Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Dec 1956

Vol. 160 No. 15

Industrial Grants Bill, 1956—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. McQuillan

This measure has come to me as something in the nature of a shock. I do not think it will be challenged that I am always prepared to welcome any progressive measure that will increase our output in agriculture and industry, but for the life of me I cannot see how a measure such as this will have any bearing whatever on increasing our industrial output and consequently have an effect on our economy as a whole. To my mind this measure was conceived in a panic, and if proof of that statement were needed, it is to be found in the Taoiseach's replies to two questions on to-day's Order Paper from Deputies O'Malley and MacBride.

The Minister's aim is to increase industrial production throughout the State. I maintain that the main result of this Bill will be to kill any industrial initiative that has been apparent in the West of Ireland. When the Undeveloped Areas Bill came before the House in 1951 I welcomed it, although I described it at the time as an inadequate measure, unfit and incapable of dealing with the problems in the West. At the same time I welcomed it, as did most Deputies, on the basis that it was a step in the right direction and, in so far as it would give employment and induce industrialists into the western areas, it was to be welcomed by the House.

This Bill is a deliberately thoughtout attempt to sabotage the Undeveloped Areas Act. That is very strong language to use. Through the use of quotations I propose to bring it home to the House that, if it is not a panic measure, then it was thought out for the purpose of sabotaging the provisions of an Act already in operation and doing a certain amount of good in the West. The Minister can have whichever interpretation he likes.

When this other measure came before the House there was nothing but jealousy and envy displayed on the part of Deputies, particularly Labour Deputies, at the terms of that Bill. I was horrified to find the Minister himself, Deputy Corish, as he was then, Deputy Desmond and other Deputies criticising the Undeveloped Areas Bill although that Bill was designed to help the West of Ireland which is a neglected area. For years a number of Deputies from the West had been pressing that some measure be brought in to deal with the special problems existing there. I will not say that the Undeveloped Areas Act was an answer to their prayers but at any rate it was an indication on the part of the Government that these special problems did obtain there and legislation was introduced for the purpose of remedying them as far as possible.

Mr. O'Leary

Did it do any good?

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Norton thought that the measures that were being introduced for the West at the time were of no benefit, that no extra employment would be given as a result of those measures. Deputy Norton is on record as stating:

"The West is mainly a trading and pastoral area."

It is quite evident that he is of the opinion that the West is an aboriginal country where the natives trade skins and live by moving sheep from the mountains to the plains. He describes it as "a trading and pastoral area." He said, at column 900, Volume 128 of the Official Report:—

"...and it will be extremely difficult to induce the ordinary private person to establish industries in the West, even with the facilities provided in this particular section."

He was referring to the Undeveloped Areas Bill. Deputy Norton, now Minister for Industry and Commerce, went on to say in the same debate:—

"Our main desire is to ensure that the Bill is utilised to the fullest extent as a means of planting industries in the West. ...We in the Labour Party seek to supplement private enterprise by State activities. We believe that a combination of both will give the West more industries than they will get by a reliance on private enterprise alone."

That quotation is from a speech made by Deputy Norton in support of an amendment introduced by Deputy Desmond in which Deputy Desmond sought, not alone to give grants to industrialists in the West to set up factories, but sought from this House power to be granted to the Industrial Development Authority so that that body itself could set up factories and start industries going. In other words, they were not content with the measure as introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Lemass, but they wanted to improve it by making sure that the State would have power to start the industries through the organisation that was to be set up by the Industrial Development Authority if private enterprise did not come forward.

Mr. Norton

Has the Deputy a copy of my speech on that occasion?

Mr. McQuillan

I am quoting it.

Mr. Norton

Would the Deputy mind quoting the first sentence and the last sentence of it to see what my sentiments on the Bill were?

Mr. McQuillan

I am quoting the Minister's remarks on the amendment moved by Deputy Desmond.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is distorting remarks.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not.

Mr. Norton

Look at my Second Reading speech—the first sentence and the last sentence.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not wish to distort. Let me be quite clear on this.

Mr. Norton

I will correct it in any case. It does not matter.

Mr. McQuillan

If the Minister feels that I am putting a wrong slant on his speech, I shall be delighted if he will show me where and how I am doing so.

Mr. Norton

Cut and thrust on a Bill is one thing; the overall stand of a Deputy is another matter.

Mr. McQuillan

I am quoting from column 920 of Volume 128. There is no cut and thrust there. The Minister was giving his views, on the amendment that Deputy Desmond put down, on the West of Ireland.

Mr. Norton

Can I quote this for the Deputy?—

"If the real purpose of this Bill is to improve the economic and social conditions of those of our people who reside on the Atlantic seaboard then I welcome it as a move in the right direction."

Make the best you can of that.

Mr. McQuillan

I accept that the Minister said that. I do not deny that that is on the records of the House but I am quoting what the Minister said. According to him and his colleague, Deputy Desmond, the powers in the Bill were not sufficient to give the necessary industrial drive in the West and, consequently, he and Deputy Desmond felt that it was necessary to introduce amendments to that Bill in the hope that the measure would be improved. That amendment by Deputy Desmond was not accepted.

