollars available for their purchase at a time when dollars were scarce. Fianna Fáil encouraged Córas Iompair Éireann to start a chassis factory here for the purpose not only of manufacturing chassis here but also for the purpose of employing a number of people skilled in heavy engineering.
Surely, there was a long debate recently on Córas Iompair Éireann and that does not arise again now.
There was an announcement in the Press last Saturday to the effect that the machinery imported in order to establish a heavy engineering industry here was to be sold. What is happening to the premises? Instead of using those machines for the manufacture of heavy industrial equipment in those premises, the premises are being used as warehouses for foreign machinery at the present time.
That is a matter of administration. It can be raised on the Estimate.
If the Deputy had to be relevant he would be dumb.
I would rather be dumb than have a big mouth with which to say the wrong words. To what extent does the Minister expect this new organisation will advise the Government on an industry such as tourism? Will it undo some of the damage caused by the Minister for External Affairs by his opening his mouth when he should have been dumb? Will it undo the damage done to the tourist traffic when he said we should put a tax on tourists, and when he described them as nothing but "spivs" coming in here to eat our food?
That has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
The Minister for External Affairs should have been dumb on that occasion.
I do not know that the Minister for External Affairs ever said that.
He did. We have the records.
The Minister for External Affairs?
The Minister for External Affairs proposed here that we should put a tax on tourists.
When Minister?
That has nothing to do with this Bill.
We are not discussing tourism under this measure.
We are discussing a Bill.
Which the Deputy has not read, apparently.
The Deputy cannot discuss all the possible activities of a board.
I do not propose to do so but I would like to refer briefly to tourism in relation to this authority. I ask the Minister will he, under subsection (8) of Section 3, request the Industrial Authority to advise him in regard to tourism? Is that an industry? Another matter is, will the Minister ask them to advise him on air transport? He cannot now take back the planes which were bought with scarce dollars and sold for pounds sterling.
That has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
He might at least ask this new organisation to advise him as to whether he should, even now, go ahead with air transport.
If the Deputy wants me to go into that I shall gladly do so on another occasion. It would give me the greatest of pleasure.
The Minister is always willing to go into ticklish questions on another occasion, just as he will pass Deputy Flanagan on to the Industrial Authority.
The Deputy will hear a few things on this occasion that will surprise him.
The Minister is always threatening——
I have carried out a few of my threats recently.
——that is what has him over there.
The Deputy is not dealing with this Bill.
I am replying to the Minister's interjections and I am sorry if they take me away from the Bill. We had a long speech from Deputy Lehane and also a long speech from Deputy Larkin. They stated that it was impossible to get ahead with the development of industry under our existing capitalist system. They wanted to do away with the profit motive. As far as I know, the profit motive is in operation even in Russia, where they have the Stakanovite movement that if you do more work you get more pay—more profit. Those two gentlemen want us to start a new experiment even after it has failed in Russia, with all the power the central Government there has. I think they should take another look at that situation and see whether they are not a little bit out of step even with the people far away.
Deputy Larkin said that this measure is one more step towards planning. Perhaps that is what sold the Bill to him. What sold it to the Minister for Agriculture is that it would stop industrial development until the same procedure was gone through that used to be gone through by the Tariff Commission—that they spent years inquiring into fiddle-fals, small imports of a few thousand pounds in value. It took them years, often at great expense to the State, to see whether or not they could put a few per cent. tariff on the commodity in question. If this country is to make progress we want—instead of Bills such as this in which Ministers pass their responsibility on to some people who are not directly responsible to the Dáil—action from the particular Ministers involved. If they make mistakes, well it cannot be helped. In all the other countries of Europe you have, instead of new tariff commissions being appointed, the Department of State charged with the responsibility for the promotion of industry, in constant and daily touch with all elements in the economic life of the country. Not only do they not discourage industrialists by calling them racketeers, but they give them all sorts of encouragement—by word of mouth, by State grants, by advice, by marketing arrangements and help in marketing. While that is going on in the countries which will be our competitors for very scarce dollars, we here are calmly going to set up a new tariff commission which will take months and months, and perhaps years, to examine a thing that should be dealt with by the Minister and his staff in a few moments.
One of the great pleas of the Parties forming the Coalition in the old days was that we should have less Ministers and, of course, that the Ministers should be paid very much less.
That is quite irrelevant.
That comes well from the Deputy.
We have here in this Bill four gentlemen who will be getting the salaries of Ministers but without the responsibility. They will be in addition to the couple of other Ministries which were put on foot by the Coalition which was going to cut them down——
I have said that that is irrelevant.
The fact that four gentlemen would be getting the salaries of Ministers is certainly relevant because their names are in this particular Bill. The Minister might explain how it is that he has suddenly become more expansive at the expense of the public purse.
Not as much as the Argentine wheat.
The Argentine wheat put the Minister in a position to fill the ration and without it he would have had to cut down the ration. I do not know why the Minister is talking about Argentine wheat because he has passed that particular part of his work on to the Minister for Agriculture. He is no longer responsible for wheat importation. It is another of the responsibilities which the Minister has shed—and the Minister for Agriculture, as soon as he gets the responsibility for the importation of wheat, starts to import oats from the Argentine.
Not from Canada.
That also is irrelevant.
It is the Minister's interjection.
I did not ask what it was. I said that it is irrelevant.
I quite agree with you. The Minister claimed that this Bill was a new conception. It is not a new conception. It is an old conception of the wrong type and it is too late, I suppose, to hope that the members of the Coalition Parties will recognise it as such and do something to fulfil the promises they made to the people—and which, indeed, were made by the Minister himself—that all possible steps would be taken to promote industry quickly. The Minister has claimed that in the past couple of years there were additions to the number of people employed in factories. That is no thanks to him. They were employed in the factories which were promoted by Fianna Fáil from 1932 to 1948. Even if the Minister had gone away on a holiday for the two years, and stayed away, and the Department of Industry and Commerce had closed down, those factories would have gone on. It was inevitable that the impetus given to the promotion of industry during the Fianna Fáil régime would carry forward into the time when the new Government took over.
Particularly the footwear factories in Louth.
The footwear factories in Louth are employing thousands whereas, when Fianna Fáil came into office, the only footwear factory in the place was shut down.
What staff did they employ in 1948?
About 1,600.
They were closed down, some of them.
They were closed down simply because the Minister did his utmost to close some of them down by allowing in a whole flood of imports.
Your colleague made the Order.
That is another of the Minister's alibis. It is just like the Argentine wheat.
The Minister told them to stop buying. Is that not right?
I shall deal with that and with a lot more.
Roughly the situation in regard to that particular industry was that when Fianna Fáil came into office the one little factory there was had closed down whereas, when we left office, about 1,600 people were in full employment in that industry. What we want to know is why, in the last couple of years, have more factories not been opened in Louth and other places like it throughout the country? We are glad to welcome some of the changes that have been indicated by some of the members of the Coalition. I understand from the Minister for Agriculture's secret organ —to which he gave a secret interview a couple of weeks ago—that he is not going to put beet up the spout. If he did, of course, that would close down remunerative employment, not only for the people engaged in the factories, but those engaged on the land.
If the Coalition groups have the power to persuade the Minister for Agriculture to swallow a good deal of what he said in the past, why can they not get him to swallow some of what he said about industries? Why cannot they get him to give expression to at least some of the praise that is due to the people who risked their money in industries here rather than export it? It was pathetic to see the Minister for Industry and Commerce going over to New York, asking Americans to come over here to invest money in Irish industry and to bring over skilled operatives for the promotion of Irish industry while at the same time others of his colleagues were denouncing those who invested a shilling or a dollar in Ireland and co-operating in sending a number of technicians who had been engaged here in air development to the ends of the earth. What we want is not so much American capital, American industrialists or American technicians, as to get our own capital invested here so that our own technicians can remain here to develop our industries and to train other people for the building up of industry in the future. It is unfortunate that we suffer at present from the handicap that a few industries started by Fianna Fáil were smashed by Fine Gael. However, the country would get over that in time if there was some clear indication from the Government that they are in earnest at this stage and that in future, no matter what they have done in the past, they are going to give every help and encouragement to the Irish people to invest their money in Ireland and to Irish technicians to remain at home in the hope and expectation that they will find reasonable employment for their talents in this country.
The debate on this Bill on Second Reading, so far as I have listened to it and read the reports, has been most disappointing. It appears to have become an order of the House that in order to be interesting one must be irrelevant. The Opposition have indulged in these tactics to such an extent that the whole tone of the debate has been lowered to a level which one would think it could hardly touch on a subject of this importance. This is an important question and this is an important Bill, whether one is opposed to it or whether one is in favour of it wholeheartedly or in a modified degree. The tactic of the Opposition, however, on an industrial Bill is to attack the Minister for Agriculture. Evidently on a Bill dealing with agricultural produce the proper tactic will be to cast some aspersions on the Minister for External Affairs or to try to bring into disrepute the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The whole debate, from beginning to end, has been studded with interruptions. I may say that even members on the Government Benches were rather inclined to aid the Opposition by studding the contribution of Deputy Lemass with a mass of irrelevancies. I had hoped that we would have had heard a contribution from him that might enable us to examine the whole economics and political outlook of Fianna Fáil. As this has been rendered so difficult, I am sure other Deputies as well as myself would be very much inclined to curtail their contributions to this debate.
Frankly, I am at a loss to understand what is the fundamental objection of the Opposition to this Bill. We can dismiss very lightly the contribution of Deputy Aiken and others because there does not appear to be any great substance in their arguments. Their arguments are merely intended to cause a bit of a flurry or to give us a bit of excitement in the Dáil but they did not get down to the real fundamental question that concerns the House on this Bill. Deputy Lemass, as Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, and as one who has been charged in the past with control and the expansion of Irish industry made a contribution that is naturally worthy of consideration. His chief objection to my mind seems to be that the wonderful hierarchy of bureaucracy established under his jurisdiction in the Department of Industry and Commerce, is now being split up and dispersed into several distinct units and transferred to other Ministries, so that if ever he is fortunate enough to resume the position which he vacated and become once again Minister for Industry and Commerce, he will find it very difficult to recognise that overgrown Department which was the admiration of those who believed in bureaucracy in this country.
On the one hand, we have Deputy Lemass trouncing the Minister for putting brakes on the development of Irish industry, on its expansion, setting up, as he says, another Department. What is it, he asks, but a section of the Department of Industry and Commerce transferred from Kildare Street to St. Stephen's Green? It is true they have some officers of the section of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and in so far as that is correct it may be said that this is a section of the old Department transferred to new quarters. He says that here, in a new house, they will have much the same function as they had hitherto of examining proposals to develop Irish industry, examining questions relating to tariffs, licences and such matters of that sort but, he says, that there they will act as a brake. They will act as a brake on the forward movement and impetus of the development of Irish industry. This, he says, is zero hour, and we cannot afford any brake on the efforts of Irish industrialists to make up the leeway that has to be made up in Irish industry, and to bring us somewhat nearer the balance between agriculture and industry that obtains in other countries. That would appears to be a reasonable objection but when you come to examine another part of the speech he calls for an analysis of unemployment in this country, which he says has never before been attempted. He asks:
"If it is required to have this analysis in order to know what native power we have, should we not organise another Government Department and tell them to go ahead and concentrate on that and nothing else?"
This appears to me to be a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, he objects to the establishment of the new body as a brake on industry, and immediately after, he calls for the establishment of yet another Government Department to carry out a certain specific task. Frankly, I cannot see any logic in that, nor can I see logic in most of the other points made by the same Deputy. He tells us that we have not time, that we cannot proceed at the leisurely pace at which we might have proceeded 50 years ago, but when it comes to a question of this body which has been established and for the establishment of which sanction is asked, he finds it entirely unreasonable that the body should have been established 12 months ago and that the Minister should now ask the House to give legal effect to its establishment. Obviously you cannot have it both ways.
If we are in such a hurry, if we are in such a rush to get on with industrial development, should the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition not have praised the Minister for taking time by the forelock and establishing this body without waiting for legal sanction in order that it might put in 12 months of preparatory analytical work which any body would require to carry out before setting about its business? Why then, on the other hand, be filled with impatience because the industrialisation of the country is being held up by reason of the fact that a body has been established which will examine every plan and proposal put before it for the correct industrialisation of the country and, on the other hand, denounce the Minister for having established that body and having put it into harness without waiting for this House to give legal sanction to it through its slow methods?
I expected an entirely different type of argument in relation to this Bill. This body, as everyone knows, had its origin in a great deal of thought put into the matter by members of the Labour Party many years ago. It does not at all fulfil the conception the Labour Party had of a national economic council. It is hardly to be expected that a Coalition Government would be likely to accept the view of one of the Parties to that Government without certain modifications and certain compromises; but this body, so far as we can read the main lines of its development, is a body which is in line with that original thought and conception. It is a body which has as its function the planning of industry—assisting in that plan and advising upon that plan, initiating schemes for the carrying out of that plan and generally doing part of the work that could be done by a national economic council, bearing in mind, as Deputy Lemass said, that, in the system of society which we have, the profit motive exists.
How any section of the Opposition, or the Opposition as a whole, can object to a development of this nature is very difficult to understand, because, under any system of government in the modern world, whether it is socialistic, totalitarian or democratic in character, that Government must have some type of body, some type of authority, which will act as a conductor acts in relation to an orchestra, will try to produce harmony amongst the different parts, will try to produce the maximum good for the greatest number of the people with whom it is concerned. On that basis, the Opposition should at least have been prepared to give this Industrial Development Authority a certain amount of latitude, should have been prepared to give it a trial and let us see how it would work out over a period of 12 months or so, instead of indulging in a viciousness of attack that has rarely been witnessed.
The outline of this type of organisation came many years ago from the Labour Party, and, even as recently as the emergency period, the Labour Party were so concerned about the lack of such a body that at one stage they thought a crisis had developed to an extent which required the recalling of the Dáil to try to grapple with these economic problems, which at that time were becoming more and more serious. A joint deputation of the Trade Union Congress and the Irish Labour Party was received by the various Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government and though they indulged in a great deal of talk and although they saw the seriousness of the problem, they took no steps whatever to organise our economics as they should have been organised, to organise the things necessary for the welfare of this State which might have put us in a far better position to face the post-war period than we are in at present.
The Minister availed of the first opportunity—the occasion of the debate upon a motion by Deputy McAuliffe and myself calling for some investigation into the industrial resources of the country—to announce the establishment of this Industrial Development Authority. We cannot expect at this stage to say very much about that authority, except that, in its experimental stage, it should receive the greatest amount of co-operation from those who are sincerely anxious to achieve a greater industrial development in this country, and, as one of those who in the past had some regard for the industrialisation programme of Fianna Fáil, I expected that they would have received this Bill and the announcement of the establishment of this authority with a great deal more enthusiasm than they exhibited; but, evidently, personal vindictiveness and viciousness of attack which has become a sort of second nature to the Opposition have superseded the good sense they might have shown and have resulted in an attack upon the Bill which has to be met by something short of contempt.
The question which would confront one, were this Bill to be seriously considered, are to some extent indicated in the Minister's speech. He indicated, though not in any great detail, certain problems which affect this country and other countries in regard to the balance of agricultural and industrial development. He takes too much for granted a certain standard which obtains in European countries. For instance, he states that in this country less than one-fifth of the working population are engaged in industry, as compared with other countries in Europe where the pattern is that of approximately one-third being engaged in industry. It is unfortunate he did not apply a philosophic mind to that and expand on it. It might have done us a great deal more good than listening to the diatribes of the Minister for Agriculture and listening to talk about boot and shoe factories and Argentine wheat and many other irrelevancies which we had to endure.
While there is necessity for industrialisation, one could pause in that conception by considering to what extent we require it, what part this country has to play in the economy of Western Europe as a whole, and whether industrialisation—misdirected industrialisation—could not go too far. One must consider not only the advantages but the disadvantages. Everyone knows that industrial countries, particularly those which are highly industrialised, suffer very severely periodically from trade slumps, mounting unemployment, financial crises and the general economic aspects which result from that industrialisation. It is very unlikely that this country of ours will ever be over industrialised within the lifetime of the present or the next generation. Even though it is a remote possibility, it should be taken into consideration. I trust and hope that the members of this body will not be completely engrossed in their every-day affairs, examining what they will do with the 51,000 applications for duty-free licences, how they will regard an attempt to set up one industry here and another over there, and examining applications for this duty and that duty. I hope these members and the board as a whole will not be bogged down completely by the every-day routine, that they will have some time to take an overall view of industrial development here. I hope they will be guided by what they consider best for the economy of the country as a whole, that they will relate one industry to another and give due regard to the importance of some types of industry here.
I would specifically mention the necessity for a heavy industry. If we are to industrialise to the extent of anything approaching one third of our working population, that should be considered. There may be good reasons, there may be an administrative question which cannot be discussed properly on this Bill, and I do not propose to do it, but I have certain sympathy—and do not conceal it in the slightest—with the idea underlying the attacks of some of the members of the Opposition on the question of what happened to the classis industry in Córas Iompair Éireann. I think their idea may be misdirected, that they seized upon this merely for propaganda, related to one particular instance, that it had no relation to this question of heavy industry as a whole. Whether it was the right or the wrong thing to use that opportunity for initiating a heavy industry, there is a paramount necessity to provide one attached to our transport industry and to certain other industries. We cannot be continuously dependent upon cross-Channel sources of supply for steel to equip, feed and repair our industries here. Those who have the experience of going through the engineering shops of the Great Northern Railway in Dundalk or the Córas Iompair Éireann one as it was in Inchicore, understand the position. For instance, despite the fact that in the Great Northern Railway they were supposed to have a high standard of efficiency, their machine shops there were probably worse equipped than most of the minor industries in some of the backward States in the Baltic.
The whole scheme of engineering here seems to have been allowed to die out, as it was given no attention in the last 20 or 30 years. Some of those who would show a visitor around some of these works would appear to boast that they had such and such a machine in operation for the last 50 years, not knowing that modern science in application to industry had produced many more efficient machines, of types which would produce the goods in better quality and entail far less strenuous labour on the part of the operatives. That is one task which would confront this Industrial Development Authority. They should see that the industries which are at present established or are being established should be fed by a properly organised heavy industry, and that such a heavy industry would have no fear whatsoever for its existence or its paying capacity. It could rely upon the very substantial work that would come in from the transport side, apart from other State-aided concerns like the Electricity Supply Board, the Beet Sugar Company, industries connected with turf development, and so on. Each of these would give its quota to enable such a heavy engineering industry to develop and make progress. In that regard we have so little tradition south of the Border that it might be necessary to examine whether this can be done on private capital alone or would require State assistance.
Whichever way it is to be done, there is no reality whatsoever in a programme of industrial development here without some basis of a heavy industry, unless we accept some new standard of industrial philosophy. That new standard may be based exclusively upon the development of light industries and those which are independent of a heavy industry in this country and are dependent necessarily, therefore, on a heavy industry located in some country outside our jurisdiction. On that point, I think that one of the most constructive contributions was made by Deputy Vivion de Valera. It may not be quite relevant to the matter, but if you have not got a heavy industry there is no basis for an industry which will supply our Defence Forces. That is so broad a question, it leads one so far away from the Bill, that I do not intend to follow it.
This Bill, setting up the Industrial Development Authority, should commend itself to this House. It should be given a trial run. The Industrial Development Authority should be allowed to develop its activities. It should be given the complete assistance that is necessary for its success by all Parties of the House. I am perfectly certain that, as it will take into consideration the welfare of the workers engaged in the various new industries, it will receive quite considerable assistance and recommendation from the workers in the country.
Deputy Connolly has criticised the attitude of the Opposition in regard to this Bill. I think he should extend his criticism more to the Coalition side of the House. I remember, when reference was made to the proposed establishment of this Industrial Development Authority on the occasion of the presentation of the Minister's annual Estimate to the House, I characterised the idea as so much humbug. I have no reason to change my opinion since. Certainly, now that I have read the Bill, and listened to the speeches that have been made in the House in favour of the Bill, I am even more inclined to describe this piece of legislation as so much window dressing, just in keeping with the Government's general policy of trying to persuade the people that they are going to do things that they have no notion at all of doing.
One would imagine from the speeches we have heard from those Deputies who are trying to justify the introduction of this measure that we are on the threshold of a new industrial era. I only wish that that were the case. Having had experience of the policy of some of those Ministers who seem to dominate the Government of to-day as regards the industrialisation of this country, I am inclined to be very sceptical.
It is, I think, about ten months since this so-called Industrial Development Authority was set up and, after that length of time, we are presented with a measure for the implementation of the proposal made at that time—post factum legislation. It is very strange that this Industrial Development Authority have been, as we are told, working, making plans, surveying the industrial field, etc., over the past ten months and, in addition, that their conditions as regards status and remuneration had already been determined before there was any talk of introducing a Bill in the House. That appears to me to be a departure from the usual procedure when a Bill is introduced and all the provisions thereof in relation to whatever project it is intended to carry out are explained in detail to Deputies beforehand. Not merely has this Industrial Development Authority been in existence for the past ten months, not merely did the House not get any indication of the conditions of their appointment at the time, but we are still in doubt, even with the introduction of this measure, as to what their functions will be.
An bhfaca tú Alt a 3?
Táim chun tagairt a dhéanamh dos na haltanna, má leigtear dom dul chun chinn agus má tugtar caoí dom chun é a dhéanamh. I was saying before I was interrupted— to which interruption I have no objection since it comes in the Irish language—that we had no clear indication from the Minister of what the functions of this body would be, but we have here, at the same time, certain sections, to which reference should be made, containing what the Minister for Agriculture would describe as certain draconian powers that are being conferred upon them.
What is that word?
Certain draconian powers. In Section 5, the members of this authority are being given power to summon witnesses and to compel them to give evidence on oath as to the affairs of their business. I regard it as a rather serious step to take to give any such powers to a quasi-departmental body. Even a Minister of State with the authority he would have behind him should not have those powers.
Irrespective of what the industrialists are doing?
These are powers that should not be exercised by anybody outside a court of justice and if, as Deputy Hickey seems to think, certain industrialists are outstepping their duty or in any way doing an injustice to the public, there should be some other way of dealing with them. I object to giving laymen on any commission of this kind such unlimited powers, and I think it is a very dangerous precedent to establish.
Did the Deputy ever hear of the Revenue Commissioners?
Deputy Davin made his contribution the other night and people on this side of the House did not interrupt him—although I have no objection to an interruption from Deputy Davin now and again provided it does not go too far.
Well the Chair has, a very definite one.
I object to these powers being given to a lay body as they are dangerous. We have heard a good deal from Deputies opposite about the freedom they have established here. The Minister for Agriculture has been going around the country telling the people that they will not be interfered with in their business any more, while here we have a proposal to give power and authority to four individuals acting as a commission to probe into the most private and confidential secrets of people's business. If this is freedom I do not know what the meaning of the word is.
While penalties are provided by Section 5 for people who will not answer a summons by the members of this commission or who will not give evidence on oath or who will not do what they tell them, at the same time the members of the commission can make use of whatever information they get in whatever way they like without any penalty being imposed upon them. In other words, while it is stated in sub-section (11) of Section 4 that—
"No member shall disclose any information obtained by him in the exercise of his functions under this Act as to the private affairs of any person or business except in the course of a report of the authority to the Minister."
—there is no word about any penalty for any member of the commission who violates his duty in that respect. If, however, those people who are engaged in industrial pursuits are called upon to account for their business or any items of their business they must do so under penalty of being fined up to £50.
If they are serving the national interests they should be pleased to give all the evidence required.
If that is carried to a logical conclusion there will be no security in this country for anyone. We have heard a lot about that sort of thing in other places where totalitarian régimes were in operation. In my opinion this is bordering on totalitarianism.
Why did the Deputy not make that objection in 1947? Did the Deputy never hear of the Industrial Efficiency Bill? Did he never hear of such powers before?
I have never heard of anything like this. Nothing has been attempted like this in my opinion. Here is what the Minister himself said about it:—
"No Government Department has hitherto been asked to exercise the specific and comprehensive function assigned to the Industrial Development Authority."
What has that got to do with it?
He continued:—
"Nor has any Government Department been empowered to operate with the flexibility and independency allowed to that body by the Government."
I am quoting Volume 119, column 1594.
Would the Deputy quote the appropriate section of the Bill of 1947 which was introduced by his colleague? That quotation was a red herring.
It is a very relevant extract from the Minister's own speech.
It is a very true statement.
It does not suit the Minister now to hear that being quoted.
It gets the Deputy away from the Industrial Efficiency Bill.
What is the underlying motive and purpose of setting up this body? Is it to co-ordinate Irish industries? Is it to encourage people to invest their capital in new industries? We do not know. Is it to specify the type of industry that certain people will engage in? We do not know, but one thing is certain: no matter what this Industrial Development Authority does no person or group of persons will be inclined to invest their capital in industries here unless they see their way clearly before them.
Shades of 1916.
In other words, unless a well thought out and clearly defined policy is conducted by the Government of the day. What has Deputy Hickey to say to that?
The Deputy should reflect on what Thomas Ashe and others said about investing money in this country.
Deputy Kissane should be allowed to make his speech.
I am trying to point out the conditions existing here and the conditions that could be regarded as a prerequisite for the success of an industrial policy here, that is, that the Government must have a sound industrial plan so that industrialists and those who might be inclined to invest money in Irish industry should be sure that there would be a continuity of policy from one Government to another, and that a change of Government would not bring about a change in the industrial policy.
Has it?
I am afraid it has.
This is a delicate bit of sabotage.
There is no sabotage here. I am giving the House what in my opinion should be the conditions here which would invite people to take an interest in Irish industry and invest their capital in it. The Government should be sure of its policy and the conditions under which industrialists would start industries here should be a matter for the Government because, no matter what may be said about an outside body of this kind, the final decision as to the promotion of industries here should rest with the Government of the day.
So it does.
If the final decision rests with the Government, I do not see what useful purpose this Industrial Development Authority would serve at all. Even in connection with technical advice, we see here that the members of the Development Authority will not be depended upon to give the technical advice. Section 6 sets out:—
"The Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may appoint such officers and servants as he thinks necessary to assist the authority in the performance of their functions."
In sub-section (3) the following appears:—
"The Minister, at the request of the authority and with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may appoint technical advisers to the authority and such advisers may be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas such fees or other remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines."
So that, in the matter of technical advice, this Industrial Development Authority is not being regarded as competent by the Minister himself. Would it not be just as well, and indeed more sensible for the Minister —whatever Minister would be in charge of the Department—if he and his officials got that technical advice directly and made use of it in their own Department? Here we have a roundabout device of doing business. The technical advice must be given to the members of this authority and they presumably will in turn pass on that advice to the Minister and his Department. In the end, probably before any decision is arrived at, the whole thing must be discussed by the Government, which should have collective responsibility to the people for the production and the direction of industrial policy.
The Cork train must not have arrived yet.
I am not concerned at the moment about the Cork train; I am concerned with this Bill and I am trying to give the House my reasons for not accepting it. Deputy Connolly mentioned the word "bureaucracy". We have often heard that expression in the past. We have been told by certain politicians that the country has been overridden by bureaucracy. If bureaucracy has been in existence in this country, I am afraid that we are adding to it now, because this appears to me to be bureaucracy in excelsis. In other words, more and more people will be given the power to interfere in other people's business.
I wish now to refer to the possibility of relating our industrial policy to the needs of the Gaeltacht. I do not know whether I am hitching my wagon to a star when I mention that, but it appears to me that the time has come when we have to turn our attention to the industrialisation of the Gaeltacht with a view to establishing employment there for the speakers of the language who are left there. I am afraid that the young people are leaving the Gaeltacht. There has been an exodus from the Gaeltacht, the equal of which has never before been seen. I am not blaming the Government or anyone for that, because it has been taking place over many years, but never to the same extent as now. What I want to find out is if, in the development of our industrial policy, we can do anything for the establishment of industries in those isolated places, where the Irish language is still spoken.
We have heard a lot about centralisation of industry. No doubt, there has been a certain amount of centralisation. That is only natural because when people have money to put into industries they will see to it that these industries will have the greatest chance of success, and their greatest chance of success, of course, will be in or adjacent to big centres of population. I am wondering if the time has not come when some inducement, financial or otherwise, should be given to people with capital to select places in the Gaeltacht for the establishment of these industries. It would be a great thing for the restoration of the Irish language. To deal with this problem of the Gaeltacht, as we have been dealing with it over a number of years, there are many factors to be taken into account—educational factors, factors affecting local government, factors affecting the Land Commission, the resettlement of holdings, fisheries and so on. I believe the Department of Industry and Commerce should be as concerned, or more concerned, about this than any other Department.
I do not know whether the Minister has given any thought or consideration to this aspect of the problem. I do not know whether any of the four people who are members of this Industrial Authority have given consideration to the problem of starting industries in the Gaeltacht or will in the future. When the Minister is replying I should like to hear his view on the possibilities that may exist for establishing industries in the Gaeltacht. It is time for us to turn our attention to that problem before it is too late, before the time will have come when nobody can do anything along economic or any other lines to preserve the spoken language in the Gaeltacht. I should also like to mention another industry—the turf industry—though I do not know if I would be in order in doing so.
This Bill has nothing whatever to do with turf.
With all respect, it certainly should have. In my opinion, the turf industry is one of our greatest industries.
If the Deputy is going to open up on that, then I shall claim the right to reply.
I am not going to enlarge on it, but in our attempts, and let us be genuine in our attempts, to establish industries here, I think we should turn our attention to the possibilities of developing the bogs more than we have been doing; but, unfortunately, at the present time instead of that, as far as the County Kerry, which I represent, is concerned——
On a point of order. I am not asking that the Deputy should be prevented from developing his point on this. The only thing that I want to do is to stake my claim to be allowed to reply in full to him if he does develop this.
The Minister will be entitled to reply to anything that is said in the course of the debate. It appears to me that, so far, the Deputy is within the terms of relevancy.
If the Chair so rules, of course I accept that ruling; but it seems clear to me that the Deputy is trying to cloud the real issue in this Bill.
I am not trying to cloud any issue, but I am trying to bring one clear issue before the Dáil——
All right. I will reply to you.
——and that is the desirability of developing the bogs of this country.
Or any other industry?
Or any other industry that would give employment. I consider the turf industry as being second to none in this country if proper attention were given to it. It is better than 20 individual industries that might be established here because, in its very nature and scope, it is diversified and is capable of giving employment in every place where you have bogs. The Industrial Development Authority is to be given statutory authority through the medium of this Bill. Therefore, I think they would be well advised if they are going to be helpful to the Minister, to the Government and to the State, to turn their attention to this great industry—the turf industry.
Is not Bord na Móna doing that?
Bord na Móna have been doing a certain amount, but instead of going ahead, they are closing down works. I refer to my own county, where schemes of work had been carried on in bogs near Listowel and Cahirciveen and now Bord na Móna are taking their machinery away.
That is administration, and the Deputy is not in order in dealing with that.
I was not going to deal with Bord na Móna until Deputy Davin interrupted me. He asked me were not Bord na Móna doing this work in the bogs, and I was proceeding to tell him that they were not doing it to the extent that they should.
Bord na Móna has nothing to do with this Bill.
I know that, but Deputy Davin interrupted me. I wanted to give him the information that he was looking for. Perhaps the Minister would give it to him.
Could you not write to The Kerryman yourself?
For the Minister's information I do not look for publicity of this kind. I have never looked for publicity.
On a point of order. I simply drew attention to the fact that there is an authority in existence, set up by statute, for dealing with the development of the turf industry.
Major de Valera
So that this Industrial Development Authority will have nothing to do with turf then?
I mentioned the turf industry, but I did not want to develop the subject. All that I wanted to do was to bring to the attention of the Minister that it is a very important industry, and also to make sure that, if the members of the authority are to function under this Bill, the development of the turf industry should be one of their cares and responsibilities.
I allowed the Deputy to refer to the development of the turf industry, but I cannot allow him to discuss administration on this Bill.
I do not propose to go into administration, but seeing that there is so much uneasiness in the House over the question of turf I am not going to proceed with a discussion on it except to say this, that the Government itself pretended to attach so much importance to the turf industry that they issued a statement two years ago through the Government Information Bureau to the effect that they were instructing all local authorities to make sure that turf would be used as fuel in all institutions under their care. At any rate, that was a good and a laudable thing to do, to make sure——
You are off again now.
——that as much turf as possible would be used in the country so as to give employment to the people at home. When I put down a question on that——
I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude and I want to tell him again that I will not allow him to discuss administration.
Very good. In conclusion, I would say this, that I am not in favour of setting up this authority. There is no use, as far as I can see, in my saying that now because this development authority is supposed to have been functioning for the last ten months. In spite of the fact that it has been functioning for the last ten months we are told here in the Bill that
"this is an Act to establish an Industrial Development Authority and to provide for certain matters connected therewith".
In other words, we are dealing with legislation to-day that we should have been dealing with ten months ago. Whether it is wise legislation is another matter.
Ten years ago.
The Minister to-day is bringing in a Bill which should have been brought in ten months ago, that is, if he believes in the efficiency of this industrial authority and in the advisability of setting it up at all, which I do not.
I am rather disappointed at the tone of the debate. Like Deputy Connolly, I expected far more, especially from the members of the front Opposition bench——
A Deputy
Why?
As they are ex-Ministers. Surely Deputy Lemass and Deputy Aiken have a real knowledge of the need for developing industry in this country. Deputy Lemass gave us to understand that there was no need for this Bill as the work to be accomplished by it was already being done by a certain section in the Department of Industry and Commerce. If that is so, I do not see why the House has been delayed for hours by the Opposition discussing the merits and demerits of the Bill. To my mind, the function of the Opposition should be to help a Minister or a Government by constructive criticism or helpful suggestions in order to improve any proposed legislation. So far, the attitude adopted in regard to this Bill has been the direct opposite. We had a contribution from Deputy Aiken the like of which I never listened to and I hope we shall not have it repeated in this House. In their criticism of this Bill, the Opposition have adopted the same tactics which they brought to bear on previous legislation such as the Local Authorities (Works) Bill. I do not propose to dwell on the number of amendments they put down to that Bill which had the effect of holding up very useful work. They are indulging in the same type of criticism which they indulged in on the land rehabilitation scheme all over the country in order to try and prevent farmers from taking advantage of that useful scheme.
That is not true.
They launched the same type of criticism against the new Land Bill, in which they told the people in rural Ireland that the market value which is now to be given for land will have to be paid by the allottees when they get the land.
That is not true, either.
We must not discuss the Land Bill on this.
I want to put the House wise to the type of obstructive criticism which comes from the Opposition Benches whenever useful legislation is introduced. We can generally measure the usefulness of any Bill by the type of criticism that we get from the Opposition Benches. The better the Bill, the more vile and scurrilous the Opposition become. What is the purpose behind a Bill of this kind? What is the purpose of developing industry? Surely we are not going to lose sight of the main idea by going down the byways that have been explored by Deputies on the opposite side. To my mind, at any rate, we should develop industries in order to put into productive employment as many of our people as we possibly can.
I think it is an accepted fact in this House that our land is not capable of absorbing all the people born on farms. If that is an accepted fact, then there must be some alternative work got for those people who have to leave the farms or who may be the sons or daughters of labourers. To a great extent, that problem in past years has been relieved by emigration. I am not criticising any Government in particular in regard to this. But in the West of Ireland the solution of the problem of overcrowding or congestion has been mainly solved by the emigrant ship. I think, therefore, that this body, which will act in a purely advisory capacity, should lay down some systematic plan by which they can tackle this problem of unemployment in the West of Ireland. Deputy Kissane mentioned the Gaeltacht areas. I would enlarge that and say all the areas west of the Shannon.
That brings me to what I consider a very important point. The Minister and his predecessor have, time and again, asked people with capital to invest their money in industries in this country. We have seen appeals to that effect made at dinners and other public functions. The appeals also stressed the fact that industrialists should get away from Dublin as much as possible and concentrate on areas down the country. That is all to the good. But, to my mind, that is not sufficient to get these industries going. That appeal has been made year in and year out but, so far as I can see, it has produced very little satisfactory results in the West of Ireland. The position is that a private industrialist finds that the best place to set up an industry is in Dublin. He has no transport problem or anything like that to face in Dublin. Naturally, he is going to go to the place that suits him best. The result is that the concentration of industries in Dublin has helped in no small way to leave the city in its present overcrowded condition. I think the attention of this new body should be directed as much as possible to getting out of Dublin some of those industries which could be set up down the country, in other words, to decentralise as much as possible.
At the moment, we depend on private enterprise to a great extent to develop industry here. My contention is that private enterprise, so far as rural Ireland is concerned, is not sufficient to tackle this big job. I have seen samples of it in my own constituency and in adjoining constituencies. On occasions, we find that a number of people are willing to start an industry in a town. The Minister and the Department say, "We will give you every encouragement." Something crops up, however, and they fail to do so. I know of several towns where such efforts have come to nothing. That is because private enterprise has failed in its job in these areas. Are we then to depend on the whim of private enterprise to stop emigration in localities in the West of Ireland? If the people with money do not feel like investing their money in industry, is the welfare of those people who dwell in rural areas to depend on the whim of such people? That is what private enterprise amounts to in rural areas. Where in such areas, particularly in the West, there is a surplus population and private enterprise is not willing to establish industries, then the Government must itself step in and establish them. The Government must set the ball rolling. Times are changing and methods are changing. This Government ought to be on the crest of the wave. It has been proved definitely that private enterprise will not solve unemployment. Neither will it stop the emigrant ship. The Government should be advised to step in and start these industries. At a later stage part of the shares might be given out on a co-operative basis amongst the workers. I see nothing wrong in that. The criticism levelled by Deputy Aiken and some of his colleagues—I will not say Deputy Lemass —was that such a step savours very much of what is happening in Soviet Russia. I do not want to develop that point, but I would like to remind the House that when anything new was mentioned during the election campaign, which was likely to help towards the prosperity of the country, Fianna Fáil immediately said: "This is Stalin's idea being implemented by the Clann na Poblachta Party here."
Deputy Kissane said it was undesirable to give the powers proposed in this measure to a group of laymen. I wonder does he remember the introduction of the managerial Act by Fianna Fáil. They were not worried about giving power into the hands of a layman. If the industrialists in this country are not working in the national interest, then some machinery must be available to control those industrialists and bring them to book. To my mind that is the main reason for the giving of this power in this measure. Fianna Fáil take exception to the fact that this body will have power to call witnesses and to take evidence. I hope they are not afraid that some of the contributions to the Fianna Fáil Party machine may have to be disclosed. I hope that is not the reason for that criticism. It is possible they are fearful of that.
I mentioned that this body should concern itself with the rural areas, particularly with the West of Ireland. I would like to mention, as did some other Deputies, that they should cooperate as much as possible with the Department concerned with reafforestation. Reafforestation will be the father and mother of numerous industries.
Does not that come under a Government Department?
I submit it is more relevant to this Bill than was the turf mentioned by Deputy Kissane.
I allowed Deputy Kissane to say that the development of the turf industry might be referred to this body. Surely something controlled by a Government Department is not relevant to this measure.
I merely mention that from the point of view of the work I envisage this Industrial Development Authority will do. This body will plan years ahead. They will not plan on a short term, day-to-day basis. They must keep before their eyes large-scale development. If we have an assurance that reafforestation will form a major industry, particularly in the West of Ireland, I suggest it is very appropriate that this authority should play its part in the activities and planning of the Department concerned with reafforestation.
Another important point is that there must be close co-operation between this new authority and Córas Iompair Éireann. Transport is an important item in any industry. Córas Iompair Éireann should be asked to help as far as possible, particularly in the initial stages of an industry's development. I welcome this measure. I think it is very necessary. I think the problem of unemployment and emigration can be dealt with very satisfactorily under the good planning of this Industrial Development Authority.
Deputy McQuillan opened his remarks by referring to the alleged iniquities of the Opposition, not only in regard to this Bill but to several others. He referred, as did several other Deputies on the Government Benches, to the experience of front bench members on the Opposition in industrial matters. When the benefit of that experience is offered to the Government we are told that we are committing sabotage. Deputy McQuillan is a young man and one can, perhaps, forgive him to some extent for not knowing what happened 20 years ago and the ten years preceding it. If Deputy McQuillan had experience of the Tariff Commission, of which this body is to be a replica, I do not think he would be quite so enthusiastic about it. In my own constituency a factory that had been in existence for 120 years and which needed a tariff to help it to keep in existence actually went out of existence before the Tariff Commission could come to a decision. Successive generations had worked in that factory. I know one man whose great-grand-father before him had worked in it. He and his two sons lost their employment. When one has an experience like that one can show very little enthusiasm for the setting up of another body on the same lines. That is what this Bill proposes to do. It proposes to interpose between the Minister and his officials another body to examine into these questions for which he himself should take responsibility, take certain decisions and make certain recommendations to the Minister. To my mind that is plainly a delaying device. This Bill is an attempt to meet the divergent views existing on the Government Benches on this important question.
We all know that some of the Ministers—even since they have become Ministers—have not attempted to conceal what they feel about the industrialists of to-day in this country. This Bill is plainly an attempt to try to meet the views of those who wish to develop industry and, at the same time, it is set up as a delaying device to meet the views of those who do not wish to develop industry. That is what I see in the Bill. We definitely stand for the development of industry. The last couple of years have been the best years in the history of this country for the development of industry. They have been lost. The Minister himself told us in this House in 1947 that if he were Minister for Industry and Commerce he could solve the unemployment problem the next morning. He has been in office now for the past two years and, after that length of time, we get this Bill.
Deputy Connolly, when speaking, seemed to have some fears that some day we would become over-industrialised. None of us wishes to see that day. However, there is not the slightest fear that this country at any time—even in the two generations to which Deputy Connolly referred—will ever become over-industrialised if we set up a body such as this. For my part, I would sooner see the Minister making mistakes, and big mistakes, in trying to develop industry in a hurry, if you like, or without delay, rather than see this happen. We know that the development of industry in this country is absolutely necessary if we are to avoid the unemployment and emigration that is, unfortunately, now taking place. We know that it is necessary to cope with the surplus rural population and, with the development of agriculture on mechanised lines— as is likely to be the case—that question will become more important.
If we are going to establish a further body to consider all those questions, and a body which has no power to take any action on its decisions, we are not going to reach a stage when we can deal with that question for a very long number of years to come—it will take years to deal with even the first question which will come before it. This body, when it makes its reports, will have to go through all the delay that always existed of submitting a plan, when it is decided upon, to the Department of Finance for its further examination there. They are not, as far as I can see, at all exempted from that under this Bill. Therefore, no matter where one looks, one can only regard it as imposing a further delay on any sincere Minister who wishes to develop industry. At the moment, I think that 11 per cent. of our industrial population is unemployed. Surely that should be some incentive to us to try and hurry, up any development that could possibly be carried out.
Some remarks were made which to my mind implied that the day of private enterprise is nearly over and that it cannot cope with these matters to-day. If I am right in that interpretation of speeches which were made by some Deputies last week, may I ask if it will help to get people with capital to put it into industry and to develop it as we want it done, if that threat of nationalisation is to be held over their heads? I do not think that this country at the moment is ready for nationalisation in general and I doubt if it will ever be.
Who is advocating it?
Did the Deputy hear the speech which was made by Deputy Larkin?
I did.
So did I. Certainly it will not help the development of industry at the moment if that idea gets out, and remembering, too, what certain Deputies who are now Ministers said in the last couple of years about putting industrialists behind prison walls. I am wondering also whether Section 5 of the Bill is a compromise as to how industrialists are to be dealt with rather than to send them behind prison walls. The Minister himself admitted that no departmental authority had ever been given such powers before. I think it is a very big question that people who are trying to help in providing work for the unemployed of this country should be put under such conditions as are set out in that section. It is also not going to be an enticement to anybody to start new industries. The commission has now been functioning for about ten months. Just at the present moment an advertisement is appearing in the papers for the sale of machinery which was imported with a view to starting the engineering shop at Inchicore. If this authority were alive to its duties, surely it would have tried to find somebody in this country to utilise that machinery. I think it was Deputy Connolly who told us that if we are ever to develop we must have heavy industries. This machinery has been in this country for some years. It is not likely to be bought as cheaply again. Yet it has been put up for auction and very probably it will go out of the country. We know of no attempt to try and find some private people who would use the machinery. The Government—wrongly, I think— decided to scrap it. Surely it should have been the duty of this authority to try to find some means of utilising it in this country.
This board as I see it—and I am not at all referring to the personnel of it— is simply being interlarded between the Minister and the civil servants, who hitherto advised the Minister directly. I cannot see any utility in it at all. I think it is an extraordinary commentary on a Government which preaches so much about economy and retrenchment that it should set up what will be a really useless board, the members of which will be paid £8,500 in salaries, to say nothing of the additional expenses for the necessary staff.
I understood that the primary function of an Opposition Party was to offer reasonable and constructive criticism. I do not like to reiterate the remarks made by Deputy McQuillan but I may say that before he spoke I was thinking along the same lines. I happen to be a member of the Oireachtas for 13 years—ten in the other House and going on three here— and since this Government began to function, I think that the Fianna Fáil Party ought to have come to realise the fact that no Government, even a Fianna Fáil Government, has a divine right. All Governments are subject to the will of the people, which is the supreme law. I cannot say that Fianna Fáil has shown any appreciation of that fact judging by the tactics they have adopted in discussing Bills that were submitted here. Bills which subsequently became the law of the land, and which have created a social revolution and have been accepted as splendid remedial measures. As a result of these Bills quite a number of essential employment was provided.
I listened with interest last week to the speech of Deputy Vivion de Valera. Though I do not always agree with the philosophy of his arguments, I have to admit that generally he states his case in a rather convincing way. He is usually interesting and informative but last week, in speaking for about 25 minutes on this Bill, he gave us a worthy characterisation of the village school master according to Goldsmith. He took the Bill in a rather dramatic manner and examined it but there was absolutely no finality about the conclusions which he put forward. He addressed the House for about 25 minutes, speaking as it were to the wondering rustics ranged around. The Minister seems to have aroused the ire of that Party because he has set up a board consisting of men who have a unique and exceptional experience to review and consider schemes for industrial development. I do not deny that the Fianna Fáil Party have a continuing interest in industrial development here but I think the time has come when partisan and Party politics should cease and when there should be a great unified effort on the part of the Dáil, as the Parliament of the country, to tackle this problem from the proper perspective and in the proper spirit, if our race is to be saved from extinction.
I think it was in 1936 that two very important reports were submitted to the then Government. One was in regard to banking and currency and the other, which was the more ominous, was submitted by the Registrar-General. It was a statistical return showing the gradual diminution and disappearance of the Irish race at home. It was pointed out that from 1926 to 1936 nearly 60,000 fewer children of school-going age were registered in our national schools. That reflection of our population trends revealed itself more in rural areas than in urban areas. While that was going on, whilst our race was disappearing, we had an influx of foreigners—Czechs, Lithuanians and Jews. Consequently, we have to face up to this question in a realistic national way. Whilst I appreciate that agriculture is our basic industry, no matter what standard of success can be achieved by beneficent and co-operative legislation, or by the adoption of scientific methods, that industry of itself will not solve the problems which have been facing this country for a number of years—a disappearing population, emigration and unemployment.
The present Minister asked the responsible authorities to give him a return quite recently showing the quantity of certain manufactured goods that were being imported. According to the statistical return submitted to him, which, of course, is authentic, £60,000,000 worth of manufactured goods are imported annually which ought to be, and I hope will be, manufactured here. What do you think would be the outcome of such a development? It would give employment to 50,000 persons, solve the unemployment problem and check the drift from the land. I understand the Government has taken further steps to develop the export of manufactured goods, and agreements towards this end have been signed with the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden. Is that fact not convincing evidence that the Minister and his colleagues realise to the full how necessary it is to have, with a prosperous agriculture, a prosperous industrial arm, so that we may have a balanced economy and bring prosperity and peace to the whole community?
With regard to giving these powers to civil servants, long before the advent of national Government and since the advent of national Government, public bodies all over the country passed resolutions couched in condemnatory terms against what they regarded— whether justifiably or not, but we must give them credit for their convictions —as the running of this country by a Civil Service bureaucracy. I hope, as a last appeal, that the acrimonious approach of Fianna Fáil to the various beneficent measures introduced by this Government—the Works Bill, the Land Rehabilitation Bill, and so on— will be abandoned. In the case of the Land Rehabilitation Bill we had the whole of a beautiful summer taken up before the Bill became law. It is 50 years since I remember another summer like it, and if we had been able to take advantage of that summer, the amount of reclamation work which could have been carried out is tremendous. I hope that we will have more practical support from the Fianna Fáil Benches, that Deputies will realise their responsibilities and will not seek to gain Party advantage but will work together in a Christian spirit and inspired by Christian ideals. We have no divine authority as a Government and Fianna Fáil had no such divine authority. They thought they would continue for ever, but others will succeed us. Therefore, let us play our parts nobly, recognising that we are the representatives of the people. Let us work together in a spirit of Christian co-operation and we will do our part in bringing greater prosperity and ultimate unity to our country.
Ní maith liomsa, agus níl sé mar nós agam, bheith a lochtú na ndaoíne ar an dtaobh eile den Tigh seo ach ní féidir a shéanadh gur chualamar a lán amaidí ó na cainteoirí ar an dtaobh eile inniú agus an Déardaoin seo caite.
Níl cead againn labhairt chor ar bith do réir sibhse.
Níl sé sin ceart. Nuair a bhíonn daoine ag caint mar sin, ag caint amaidí ghlan, is deacar gan bheith ag cur isteach orthu, ach pé scéal é, nuair a bhíos ag éisteacht leis an Teachta Mac Aogáin inniú, tháinig déistean orm. Bhí an scéal amhlaidh beagnach an Déardaoin seo caite nuair a bhíos ag éisteacht leis an Teachta Vivion de Valéra. De ghnáth caithfidh mé admháil, bíonn an Teachta Vivion de Valéra go ciallmhar agus go macánta ina chuid cainte agus déanann sé a chuid féin chun cabhair a thabhairt don Dáil de ghnáth, ach ní raibh an scéal amhlaidh aige an Déardaoin seo caite nuair a bhí sé ag caint mar gheall ar an Bhille seo. Chuaigh sé amach chun scrúdú a dhéanamh ar an mBille, mar dhea, agus an focal is tábhachtaí in Alt a 3, dhein sé iarracht chun é a mhíniú, is é sin, an focal "initiate." Chuireas isteach air ach lean sé ar aghaidh, agus, do réir mar is cuimhin liom, chuireas isteach air arís. Ansan, chonnac an Teachta Lemass, a bhí ina shuí ag a thaobh, go raibh a chara i gcruadh-chás agus d'iarr sé orainn ar an dtaobh seo gan bheith ag cur isteach ar an dTeachta, ach ligint dó a óráid féin a dhéanamh. Tar éis sin, d'fhanas ciúin agus ní dúirt mé tada ina dhiaidh sin.
Mar dúras, cúis ionadh liom ab ea an óráid sin a thug an Teachta de Valéra mar bíonn sé eolasach macánta agus ag iarraidh bheith a cabhrú leis an Dáil de ghnáth. Do réir mo thuairime, caithfidh sé bheith soléir do gach duine go bhfuil an focal sin "initiate" in Alt a 3 an-thábhachtach ar fad, ach ní hionann san agus a rá nach bhfuil an chuid eile den Alt tábhachtach chomh maith. Tá feidhmeanna an údáráis seo leagtha amach san Alt sin agus má dhéanann an t-údarás na feidhmeanna sin a chómhlíonadh, beidh obair mhaith déanta acu ar son na hÉireann agus ar son tionscail sa tír seo. Beidh leas mór déanta acu don tír seo. Beidh an t-údarás saor ó smacht an Aire, agus buntáiste mór é sin do réir mo thaurime. Ní bheidh siad mar atá na Stáit-Sheirbhísigh a bhíonn i gcónaí ceangailte suas le téip dearg.
Dúirt an Teachta Lemass agus é ag caint go bhfuil an t-inneallra sa Roinn cheana chun an obair a dhéanamh atá beartaithe ag an Aire a thabhairt don údarás seo. Is maith is eol dom go bhfuil an t-inneallra ann. Tá sé ann, ach tá sé idir lámha ag na Stát-Sheirbhísigh agus ní féidir leo an obair a dhéanamh chómh tapaidh agus chómh sásúil agus a bheidh sé ar chumas an údaráis a leithéid a dhéanamh. Bíonn siad de gnáth ró-mhall agus róchúramach. Tá fhios againn go léir gurb é an rud is tábhachtaí in aigne na Stát-Sheirbhíseach ná an trodán a choimeád i gceart, "to keep the file right." Beidh an túdarás i ndon obair mhaith a dhéanamh agus is cúis áthais dom go bhfuiltear á bhunú anois. Ná ceaptar, áfach, go bfuilim ag fáil lochta ar na Stát-Sheirbísigh. Bhí gnó airithe le déanamh agam sa Roinn Tionscail agus Tráchtála le déanaí agus fuaireas cabhair agus cúnamh ó na hoifigigh sa Roinn sin. Mar sin féin, chonnaic mé go raibh an "téip dearg" ann. Tá géar-ghá leis an údarás chun tionscail na tíre d'fhorbairt agus dá bhrí sin fáiltím roimh an mBille. Molaim an tAire de bharr an Bille a thabhairt isteach anseo agus guím rath agus séan ar an obair a bhéas mar chúram ar an údarás.
Mar fhocal scoir, dúirt an Teachta Lemass go gcuirfeadh sé, dá mbeadh cumhacht aige arís, deireadh leis an údarás. Mura mbeadh aon chúis eile agam ach é sin amháin, sin fáth amháin nár mhaith liom é fheicéal arís choiche ar an dtaobh seo den Tigh.
It is a pity that Deputy Madden, when he was making a very charitable speech some few moments ago and preaching charity amongst all men and women and members of Governments and especially in Dáil Éireann, should be so uncharitable as to misrepresent the Opposition by some of his remarks. He started off by saying that we opposed the Works Bill and the Land Bill. Surely the Opposition have their responsibility to the Irish nation too, to see that every Bill is properly examined and amended, that if we have any criticism to offer it is not criticism for the sake of politics but criticism in the national interest when a Bill is going through this House. That is our duty and that is why we are here to-day, to do that job in the interests of the Irish people. Hence we are a bit critical on this Bill. We hold—and I hold myself personally, a member of the Party—that since this Government came into office they have been very anxious to appoint commissions and consultative bodies. I look upon all these appointments as buffers for Ministers of State. We were going on very well in our day, under the Minister for Industry and Commerce then, Deputy Seán Lemass. He took full responsibility for his Department, and his officers in turn took their responsibility, to see that the industrial revival according to our policy was carried on directly. I believe that that policy is the most feasible one. I also believe that it is the one that will encourage more confidence amongst the people who are in a position to invest money in Irish industry.
An industrial council was appointed ten months ago, but during the ten months we have not in writing or by any statement in the Press anything that they have succeeded in doing.
May I refer again to Deputy Madden, who gave me a wonderful inspiration when he was speaking about charity? He said we all should be concerned with developing Irish industry. That is positively true. I hope his advice will be taken by every members of the inter-Party Government. When we were trying to carry on the industrial revival, they were very critical of us. We would need to be very critical indeed now to be able to run in the same field with members opposite, who were so critical of our industrial policy when we were carrying on the Government and developing the tourist industry and subsidiary industries of which I do not wish to speak in detail on this Bill.
One of the things left over by us to be carried out was £85,000 for mineral exploration. We were anxious when we got the machinery to put it to the test and see what mineral wealth lay in the country. We were anxious to see that tests would be carried out in every district, wherever necessary.
There was a debate on that quite recently.
On a point of order. There is no definition of the word "industrial" in this Bill. So far as the House is aware, the term includes every type of productive enterprise.
I was only referring to the fact that there was a debate on that matter quite recently. If we pursue every industry that might possibly be started, there will be a long debate.
My argument is that we made wonderful progress, in spite of the war and other emergencies. We had a Minister and a Government that took the direct responsibility themselves. I hold that any Government or Minister has the duty to take direct responsibility. In this Bill the responsibility is being shelved on to another body, as in the case of other commissions set up from time to time. I am quite sure that the principle is not good. I feel that it is establishing another Ministry of Industry and Commerce. The expression "Department of Industry and Commerce" implies that it is to look after trade and industry. We have civil servants trained in this particular work and they have the confidence of the people and anyone who wishes to invest money in Irish industry could discuss the matter with them.
The Land Reclamation Bill and the Local Authorities (Works) Bill and other matters have been drawn into this debate. I do not want to go into these matters in detail but I want to draw attention to the conversion of the inter-Party Government to our outlook. We have evidence of it every other day in their praise of certain works and industries. Two years ago the very same people were despising those industries and misrepresenting them both inside and outside the House. I hope the members of the inter-Party Government will take note of Deputy Madden's sermon on charity.
Now we are asked to accept this Bill. I do not intend to discuss the merits of this Industrial Development Authority. The members of it are worthy citizens of this State. I have nothing at all to say against them individually or collectively. I am concerned solely with the principle of this Bill. I feel this Bill is a retrograde rather than a progressive step.
A Deputy referred to rural decay. If there is any Minister contributing to rural decay, in certain parts of Ireland at any rate, by his policy on certain matters, it is the Minister for Agriculture.
The Minister for Agriculture does not arise on this Bill.
Unemployment and emigration have been referred to. If I am not in order, I will not proceed on those lines. The matter was referred to by other speakers.
The Deputy is referring to Deputy Madden, I presume?
That is right. I wanted to remind the last speaker that it might be as well for him to check up on his colleagues in these matters. Was there any occasion on which we went ahead with a worthwhile industry, during our term of office, that we were not misrepresented and criticised? Anything that we tried to do, even under most adverse circumstances, was adversely criticised. Members of the inter-Party Government expect us to accept everything they do, and one would gather from their speeches that we should have no criticism to offer. It is not for the sake of criticism, it is not for political eyewash, that I or any member of my Party criticise this Bill. It is because we believe it is in the national interest that we should do so.
We are able to stand over anything that we have done in the past. No Minister of State should have a buffer to fall back on. We were told by the members of the inter-Party Government, especially the Labour Party, that they had a plan for full employment, that nobody was to be idle. We were told that this would be a land flowing with milk and honey. We were told that the cost of living was to be reduced by 30 per cent., which would mean that we would have 30 per cent. more to spend. They were wonderful prophets as to what could be done to create employment. In the years when the credit of this State was the highest in the world, when we had a Government that was honest to the country, a Government that did not want to play politics, that Government was misrepresented at every opportunity. The people who were to give employment, who were to create industries, came along making ambiguous statements at wine parties and other places, referring to the people whom we were anxious to encourage to invest money in this country, saying that they should be behind closed doors and thick walls.
To-day I am fighting for the existence of certain Irish industries. Any time that I have raised the matter here I have been misrepresented by, again, the Minister for Agriculture. Is that the outlook and policy of the inter-Party Government on matters of that kind? Are we to associate the industrial revival with personal abuse and misrepresentation? It is time we had a round-table conference so that we could discuss the matter properly, without misrepresentation.
Since Fianna Fáil became the Opposition Party, I have welcomed any measures that would be in the national interest. I will continue to do so but I am afraid I cannot adopt that attitude in regard to this Bill. There is a number of other points that I would like to deal with but I shall do so on another stage. At present I just want to lodge my objection to this Bill.
It was my privilege to be in the House when the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduced this Bill last Thursday. I listened very attentively to him and also to the speech made by Deputy Lemass. I have read the report of both speeches in the Official Debates. To me, the speech of the Minister seemed very reasonable, very sound and very constructive. I see no reason why the question as to places suitable for development should not be referred to a quartet of men who have been a considerable time in public life, men who are fully alive to the needs of industry, men who have the workers' interests at heart, men who are conversant with the banking and financial interests involved and men who, I have no doubt, before their period of office comes to an end, will succeed in putting a number of factories into operation that will be a credit to the country.
We have heard a lot, in fact we started by talking, about this Party and that Party. I purposely refrain from mentioning Parties, but be it to the credit of all Parties who started factories in the days gone by. Some of us who are not so politically biased are not blind to what was done by the Opposition when they were in office from 1932 until two years ago. They, I am sure, will reciprocate by giving the previous Government credit for what they succeeded in doing during their short ten years of office from 1922 to 1932. Factories that were started by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government were described as "white elephants" but it was a godsend to have them, particularly between 1925 and 1932. I think that those factories were a credit to the initiative, progressiveness and ability of the men who started them in those days. It is time to get away from talking about what Party did this or that. Every Deputy in this House, I am sure, is actuated by at least one sincere love and affection, that is, for his native land. In this week of all weeks, the week that is known throughout the world as "Irish week", it would be no harm if we, who have been honoured by the people of the country to represent them in the national Assembly, expunged from our minds some of the bitterness and hostility which have been hurled from one bench to another during the past two years. This is Irish week and we should embark on it by trying to do our best to further Irish industry.
I was amazed on reading the Minister's speech to find that only one-fifth of the working population of Ireland are at the present time in industrial production. That is a sad commentary on 28 years of native government. At the end of the term of office of this body which, I hope, will meet with the approval of the House although it is opposed by Deputies opposite, I feel that this country will be far better off industrially than it is at the moment. We must realise that we are living in a different era to that which existed 35 or 40 years ago. Every one of us realises that we are living in times when it is ever more incumbent on us to produce the goods we want for ourselves. I see no reason why we should have to import goods worth £60,000,000, as was stated in the report. As has been said by previous people, if those goods could be produced here it would give employment to 40,000 or 50,000 people; I am sure it would absorb all the unemployed in this little land of ours. Whatever one may think of the future of the world, those of us who look upon things in a serious way must realise that the outlook is somewhat ominous and therefore it behoves every one of us to set his mind to work to see what can be done to develop industry in our own country.
It is quite apparent to everybody that industry must be decentralised in future and not have all the industries, as in the past 25 years, centred around the big cities. Dublin, to every one of us who comes up from the country, seems undoubtedly overloaded and top-heavy, and if it keeps extending at the rate at which seemingly it is at present it will probably extend to Maryborough in another ten years. What the Minister should bear in mind when this industrial authority sets out on its path of work is that the factories in which people want to invest money should be started in towns in the South, West or East of Ireland and get away from Dublin. Dublin is Ireland at present and undoubtedly the money of the country is flowing into this city.
We have throughout the South of Ireland many excellent factories absorbing a considerable amount of labour, but unfortunately we have not enough of them and I would appeal to the Minister to-night when people are anxious to put up money—that is the best test of any man, the test of parting with his cash to invest in Irish industries—to see that some, or I hope all, of them are spread around through the country towns. As was said in this House by a gentleman who represents the same constituency as I do but who is not here at present, in Youghal, in East Cork, we have a magnificent factory which absorbs a considerable amount of people, an ideal factory in every sense of the word. Unfortunately, the industry is not heavy enough to absorb all the manpower of the district although it absorbs a considerable amount and for that we are grateful. Conditions have changed to a great degree since I was a young fellow 35 years ago. As Deputy Hickey and Deputy O'Leary, who come from the coast know, all the men in seaport towns were employed on small schooners, sailing vessels, two-masters, which brought in coal and various other things. That trade has disappeared now and one steamer will bring in as much coal—which is about the only thing we have to import now, thank God—as schooners which would employ 60 or 80 men. I trust that when the officers of the Minister's Department set out on their journey they will pay a visit to some of those towns in the South.
Another town that has had very hard luck and was hit very hard by the change of Government is Fermoy, again in my constituency. Fermoy, in days gone by, was a garrison town, with 1,500 or 2,000 British soldiers and all their dependents naturally spending a lot of money there. In those days it was recognised as a boom town from the business point of view. The British soldiers left—thank God for that, too—but unfortunately there was no industry started in the town. I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is deputising for the Minister at the moment, to the need for doing something for towns that suffered considerably by the change of Government—from the old British Government days to our own Government.
I find the vast majority of Irish people are not nervous or hesitant about investing their hard-earned money in Irish industries. There is one thing I do not like, and that is the man who expresses an amount of lip sympathy about Irish industry but never has the courage to invest a shilling of his own. I know several of them; we meet them here and there in various parts of the country. Give me the man who shows his faith in his own country and his belief in her enterprises and their ultimate success by investing his cash. That is the type of man I admire.
This matter has been fully discussed from all angles. It is a pity that some of our friends on the other side would not give us their blessing where this Industrial Development Authority is concerned. I think this proposal is a good one. It is no harm at times to get away from the atmosphere of Kildare Street and the Trade and Statistics Branch there. No doubt there are good men in it, excellent men who have done very fine work in the past—all credit to them. The quartet the Minister has appointed are excellent men, too. Some of them I know, more of them I do not know, but from what I have heard I believe they are all sound men with a good knowledge of what the country wants. I hope they will be more successful than some members here expect they will be.
I have very little more to say, because this subject has been discussed from every angle. Like Deputy Burke, who could talk for two hours on this subject, I could also talk for quite a long time, by taking seriatim all the Minister's points and also Deputy Lemass's contribution to the debate. I hope when these gentlemen get going on their work that they will forget about Dublin for at least two years. Let them go down the country, because that is where they are wanted.
If you do not do something for the country towns, I believe the vast majority of those towns will be a thing of the past within half a century. In those towns they are up against competition of various kinds—I can hear that every day in various parts of my constituency. There are travelling shops going all over the country and co-ops giving the people in the country districts what they want. The country people say that there is no need to come into the towns. I loath to think that at this period of our history the towns that, no doubt, most of us were brought up in, are to be relegated to oblivion. I do not want that to take place. The opportunity is now in the Minister's hands and, knowing him as I do, I am sure he will avail of it.
I am prepared to support this Bill. It is similar to what Labour Deputies advocated years ago. I believe our policy in the future must be towards increasing to the maximum the output of Irish industry and distributing to the public sufficient purchasing power to enable those goods to reach the masses who need them.
What I feel about our position at the moment is that our prosperity is measured largely in terms of money rather than in terms of food, housing and clothing. However repugnant the actions of this Industrial Development Authority may be to the conservative-minded people of the country, we must recognise the need for a social change and we must recognise that certain controls will be necessary in order to aim at abundance rather than scarcity.
I was somewhat disappointed at the speeches made by Deputy Lemass and others on his benches. I was surprised for this reason, that I felt—and I still feel—that they did not believe a lot of things they were saying about this Industrial Development Authority. Having regard to their outlook on industrial matters, I was really disappointed at the speeches that they made. I was also disappointed when I heard Deputy McGrath, from my own city, telling us we were warning off people who had money from investing it here. Deputy Lemass spoke in a similar vein. He told us we were abusing industrialists. I fail to see where anybody has abused industrialists.
Deputy McGrath said that one of the members of the Industrial Development Authority said they were going to nationalise the flour mills. There is nothing wrong in that. Any industry we are subsidising to the extent of £11,000,000 should not be in the hands of private individuals but should be under public control, especially an industry that concerns the lives of the people so much. Deputy McGrath suggested that we were frightening the industrialists, the people with the money, telling them they would be well advised to invest their money in other countries. I read in the papers recently that one flour mill had a net profit in September, 1949, of £54,934, and that same firm had a reserve of £53,000. Another firm engaged in the flour milling industry could show a profit of £46,446.
They are doing a steady business.
Because of those things I suggest there is all the more reason why we should have some investigation by those who compose the Industrial Development Authority. In January, 1947, the then Government handed back £3,000,000 of excess profits duty. What benefit did the community get from that action on the part of the then Government? Did the community receive any benefit through reduced prices? Not at all. The profit made through increased prices out of industry in 1940-41 was £34,000,000, an increase over the average of pre-war years of approximately £2,000,000. In the next year it was £2,800,000; the following year it was £5,500,000 and in 1943-44 it was £7,400,000. In 1944-45 it was £11,000,000, and in 1945-46 it was £14,000,000.
I think the Deputy misunderstands the figures.
I am going to prove my point in another way. In 1938 the number of persons chargeable to surtax was 2,550. In 1944-45, the number was 3,689. In other words, in a period of seven years we had over 1,134 of new rich created. Let me say that during that time workers' wages were pegged down by an Emergency Powers Order.
And the rate of surtax was doubled.
In 1938 there were 284 concerns in this country making a profit of more than £2,000 a year. In 1947-48, that figure had risen to 908. I suggest we are not doing our duty while people in such positions are given a free hand to exploit the public. I say they have been exploiting the public. I have listened to Deputy Kissane and others talk about the danger of calling witnesses. Let me call attention to what the President of this country, Mr. Seán T. O'Ceallaigh, said when speaking in the Seanad in his capacity as Minister for Finance on 9th July, 1941, against certain recommendations that were then put forward to the Finance Bill of that year. He quoted actual cases. I do not intend to give all these quotations, but I shall give some. He said:
"Private Company A has a profits standard of £10,000. It writes up its premises and goodwill by a fictitious amount of £50,000 which it credits to a reserve account. It then capitalises this reserve by the issue of 50,000 ordinary shares of £1 each issued to its shareholders.... Company B was registered six years ago and has a nominal capital of £5,000. Its original issued capital was £3,000, held by its three directors, members of one family. Profits for six years were £35,000, after payment of directors' fees, £15,000; profit standard, £5,000 and reserves (part) £3,000. The company's nominal capital is now increased to £20,000. ...New capital issued to directors in lieu is £5,000.... Private Company C was registered four years ago with a nominal capital of £5,000 and issued capital of £5,000. Profits for six years were £75,000 after payment of directors' fees, which were substantial but not exceptional, and the profit standard was £13,500. The last balance sheet disclosed reserves of £45,000. If the nominal capital were increased and reserves capitalised and issued to shareholders a deduction of £45,000 at 6 per cent. could be claimed in a chargeable accounting period."
Is there any reason why we should not inquire into a position of that sort and of the exploitation that is taking place?
Obviously someone was inquiring into it in 1941.
That is the position that was revealed in 1941. I suggest nothing has been done since to check that. Some Deputies appeared to be surprised that anybody on this side of the House should advocate the nationalisation of industries. I want to say, personally, that nobody is going to take from me the strong views I hold that flour milling, banking and credit should be under public control. I want to say to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as I said to Deputy Lemass, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce in an open letter which I wrote to him in 1942, that no Government can carry out its policy of industrial development unless it has control of credit issues in this country. Unless we have control of money and credit in the country, the efforts, no matter how well intentioned they may be, of the four men who have been appointed members of the Industrial Development Authority, are going to be frustrated and handicapped.
There has been a good deal of criticism of industrialists, of those who produce goods as well as of those who distribute them, and of the prices they charge the public. I am informed, on the most reliable authority, that some of those people will not take the products of certain industries unless they are guaranteed 50 per cent. in the price which they charge to the consumer. I know there are firms which produce articles by the ton. They may get an order for one, two or three tons of the article they produce. I know that in such cases 50 per cent. is added to the selling price by the people who take that article from the factory. Is there any reason in the world why we should not have some investigation into that system of pricing and seek to find out what actually is taking place?
That is not in this Bill, but it was in the Bill which was defeated here.
If people in the retail trade or any other trade are doing that, is it not right that we should do something to try and prevent it?
There is nothing in this Bill about the retail trade.
Take the production of Irish slates which is a very important matter. I dealt with this before. In the time of the last Government, I said to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that if we were going to depend solely on private enterprise, then, so far as the industrial development of the country was concerned, we would remain where we were. It is a sad state of affairs to find that, while we have an abundance of slate quarries in the country, we have Dutch people coming over here anxious to take whatever slates we can give them, while our own people, who are demanding slates, cannot get them. In the case of the Killaloe quarries they have so many orders that it will take them ten years before they can supply them all. One Dutch firm alone can take all the slates they can give them, and the same applies to Glasgow. While that is the position, quite a big number of our houses are being covered by Portuguese slates at the moment at a cost, I understand, of about £72. At the same time we are sending our Irish slates out of the country.
I remember, too, that we had a fine industry at one time in West Cork in connection with the production of barytes. Up to about the time this State was formed there was a big export trade in the case of that industry. Soon after the State was formed, private interests and other interested parties succeeded in closing down that industry. The same applied in the case of our paint factories. Some time about 1914 or 1916 a Hungarian gentleman came across to West Cork with a small ship and shipped the stuff that was there to England where he got a big price for it. Why is not that particular industry developed by our own people? I suppose the reason is because they cannot see immediately a big profit by doing so. That is where I see the value in this Industrial Development Authority, that it will be able to investigate and explore the possibility of developing industries such as I have mentioned. We have also slate quarries in West Cork. Why should not work in slate quarries be available to young men in places like West Cork which would help to produce slates? Why is it not done? Because there is not sufficient profit in it for individuals. I do not agree with Deputy Lemass when he says that the profit motive must be recognised in connection with Irish industrial development if it is ever to take place.
I did not say that.
You said that if we did not allow for the profit motive we would have to bring in the State. I am disappointed with statements coming from an ex-Minister, who has done so much for industrial development, which scare people, statements that if we do not give them big profits no development will take place in this country. I think no man should get more than 5 per cent. interest on money invested in industry.
They will take no chance in a slate quarry with 5 per cent.
Of course they will not. The result is that we are paying for Portuguese slates to cover houses in this country while we have plenty of slates in our own quarries. Is it fair that a flour-milling firm should pay 15 per cent. to its shareholders for producing a necessary foodstuff? I suggest to the Minister and to those who are associated with him that, so far as this House is concerned, we will always stand for the development of Irish industry with sufficient protection and with effective control. Unless we have effective control, then we might as well say good-bye to industrial development. Take our shipping. Does Deputy Lemass feel that those who were put in charge of our shipping were the best men that could be found from a national point of view?
They were the only people in this country who knew anything about it. They were directors of Irish shipping companies—the only ones there were.
Who is the chairman?
Before any one of these gentlemen were ever directors of shipping companies there were men in Cork —one of them was at one time a Deputy —who did more for the development of Irish shipping than the whole lot of them did in their lives. I believe that we have not the right men in charge of our industrial development. What chance has "Pat Murphy" got in the control of industrial development? We know very well that these people are in the hands of big combines. As to the statements as to costs we have been listening to for some time, I think it is a very dangerous thing for this country that we should have had such speeches as were made from the far side of the House. It is not in the public interest or in the national interest for anyone to make statements of that kind. We were told by Deputy McGrath that we were frightening off people with money because we talked about nationalising flour mills. One milling firm got £700,000 from the investing public and still retained control of the undertaking. The Prices Commission told us how they got it. They issued a prospectus which stated:
"The amount required annually to pay the dividend on the 350,000 6 per cent. cumulative preference shares is £21,000. On the basis of the average profits for the last few years, the dividend on these shares is covered more than seven times and, on the same basis, the amount available for dividend on the ordinary shares, subject to reserves, is over 38 per cent."
Will anybody stand up and try to scare the people by saying that this Industrial Development Authority is not necessary when we have had such exploitation taking place since 1932 or 1933? In 1931, 23 milling units showed an aggregate net profit of over £379,000 and in 1932 the aggregate net profits earned by 24 undertakings totalled over £263,000. How many thousands did they cover up in their balance sheet which the poor "Pat Murphys" or nobody else knew anything about? Yet we have statements made here about the nationalisation of industry, and telling people that if they have money to invest there is no encouragement to invest it in Irish industry.
We are not playing our part and sufficient consideration is not being given to the interests of the Irish people. The need for social change is long overdue. Do not forget that the things which took place up to 1938 do not fit in with the things of 1950 and that they will fit in less from now on. There are three systems contesting for supremacy at the moment—capitalism, communism and socialism or nationalisation. I am one of those who believe in another system, and that is through the co-operative movement. If you look up the history of capitalism you will find that it is responsible for what is taking place in the world to-day and what is happening in this country. Materialism and greed are rife all over the world to-day because of the capital-is system. Why should we be afraid to change from it?
The Deputy is travelling far afield.
This Industrial Development Authority will have power to report to the Minister on what they consider is necessary for development in this country. The Minister rightly stated that we have no knowledge of what money is invested in industry. I have referred to the statement of the present President when he was Minister for Finance in 1941. Deputy Briscoe has come into the House I see. I am glad that he did not indulge in any of the scares that other members of his Party indulged in. His speech was a constructive one and I take no exception to anything he said. I agree with him that there are many things that can be done and I hope that this authority will deal vigorously with the industrial development of the country.
I believe that this is a genuine attempt on the part of the Minister to grapple with a situation in this country which requires the promotion of our industries. The Bill deals with the setting up of an advisory body. Like the Minister and other Deputies, I have a belief in the future of Irish industry. But, unfortunately, whatever way we have gone about it up to the present, we have not brought Irish industry to that stage of development which the resources, energy and abilities of our people deserve. Unlike the last speaker, with whom I agree on many matters, I lay emphasis on private enterprise, because I do not think that private enterprise has yet been proved to have failed. We have in this country since we got our freedom rather looked, in connection with industrialisation, to the examples of countries which are in effect industrial countries with the same resources which we here possess. I think, and I have said this on numerous occasions, that we must look to two main features in industrialisation. We should lay emphasis upon that type of industry for the products of which there is a large demand at home and for the products of which there is a ready market at home because that ready market will compensate for the necessity of importing from abroad all or some of the raw materials required.
There is a second branch of industry which we have overlooked to a large extent. That is that branch based upon the raw materials which exist here and for which there is not only a market at home but a considerable market abroad both in soft and hard currency countries. I do not believe we have cashed in properly in our industrialisation on the products of our fields and farms. There is a world-wide potential consumption at the moment for all types of canned goods, fish, meat, vegetables and so forth. I do not think we have laid sufficient emphasis on that aspect in our industrialisation drive. It is true that we have bacon factories. But we have in this country a climate eminently suitable for the growth of a particular raw material. I refer to vegetables and kindred products. These, if canned, would form a valuable commodity for export. There is a large consumption for goods of that character at the present time, particularly on the Continent of Europe. Science has advanced to such an extent that nowadays, with the help of chemistry, we can make use of raw materials here for the manufacture of certain articles under the generic heading of "plastics".
Another aspect to which we should pay particular attention is to encouraging in here the capitalist or industrialist from the other side of the Atlantic who is prepared to employ his capital in industry here. I believe that with such encouragement there would be a willing readiness on the part of certain of our kith and kin in America, who have done well there, to come back and employ some of their surplus assets in developing the land of their forefathers.
In our approach to industry there are two main difficulties standing in the way of proper industrial development. The first difficulty is one that has often been adverted to by leaders of industry and leaders of Government here. I refer to the fact that there is not available in sufficient quantities private capital for investment in industry in the sense that those who would be in a position to so invest do not appear to place the reliance they should in industry. But the matter goes deeper than that. We are at the present time half a democracy and half an oligarchy. So far as the making and administering of our laws is concerned, we are a democracy. So far as we have charge and control of the ebb and flow of credit, we are an oligarchy. Credit is the lifeblood of industry. Until we get control of our own credit we shall have a stumbling-block to full industrial development. We must be either one thing or the other.
A country can be a successful oligarchy, a successful dictatorship, or a successful democracy. Whatever a country is, it must have all the ingredients which belong to each type and each system in one complete unit. So long as the control of our credit rests in the hands of an oligarchy and outside the hands of this democracy, so long will there be a clog on the development of Irish industry.
We have again the lopsided position that our capital expenditure, its rate of interest and so on, is governed from outside. Remember, every industry brought into being here is a potential foe to similar industries in other countries. If the flow of credit into industry is to be regulated in any way by outside opinion, that is a matter with which we shall have to deal. So far as our industry is concerned and so far as the monetary resources available are concerned, what happens is that the people who have charge of money here prefer to lend £200,000 for two or three weeks in London on a short-term basis rather than to allow one-tenth of that for any industry here. When this new body comes into being I hope it will take realistic action in the advice it will tender to the Government on that particular aspect. It appears to me, though I dislike it very much, that planning does seem to be necessary and that, in order to carry planning into execution, it is equally necessary to have some body of this kind.
I welcome this Bill, but I do so with a certain amount of hesitation because I regard it as a considerable innovation in the general set-up of the three branches of government in this country. I speak now as a member of the Legislature and as a legislator. We have an Executive. We have in addition to that a judiciary. In order to preserve our democracy in all its purity and in order to bring about a situation where the system runs smoothly, we must be careful in ensuring that the Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary do not impinge one upon the other or get in each other's way. While I frankly admit that under Article 37 of the Constitution there is ample justification for Section 5 of this measure, I would like to sound a note of warning with regard to certain features of it. I do so by way of friendly criticism.
Under Section 3 the functions of the Industrial Development Authority are set out. That provides for every conceivable form of inquiry and for every contingency one could possibly envisage in connection with the collecting of the necessary data in order to advise either the Minister or intending industrialists here. Under Section 5 very wide provision is made for the summoning of witnesses, the swearing of them and the production of documents. I realise that there is a somewhat similar procedure in the legislation governing the compilation of statistics. I know also that the Executive took power under price control legislation to deal similarly with witnesses and with documents. But this body is in a slightly different position from those other two. It was necessary for the working of the State and for the efficient functioning of the Government that statistics should be properly prepared. It was necessary for the proper adjustment of prices and for the relieving of hardships of certain sections of the community that the food prices authority should have power to summon people and to swear them and to penalise them if they failed to obey certain sections of the code, but in each of those two cases the particular authority given these powers is dealing with certain specific matters. While I fully appreciate that we do not want to allow industry in this country to be developed on lines where unscrupulous persons will take advantage of certain liberties which they might have to batten on the people, to make unnecessary profits or to behave in a way that shows they have reduced both company law and bankruptcy law to an exact science—while I feel that it is necessary that some provision should be made to deal with them—there exists already in the statistical legislation and in the prices control certain machinery in that respect.
The machinery set up under Section 5 is for the purpose of obtaining certain information in order that the Industrial Development Authority may advise the Minister. Perhaps my observations on this section might more adequately be dealt with on the Committee Stage but I should like to say that, while I appreciate that it is necessary to give to the authority certain semi-judicial functions, at the same time they should not be given lightly. After all, it is the courts who have the power to summon witnesses, to swear them and to impose penalties for offences.
While we have already, as I said, under the Constitution, two semi-judicial tribunals of this kind, we should not give these powers lightly. After all, we know the names of the members of the authority: they are in the Bill. We are not concerned with them but we are concerned with permanent legislation. We are concerned, as legislators, with giving away something to another part of the system, namely, the Executive. We should not give these powers lightly. Secondly, we should not give them away without fully investigating what the possibilities are and what the reactions might be. They might be of such a character that they would do more harm than good to the objects which the Minister has in mind in this Bill. Roughly, Section 5 amounts to this, that any person can be summoned and any papers must be produced and the person so summoned must accept the obligation of taking the oath, of giving the evidence or a statement on oath, and failure to comply with either attending as a witness, being sworn as a witness or producing the necessary documents involves the particular person in an offence. If that is necessary and if the Minister's object cannot be achieved in any other way— as to which he has numerous advisers from all aspects—well then, there is nothing further that I can say on the subject because I have to bow to the position that it is necessary that this Bill should be framed in this way. However, I am mentioning the matter at this stage for the Minister's benefit and I should be glad if, before the Committee Stage, he would look into it so as to frame the section and the powers of the advisory body in a different way so as to give certain safeguards.
I do not wish to be taken as speaking with sympathy towards the industrialists who wish to evade their just obligations to the community. My point of view is that, where all things are equal and I have to come down on one side or the other, I would certainly come down on the side of agriculture as against industry. As an ordinary member of the Dáil, with the great respect which my legal training and my legal experience has imposed upon me, I feel that when you give to individuals certain rights which really belong to a constituted section of our general set-up, such as the judiciary, you must not give them with a light heart and you must not give them without ample safeguard to the members of the community. It is only necessary to emphasise two matters. I do not in any way intend to suggest that at any time any member of this body might act wrongly. However, there is a principle at stake. There might be a very important trade secret; there might be a chemical formula; there might be an improvement in machinery. That would be a trade secret.
There might be a particular method under which a particular firm is very successful in running its business efficiently. It may be that this Dáil or any Legislature would decide that these are matters which should become common property for the common good. What we would have to consider is this: are they of necessity matters which, if disclosed, would operate for the common good as against the rights of the particular individual? If we so decide—if the trade secret has to be disclosed—is anybody going to go to the expense of obtaining elsewhere a method of improving machinery or of improving ways of work in order to increase production, if having gone to all that expense and having benefited by that expense, he has to lay bare these particular secrets even though they are laid bare in the chambers only of the Industrial Advisory Authority? I realise that privilege can be pleaded with regard to these documents. However, I think that this is an innovation which goes very much further than anything contained in prices or statistical legislation.
While I have spoken perhaps with some force on the subject, I do so only in the interests of this particular Bill and with a desire to help the Minister, so far as I can, to bring forward a strong and genuine Bill for the purpose which I believe I share with him in regard to industry in this country.
My first reaction when I heard the announcement that this authority was being set up last year was strongly in favour of it. I felt that it would do good and that a similar authority should be established in regard to agriculture. However, the more I have considered the matter since and the more I consider it as applied to agriculture, the more I realise how dangerous such an authority might be. As the last speaker has pointed out, this is an entirely new innovation. We have on one side powers being given to this new authority which heretofore were exercised by the Minister and indirectly by this House. We have, on the other hand, powers being given to it which, up to this, were exercised mainly by the courts. Are we justified in transferring such far-reaching powers to this semi-independent body?
It is hard to understand what Government policy really is. In regard to agriculture, there was a consultative council in existence until the present Government was formed. That has been brushed aside and the Minister has decided to act without that body. In regard to lands, we see the Minister taking from the Land Commission the power which it formerly had on the ground that the Land Commission was too slow in acting. If we are to be logical, we must conclude that a body of this kind must, of its nature, be slow in acting and that the Government, therefore, in regard to industrial development is prepared to be satisfied with the slowest of slow motion.
I have listened very attentively to this debate and I have read that portion of it which I did not hear, but I have not either heard or read any very convincing arguments as to why this new body should be set up. We are all crying out to-day about the cost of bureaucracy and officialdom but here on this Bill we are to add a new branch of bureaucracy. We are proposing to establish a new board of highly-paid officers, the ordinary members having salaries of £2,000 a year, while the chairman will have a salary of £2,500. This authority will have around it and beneath it a large staff of officials. How much of their work will be overlapping the work of the Department of Industry and Commerce? How much more progress can a body of this kind be expected to make than the Minister himself within his Department? We all know, when it has to sit down, to plan, to investigate, to initiate and to consider proposals, how long it takes and how difficult it is to reach a decision. We have heard views expressed by various Deputies on the question of industrial development, demands on the part of some Deputies for the protection of private enterprise and the more insistent demands of other Deputies for a march forward towards the complete nationalisation of our main industry. We can rest assured that these questions will be fought out around the table of this Industrial Development Authority and, while they are being fought out, many industries may languish.
I was not favourably impressed by many of the arguments I have heard in favour of the establismment of this authority. It is going to be expensive and cumbersome and will slow down, rather than speed up, the work of industrial development. Since I came into the House I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of industrial development, though a farmer, and, of course, we know that many farmers are not favourably disposed towards industrial development. I have always looked at this matter logically. I have felt that no nation could exist unless it developed all its potentialities, both industrial and agricultural. I can see a danger in the personnel of this authority. I do not know any of the members of the board except one, but I do know that he is one of the ablest of the members of that body and he is, as we all know, a very advanced socialist. His ideas, we can rest assured, will be pressed forward very strongly within this body and to a great extent the Minister may be dragged along a line which he himself and many members of his Party would not wish to follow.
I think one of the best speeches delivered in this House in regard to this Bill was that delivered by the last speaker. He did very strongly stress the danger of too much probing into the ordinary work of private firms, too much probing by a body with power to compel witnesses to attend and to put them on oath, to search out secret and valuable information upon which a firm may have to depend for its very existence. If we are to protect private enterprise, we must be prepared to safeguard the interests of private firms who are competing against other firms. If we are not prepared to do that, we are taking a very rapid step towards complete socialisation or nationalisation of the whole industrial life of this country. For these reasons I feel that a good case has not been made for this Bill.
I was also very much impressed by the last speaker's views in regard to credit. There you are dealing with a matter in which the question of nationalisation does not arise because credit from the very outset was, and remained, a national function. I think much more valuable work would be done, if we are to have a new organisation in regard to new industry, if it were some sort of organisation to advance external trade and to enable manufacturers to combine to conquer external markets. In that particular line, there might be scope for organised action in industry, but the idea of transferring the Minister's functions to a body of this kind, which at the same time is taking over many of the functions that should in justice belong to the courts, appears to me to be going a little too far. I feel that this Bill is one of the most dangerous that has been introduced for some time, and I should like to endorse the note of warning sounded by Deputy Sir John Esmonde.
This debate has been very revealing as to the mentality behind the Bill because we find that there are conflicting points of view about it. We have, on the one hand, the attitude of mind expressed by the very elaborate functions of the Bill which will slow up the development of industries and we have, on the other hand, the approval of Deputy Connolly and Deputy Larkin who see in the powers given in the Bill a first excursion into the nationalisation of private industry. It is a very interesting example of the effect of coalition government which was foreseen by many authorities on the subject, including Professor Hogan, who, in his book on Election and Representation says:—
"A coalition is more often than not the outcome of hard bargaining between the competing interests and ambitions of various Parties. These elements of difference continue to condition the process of coalition government throughout all its phases."
Are we going to have a debate on the Coalition Government?
I am showing that this is a good example of the hard bargaining and the persistent different points of view composing the Coalition Government.
It does not seem to be relevant in respect of this measure.
We have the views expressed by people who stand for leftwing socialism and the attitude of a Party whose policy has been one of go-slow.
Would the Deputy mind referring me to the section he is discussing at the moment?
Go on with your speech. Do not mind referring to anything.
The first section sets out a roving commission into a kind of cloud-cuckoo land of investigation which could go on for ever and which represents the go-slow policy. Compare that then with the powers contained in Section 5 which are so very wide. These powers are not confined merely to questions of abuse which already exist, nor are they confined to industries established under the direct help of the Government or even through protective tariffs.
Which section is the Deputy against?
Under these powers, it is possible to search from top to bottom the whole of Guinness's brewery or Jacob's factory or any other industry in the country.
Did the Deputy ever read Section 18 of the Industrial Efficiency and Prices Bill of 1947?
I did, and it is confined absolutely——
No, word for word.
——to the Long Title of the Bill, to dealing with efficiency and with prices only. You could not under that Bill go out on a roving commission of inquiry into any industry in the country.
Or under this, either.
I was quoting these passages to show that there is a double mentality in this Bill. It is important that that should be stressed to show that all the authorities on the subject of coalition government point where it leads a country, because it is going to confuse the minds of those people in industry already and people who intend to start industries. Do you think anybody is going to start an industry, if he is to be subjected——
You are doing your best to see that he will not.
Do not be childish.
The Deputy is doing his best to see that he will not.
Do not be childish. The most childish arguments have been used in this debate.
It is our duty to point out the defects in Bills and to show the public what the natural consequences of Bills are. In relation to a Bill like this, which is framed in such a slapdash way, if we do nothing else, we will have the effect of inducing the Minister to bring in so many amendments to it that it will reassure the industrial community. When I was interrupted, I was quoting Professor Hogan, who says also:—
"It is not to be expected that a Coalition Government so constituted will be capable of achieving that unity of attitude...."
We cannot discuss the constitution of the Coalition Government on every Bill that comes up.
Am I not entitled to show ——
Will the Deputy allow me? The constitution of what he calls the Coalition Government cannot be discussed on every measure that comes up. Nothing that he has read from Professor Hogan's statement, which is probably valuable in its own way, has any bearing on this measure.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle allow me to complete the sentence?
I will allow the Deputy to complete the sentence but, so far, it has no relevancy whatever. Otherwise, we could discuss the constitution of the inter-Party Government on every measure that comes up here.
The rest of the sentence reads:
"Under no conditions whatever can it furnish the basis of effective, resolute, enterprising and single-minded Government, unless it is built around a Party which possesses in its own right a clear Parliamentary majority."
My point is that this Bill is just that type. It will not be effective, resolute, enterprising or represent a direct policy and, for that reason, in its present form at least, it will simply confuse the public and facilitate the people who want to pave the way for getting after what Ministers and others called before, the racketeers in industry. Individual enterprise in industry is regarded by a certain section as if it were all a racket and we heard a great deal of criticism from the Minister himself about inspectors who went into business premises. He used a phrase, which has become a classic, about pipsqueaks, but this is the pipsqueak business magnified one hundredfold. We have, therefore, the ironical situation of the Minister who condemned Government interference during the war, when it was necessary on account of the position with regard to supplies and so on, embodying in a permanent measure something which is an exaggeration of what he himself attacked.
It is a long time since the idea of industry in this country was started and, since that time, the movement has had a very up-and-down experience. I am very glad to see now that this House is united on the necessity for industrial development. It does not follow that I am in agreement with the method of developing it which is being adopted now. I am also very glad to notice that the Minister has changed his views somewhat on industry. Perhaps because of the many statements he has made about industrialists, his mind has become unduly suspicious and for that reason he is setting up under this Bill something which resembles an inquisition. To be candid, I do not think that under these conditions industry could prosper, especially where you intend to try to induce people with capital to invest their money in these industries. My experience of these men is that they are very capable people. They have their own money and they are going to make certain, if at all possible, that that money will not be lost.
Their idea in investing it is to try to get something out of it. Therefore anything that will frighten away the man with capital is most undesirable.
It is true, of course, that if we decide on adopting Deputy Hickey's system, it would be totally different. We would have the State then controlling these industries. Whether the experience in Great Britain recently is satisfactory or not, the last election did not prove it. Apart from that altogether, industry in Great Britain is not a thing that we should attempt to copy. I have never believed that in recent years there was any such thing in Great Britain as a free market. I could never understand that the people there had any opportunity of settling the price of anything. I believe that the price was fixed by manufacturers who were united and organised. If there is a big decline in industry in Britain, it is due to that and also to the fact that industry was overtaxed. I heard Deputy Hickey talking about the huge profits made by industrialists, possibly flour millers, during the war. It is clearly obvious that during the war they could not replace any machinery—there was none to be got—and it is fairly obvious that, if they had opportunities after the war, whatever profits they made would be utilised for the purchase of machinery.
The second thing that depressed and destroyed industry in Great Britain was obsolete machinery. Any of us who have studied industry in the United States of America will come to the conclusion that their output per man is the highest in the world. It is admitted there that that is due to the fact that they have modern machinery and they couple it with something else —the scientist—with the result that, during the last two wars, the United States of America has been the most self-contained country in the world. It is to-day almost 99 per cent. self-contained. I believe that, if we did not bother about this semi-judicial body, possibly a son of the old Tariff Commission, but spent the money in encouraging scientists and scientific development of industry, we would make far more rapid advances. I would suggest to the Minister to consider that very carefully and very seriously.
If we consider the position of rubber in the United States, we find they are actually exporting artificial — synthetic — rubber to-day, though in the first world war they had not even rubber. What good would industrial capital be if they had not got those scientists behind them to produce those commodities? Therefore, I say to the Minister that he would be far better advised to devote almost all this money to scientific development and leave the man with capital to decide what industry he is going to establish and where he is going to establish it. I do not see how you can get compulsory powers over any industrialist to establish factories just where we would like to have them. If he is not allowed to say where he is going to place his industry, if he is not allowed to control his own capital, he will not use that capital at all. The only alternative is complete control and complete nationalisation. It is possible that the Minister proposes to have that power. To my mind, reading up and studying industrial development in the different countries of the world, I find that the country which made most advances in industry was the United States of America and they did it because they depended largely on the scientific side.
Unless this Government considers that carefully and leaves aside this question of a semi-judicial court, with powers—I hope they do not use them— to inquire in detail into the affairs of industrialists and others, I am afraid they will have the effect of keeping capital and experienced industrialists away from us. Nothing attracts the experienced industrialist so much as a proper body of scientists who would examine and report to him on the raw materials. Most countries which have developed industry to-day do not believe in the old story we heard here so often: "How can you develop industry when you have not the raw material?" We read that in English newspapers and we heard Irishmen making those statements. We heard people here who were against industry making them in this House. I do not think there is a country in the world which has all the raw materials it wants, with the exception of the United States of America, which produced those raw materials, as I have said, with the aid of scientists. If we have any money to spend on industry, I suggest it should be spent on the scientific side instead of on this kind of body.
The Minister, to conclude.
It is rather notable in this long debate that, with the exception of the second last speaker, every member of every Party on this side of the House who spoke on this Bill described his reactions in practically the same words to the tone which had been set by Deputy Lemass's speech. Deputy Lemass sets out, when it suits him, to confuse and to bewilder. Listening to the last speaker, who seems to think that this is a Bill to nationalise industry——
No.
—— and to the previous speaker, who described it as the most dangerous Bill introduced here for a long time, one can measure to some extent how successful Deputy Lemass was in what he set out to do. I must confess that I find it hard to understand the Deputy Leader—or, shall I say, the Leader—of the Opposition. Here is a man who undoubtedly —and I, for one, have never been slow to admit it—played a very important part and a big part in the building up of Irish industry. Now for some evil purpose known to himself, he deliberately sets out, in so far as he can secure it, to bedevil the whole position. There is no 100 per cent. free trader inside or outside this House, there is no anti-Irish industrialist in this House or in this country, who could succeed in doing half the amount of damage to the future of Irish industry that Deputy Lemass and those who followed him parrot like have achieved in the last couple of days.
Deputy Lemass set out deliberately to create mischief. It was a speech full of malice, a speech designed deliberately to create uneasiness and unrest amongst the industrialists and business people of this country. There is no question whatever about that. It was a speech, also, which was directed, in so far as it could achieve it, to create a feeling of uneasiness and insecurity in the members of the Industrial Development Authority. There was a notice to quit issued by the Deputy, a warning that, whether this Industrial Development Authority was successful or not in its operation, if and when he returned to this side of the House, irrespective of how it was performing its duties, irrespective of how successful it was in developing and expanding Irish industry, it would be wiped out. Do Deputy Lemass and the Fianna Fáil Party believe in the expansion of Irish industry apart altogether from Party politics or are we to take it that they are only interested in it in so far as it would be developed under Fianna Fáil?
I said it was a malicious speech and a mischievous one. It was also an utterly dishonest speech from the first to the last word of it. The Deputy himself did not believe in one sentence that he uttered here. The Deputy and the Fianna Fáil Party are against this Industrial Development Authority because they know it is going to succeed. If they believed that it was going to slow up industry, if they believed it was going to hamper or cramp expansion in any way, then they would be in favour of it. The Deputies are sore and they are jealous because there has been more expansion in the last two years than in any previous period. We had a lot of cheap gibes about employment and emigration. There is more employment in this country to-day than there has been at any time since this State was founded. There are fewer unemployed in this country to-day than there have been at any time since this State was founded. No fewer than 24,000 additional persons have been put into industrial employment in the 24 months this Government has been in office.
What is Deputy Lemass's purpose in this campaign of his? This is the Deputy who, a few months ago, on more than one occasion, following my effort, such as it was, 12 months ago, to revive—shall I say?—the buy Irish campaign, described it as a phoney campaign, who denounced it.
The Minister had better quote what I said.
I am quoting the Deputy. Did he or did he not describe it as a dishonest, phoney campaign?
I said it was a phoney substitute for a policy.
Mind you, the Irish Press is not slow to cash in on the buy Irish campaign, through two pages of advertisements. They sent their travellers throughout the country to solicit advertisements for the Irish Press, to bring cash into its coffers.
I take it the Chair is allowing that?
It is a statement of fact.
What is the Deputy's point?
Do not try to bring in the Chair again.
Is the Chair ruling that the Minister's recent observation is in order?
Surely.
The Minister, as I understand it, has said that a certain newspaper has looked for advertisements.
I am asking you, having regard to your rulings in this debate, whether you consider that in order or not.
I do not see why the Chair should be called upon to rule on every statement made. If the Chair thinks a statement is disorderly, the Chair intervenes.
I am asking the Chair to rule. I submit it is disorderly.
How is it disorderly?
I submit that the reference which the Minister has made has no relation to the Bill and is, in any event, an attack upon a commercial institution in this House, with which this House has no concern.
I am making no attack.
I cannot see how it is an attack on any commercial institution.
I am not going to argue with the Chair. I am asking the Chair to rule upon a point of order.
I think the Minister is perfectly in order.
I see. It seems to me that ruling conflicts with other rulings given by the Chair to-day.
The Deputy always wants the rules his way. The Deputy is a very hard hitter himself but he is always prepared to squeal.
I hit above the belt.
This is not below the belt. Think what I have been subjected to here. I am simply saying this, that the Deputy in one capacity says one thing and in the other capacity does another thing. I leave it at that. Let me remind the Deputy of something else. The Deputy ranted here for an hour and a quarter. He ranted against the idea of the Industrial Development Authority or anybody else being asked to examine any application for a quota or tariff. Nobody but a person who wanted to slow up the development of industry would ask to have any such question examined beforehand. Would anybody think for a moment that this Deputy who objects to the question of a tariff or a quota or any other form of protection being referred for examination to an Irish board, set up by an Irish Parliament, was the Deputy who, in the 1938 Agreement, agreed that a prices commission, at the request of the British and on their initiative, should have the right to examine?
There were five industries left out.
At the request of the British and on the initiative of the British.
Did you object to it?
Of course, I objected to it.
Did you renew the agreement after four years?
Sit down. I will tell you all about that, if you have patience, but you have to take your medicine.
Tell the truth.
If the Deputy told the truth, I would have very little to trouble me and very little need to address this House at all on this matter. I am reminding the Deputy of that. At the request of the British they could be reviewed—they had to be reviewed—and, when he went to London in June, 1948, we found that the millstone around our neck was the 1938 Agreement.
That is nonsense.
It is not.
The agreement could be renounced then. It cannot be renounced now. It is you fastened it around your neck.
Do not get off on that track.
Is not that true? Did not the Minister confirm the agreement for four years?
He does not want to say that.
Have patience. The Deputy got one and a quarter hours.
I will come again.
I hope you will and I hope the Deputy will be a little nearer to the facts and the truth when he comes again than he was the last time. The initiative was with the British. That was one of the things we got settled in June, 1948. We got that taken away.
It was not taken away If it was, it was not reported to the Dáil.
We found that, under Article 1 of the 1938 Agreement, we could not get a single piece of industrial goods manufactured in this country into Britain.
Why did you renew the agreement?
I know that the Deputy or his Government never agreed to the British interpretation of that. Neither do we. But, perhaps, if the Deputy had been a little less inclined to rely entirely on his own infallibility and a little more inclined now and again to look for a bit of expert advice, that Article might not have been open to the doubt to which it, apparently, was open. It might have been a little less ambiguous, shall we say. In many cases we found that we could get no industrial goods in there at that time. We are getting quite a considerable amount in now. Do not let us hear any more about how undesirable, how repugnant it is to refer anything to an Industrial Development Authority set up by this House when we have already agreed to let the British do it for us.
I have been told that nothing which has taken place in the expansion, the increased production in industry and increased employment, nothing, not one particle, is due in any way to this Government, that a natural flow would have happened and, as one eloquent Deputy over there, I think Deputy Aiken, put it, if I had gone off for two years' holidays the thing would have flowed on. May I tell the House and Deputy Aiken, if he were here, of a few things that would not have flowed on? Let me mention three of our principal industries, footwear, woollens and worsteds and readymades. The Deputy wants to decide everything himself. He does not want any board of expert men to give him any advice whatever. He is fully competent to decide anything that comes before him and what is the result of that? When I went into the Department of Industry and Commerce early in 1948 I found, as a result of the ill-considered action of my predecessor in 1947, that several of the footwear factories of the country had closed down and that more were closing.
Name them.
That is ridiculous.
Name one.
I could name a dozen and Deputies behind Deputy Lemass can name them.
Will the Minister name one?
Do not try those cheap tricks. Not only were they closed down but several were on short time and workers by the 100 were being dismissed. They were being dismissed because Deputy Lemass in 1947 allowed 1,250,000 pairs of boots and shoes to be imported into this country. In the first half of 1948, by the Order running from January to June, the last Order he made, for a six-months' period and six months only, there were 625,000 pairs; there were 1,250,000 singles. I reduced that for the second half of 1948 from 625,000 pairs to 150,000 pairs and for the following quota, the first half of 1949, 200,000 pairs; for the second half of 1949 25,000 pairs and the quota I fixed for the first half of this year is 10,000 pairs, that is, 20,000 for the year as against 1,250,000. The result is that the footwear industry in this country is to-day in receipt of a greater measure of protection than ever it received since this State was established, the Irish market is being met to a greater extent from the Irish factories than ever before and more people are in full-time employment than ever before. No fewer than 6,000 persons are employed.
I come now to the woollen and worsted industry, one of our oldest industries. The form of protection conceived without the sort of expert advice which I hope will be at my disposal when this Bill becomes law, was so haphazard and so full of loopholes that the whole future of that industry was threatened. People who wanted to send their products in here were able to send them in through the loopholes which were left there. I had the matter examined. There was considerable unemployment and very large numbers of men were being laid off in the woollen and worsted industry. I gave them the measure of protection which they enjoy to-day, a greater amount of protection than the Irish woollen and worsted industry ever had. It is working to full capacity to-day and they are increasing output as rapidly as they possibly can. There are more people employed in the woollen and worsted industry than ever before. They are working up and will be in a comparatively short time in the position when an additional 4,000 persons will be employed. These are two of our important industries, yet we have done nothing; I might as well have gone on holidays and it would have flowed on.
The Deputy himself knows what happened in the ready-made industry, another of our big industries in this country. Again acting entirely without experienced expert advice, in 1947 the whole of the duty was suspended. Then, of course, towards the end of the year when a general election was in the offing, the duties were partially restored. Still, however, it left them in such a position that they were beaten to the wall by imports. Again, that matter was examined and gone into very carefully and they were given a measure of protection that has given them an opportunity of meeting whatever competition is there. Those are three matters which I wanted to mention.
I have mentioned that according to estimated figures, in 1948 as against 1947, 11,000 additional persons were put into industrial employment and the provisional figures for 1949 over 1948 show approximately 13,000, making a total of 24,000 inside two years, and let me say that the advance in this year, from all the signs and information at my disposal, will be far greater.
Why examine these things at all beforehand? There is no necessary; act first and carry out your examination afterwards. That is the Deputy's policy and that is the policy they will have if they come back here again. In the same speech he tells me that there is no use in my saying if there is an abuse by people of protection or a tariff that I will take it away. He says that I cannot take it away, that I dare not take it away. Is that an argument for examination before or after, if it were true? If anything is required, however, to show the absurdity of the system which the Deputy operated, it is this: The Department was issuing— and we are still issuing because of what we inherited—licences for duty-free imports in respect of goods that are supposed to be manufactured in this country, licences at the rate of 1,000 per week. Is there any greater condemnation than that of the policy which the Deputy has enunciated and which he proposes to return to if he ever gets the chance?
Deputy Lemass made a statement here on Thursday last and I do not think I ever heard a statement like it made before in this House, so far as I can recollect. That statement was that he was giving due notice that this authority would be abolished if and when he was in a position to do so. He is perfectly entitled to say that, but if that is to be carried out to its logical conclusion, I wonder where government in this country is going to end, and I wonder would government in this country be possible at all or would we achieve anything? However, I have no fears on that point, for two reasons. One reason is that I do not believe Deputy Lemass will do any such thing because, if he were to express his real mind on this, he would express his belief in the rightness of the proposal that I have put before the House.
There are very few people in this country who realise what a valuable contribution this board can make to the expansion of industry. That is one reason. The other reason is—and I think the Deputy knows it also—that the Fianna Fáil Party will never again sit on this side of the House.
I have been challenged—and, of course, it is easy to do that—to justify this board. Deputies have stated that they know nothing about its activities and they have no idea what it has been doing. I accept that from some of them, but from others I do not, because they do know. I have been challenged on it by Deputy Lemass. He knows I could not give a full picture, but I can say this—and in saying it I am in no way reflecting on the excellent staff in the industries branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce—that applications are being dealt with more speedily now than ever it was possible to deal with them before, with far greater expedition than ever it was possible to deal with them before, because this board is not subject to Civil Service regulations and to Civil Service procedure—regulations and procedure that the officials in the Department of Industry and Commerce were, and had to be, subject to. This Industrial Authority do things and can get things done; they can make inquiries and give assistance that no Civil Service could give.
That is a good argument in favour of abolishing the Civil Service.
That is a most profound observation. I am prepared, if Deputy Lemass is sufficiently interested, to place everything relating to this matter at the Deputy's disposal for his information—to give him a full picture of the work which they have been doing. They have had in ten months over 250 industrial proposals, many of them, I grant you, small, some of them very small, some of them pretty big, a few of them very big. One proposal was a very big one, a very important one for this country, concerning a commodity for which, up to the moment, we have been entirely dependent upon outside supplies. That proposal has been under consideration for some considerable time. I know of my own personal knowledge—and again I am prepared to place it at the disposal of Deputy Lemass—that if it were not for the Industrial Development Authority that particular industry would not come to this country, would not be established here. There are many others, and I know they have been able to give very valuable advice to existing manufacturers.
Of the 250 proposals which have been submitted to them, or which they themselves have initiated in some cases over the past ten months, they were of both a new and expansionist nature. Some dealt with new projects and some were an expansion of existing ones. I say this quite honestly to the House, that this Industrial Development Authority has proved far more successful and infinitely more useful in the development of Irish industry than even I anticipated—far more—and let me assure the House of this—and I would like some members, at least, would accept my word for it—that there is only one reason for setting them up, and that is to speed up the development of Irish industry, to cut out whatever unnecessary delays there were, to remove as far as possible whatever barriers or restrictions could be removed, and it was in order that they could work in a speedy way that they were given the measure of authority that they are given and relieved of all this red tape.
Let me give my word to the House that when that board met for the first time the only direction, the only instruction, that they got from me was to expand Irish industry as speedily as they possibly could and that every proposal put before them was to be looked at from the point of view of seeing whether it was possible to give effect to it and to have that particular project started in this country. There was one other instruction they got and that was that as far as it was humanly possible for them to do it they were to use every effort in their power to divert industries, potential manufacturers, away from the heavily populated areas into the rural areas. Let me assure Deputy Kissane that the Gaeltacht areas were not forgotten and will not be forgotten.
Let me say to the House also that visiting factories and seeing factories for themselves and enabling members of staffs to see factories for the first time themselves and not merely have to deal with them entirely from files, has some great value.
I am terribly sorry that Deputy Cogan was misled in the way that he has been misled. Let me say that it is a complete misconception, if not a complete misrepresentation, to talk of the Minister transferring his powers or of the Minister surrendering his powers. The Minister is not transferring or surrendering any function which he has at the present moment. The Minister is choosing a different type of organisation to examine and advise him. Deputy Lemass, surely, will agree that he had to have proposals examined in the Department, and that he had to be advised on them.
That is not what the Minister said when introducing the Bill.
If I made any slip when introducing the Bill, the Deputy knows that what I am now saying is quite right, and nobody in this House, or outside of it, knows that better than the Deputy. That is what annoys me about Deputy Lemass. I can understand Deputies, and I can make allowances for them, making mistakes because, naturally, they cannot be expected to understand these things as well as a man who was in office for 16 years.
There was no slip about what the Minister said in introducing the Bill.
Tell me what I did say. However, I am making it quite clear now. Let me make this clear, too—I am not going to follow the Deputy in some of the cheap sneers he made about myself and my speech— that if the Deputy had, and still has, the desire to retain all the power, privilege and patronage of having everything entirely in his own hands, I have no desire to do so, none whatever.
The Minister cannot surrender these powers without depriving the Dáil of them.
I am not surrendering any powers, and the Deputy knows that. The Deputy ought not to be trying to mislead the House and the country on this.
The Minister must be trying to mislead the House because that is what he said.
That sort of a cheap thing is not worthy of a man who occupied a ministerial post in this country for 16 years.
Will you read what you said yourself?
It would do the Deputy a lot more good—he has the Official Report before him—to go back and read what he said himself.
I have read what the Minister said.
The Deputy, unfortunately, is not prepared to absorb it. I do not want to travel any further on this matter. There are many other points to which I could refer, and there were many other statements made which I could demolish without the slightest difficulty. I am not going to be dragged into the turf industry on this occasion or into mineral exploration. We can have all that again. I do not want to have this issue that is before us clouded or confused.
Again, I want to remind the House of what I said on the Second Reading when introducing this Bill. I think it outlines the purpose of the Bill and it outlines the Government's desire. I think, too, it shows the necessity for the Bill if there is any necessity to show that. Having dealt with development so far, I said:—
"There is still a wide field for further industrial activity, but it is one in which there is need at Government level for assisting and supplementing the efforts of private enterprise, firstly, by careful research and planning so that it may be determined by reference to national as well as to individual interests what precisely remains to be done and how and where it may best be done, and secondly, by taking the necessary step, to ensure that developments regarded as necessary or desirable will be undertaken and carried out.
"In this task of formidable proportions and of paramount national importance, the Government have felt the need for a specialised autonomous organisation. They have, therefore, set up the Industrial Development Authority to advise and assist the Government in the intensification of industrial development on the best possible lines; the primary purpose of this Bill is to give statutory effect to the Government's action.
"The Government appointed four members of the authority, and have selected those members because of their wide knowledge and long practical experience of industrial affairs, and of their contacts with industrialists, with traders, with workers, and with financial and professional organisations closely connected with industry. To these members the Government have given that degree of freedom which they consider essential to the effective discharge of the functions of the authority. The members will not be civil servants, neither will they be subject to Civil Service regulations or procedure."
That is very clear. Let me say, with all the authority which attaches to the position I occupy at the moment, in an effort to counter to some extent the damage which has been done by Deputy Lemass's speech and by the speeches made by his colleagues—if it is any consolation to them I make them a present of it that they have done a certain amount of damage unfortunately—that, speaking as Minister for Industry and Commerce, no industrialist, existing or potential, need have the slightest fear of starting industry in this country. There is no country to-day whose credit is higher than the credit of this country; there is no country to-day on the face of the earth where there is more peace and tranquility; there is no country on the face of the earth freer from military and industrial upheavals than this country; there is no country that has a better type of worker available to be trained and to take his part in industrial expansion than this country has, and there is no industrialist whatever his class or creed or his nationality—in regard to nationality provided he complies with the laws of the country—who need have the slightest fear that he is going to be victimised in the slightest by this Government or is going to be treated in any way unfairly. There is no industrialist who need have the fear that he will not be allowed to earn and pay a reasonable dividend on the money which he invests in industry in this country. Has the Deputy any comment to make on that?
No.
I beg your pardon. I am dealing at the moment with what is not a Party matter but a national matter. We are dealing here with a Bill that is going to have a very big effect on the whole future economic life of this country. Nowhere as I say, so far as I know, are conditions so favourable to the creation, expansion and development of industry as they are in this country to-day. So far as I know, nowhere is there a Government and a Parliament so ready to give every possible assistance in their power to any should project brought before them. Let us forget about trying to score petty points, about going back into the past, about allegations as to what Fine Gael was or what Fine Gael did or did not do, or attempting to compare this with the Tariff Commission. I am not going to go into that. I could meet and controvert a lot of the points made from the other side, but I do not want to do so. What I do want to assert is— and this is of importance to the economic and industrial future of the country and to the livelihood of a great many people, which is much more important—that this Government and any other Government which is likely to follow it in the foreseeable future will be one favourable to industrial expansion. That is what we want to get across to people. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is going beyond any legitimate Party tactics to try to use this Bill or any other Bill of this kind to suggest that, if there is a Government other than a Fianna Fáil Government, the industrialist and his industry and his investment are in jeopardy. That is not politics. I refrain from giving it the name that it deserves.
I have no hesitation whatever in recommending this Bill to the House. I am proud to have had the opportunity of bringing such a Bill before the House and I shall be very proud to see it carried through the House. I am perfectly satisfied of this, and I give them this credit, that if, by any miracle, Fianna Fáil ever again find themselves on this side of the House, they will take this Industrial Development Authority for what it is and what it is intended to be—the spearhead of industrial expansion in this country. That authority has done great work in ten months and it will do far greater work. I hope that in that work it will have the assistance, the support and the co-operation, not merely of the Government and those on this side of the House, but of all members of the House and of the people of the country as well.
Question put.
The Dáil divided Tá, 70; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?
I will put it on provisionally for this day fortnight. If there is any objection, we need not take it on that day.
Agreed to take Committee Stage on Tuesday, 28th March.