The fact of the matter is that a certain amount of good was done by the Undeveloped Areas Act and the Minister himself was the first to admit it in this House in the last few weeks when he pointed out, in an answer to some Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches, that under the inter-Party Government more money was spent in the West of Ireland under the Undeveloped Areas Act than was ever spent under Fianna Fáil. Therefore, the Minister must have an idea that the Act was doing good. He felt some interest in it when he went down on a few occasions, one in particular, to Sligo, to the opening of a factory the establishment of which was helped by a substantial grant from An Foras Tionscal. Therefore, the Act was doing good. I wonder how many new factories will be established in the West of Ireland as a result of this Bill.

The Minister is anxious to point out that he wanted the Bill to be a success. I want to put on the records of the House that Deputy Corish's interjection on the Bill that was introduced to help the West was:—

"This Bill should be entitled ‘To Hell or to Connacht'."

If that does not display envy that Connacht was getting something that Deputy Corish's part of the country was not getting, I do not know what it portrays.

Of course, Deputy Dillon at the time had the view that the Undeveloped Areas Bill was all wrong for the West and that all that should be given to any new industrial project was a loan, that the people who were looking for help should get loans, not grants. If that was his view at that time in connection with the West of Ireland, which needed special treatment, how can he reconcile it with the fact that, to-day, when he is a Minister, his colleague introduces legislation that will enable industrialists all over Leinster, in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere, to get substantial grants, in spite of the opposition displayed by Deputy Dillon to the Undeveloped Areas Bill, when he suggested that only interest-free loans should be made available to anyone who wished to start an industry in the West?

The whole situation shows how little thought has been given by the Cabinet as a whole to the implications of this measure. I shall not bore the House by quoting what Deputy Dillon said at the time.

I should like to say to Deputies whose areas were not included in the Undeveloped Areas Act that, in no circumstances, do I begrudge the fact that substantial aid will be given to these localities. I do not want to be misrepresented on that. I know now— it is not just a suspicion; it is a conviction—that this measure, if it passes through this House, will have a serious detrimental effect on development in the West of Ireland. I do not believe that the Deputies from the other provinces would like to see that happening as a result of legislation here. Deputy Carew in a very reasonable contribution to this debate pointed out that places like Limerick will be entitled to get substantial grants for the establishment of new industries. He said that he himself is a director of an industry and he pointed out that under the terms of this Bill in relation to a project which would cost £75,000 in Limerick, up to £50,000 would now be made available as a State grant towards the establishment of such a project.

Let us compare that situation with what is happening in the West. Let us take any small town in the province of Connacht where the people are miles from the seaboard, where conditions are poor, where unemployment is rife, where the technical know-how is nil. Let us see how they stand in relation to grants. Supposing an industrial project was mooted for the town of Castlerea, a project costing £75,000 like the one Deputy Carew spoke of, the fact of the matter is that the greatest amount of money that would be made available by way of State grant to establish that industry would be 50 per cent. of £75,000.

The Minister may say that under the provision of the Undeveloped Areas Act it is possible to give more. I am putting it on record now that the maximum grant given in any case in the West of Ireland to a new industry has been not more than 50 per cent. A project, therefore, starting in Castlerea at a cost of £75,000 would receive a maximum grant of £37,500 while, in Limerick, according to Deputy Carew, under the Minister's new Bill, the maximum grant will in future be £50,000. Where is there any incentive to an industrialist or to a group of industrialists to start a new industry in the West? Is it not a fact that, with the grants now being made available, every industrialist will, if he can possibly manage it, move into Dublin? There is no incentive to him under this measure to get away from Dublin. He will not get a penny more by taking his industry away from Dublin.

Over the last 15 years we have heard this Minister and that Minister and the other Minister preaching about the desirability of decentralisation and the necessity for getting industries established away from the City of Dublin because Dublin is regarded as being top-heavy. The effect of this legislation will be to entice industry away from the West and the South, and elsewhere, and induce it into Dublin City. Deputy Lemass said that he was prepared to give the Minister this Bill. I cannot stop the Minister getting the Bill but I appeal now to the 24 other Deputies from the West of Ireland and the congested areas. I ask them seriously will they let this legislation through? Will they permit legislation to be passed which will undo the benefits that have been conferred on the West under the Undeveloped Areas Act? For years, the West has been neglected by all the political Parties. For years Deputies have fought to get special measures through this House to stem emigration and yet, when emigration is at its highest and unemployment is rife, we have legislation introduced here which will have the effect of drawing industry away from the West. Will the 24 other Deputies from the West be a party to such legislation?

In case those Deputies from the West are under any misapprehension may I point out to them that the purpose of the Undeveloped Areas Act was "to ensure that industrial enterprise in the West will be at no disadvantage in competition with similar enterprise in the East"? That Act brought a certain amount of benefit to the West. It would have brought more as time went on. Is it not a fact that if grants up to 50 per cent. of the cost are now made available in the East that will have the effect that industry in the West will start at a disadvantage, if it starts at all? This is not a Party matter. This is not a matter of Fianna Fáil versus Fine Gael. It is a matter on which the Deputies from the West, members of all Parties in this House, should get together to ensure that the Minister will take the necessary steps to safeguard the good work that has been done up to the present in the West.

If the Minister is prepared to say at this stage that he will safeguard the Undeveloped Areas Act by extending the grants and making them 75 per cent. minimum now, thereby ensuring that the inducement to the East will no longer prevail, I will be prepared to agree that his intention is not to do harm to the West of Ireland. Even if it is his intention to do the best he can under this Bill, he will do harm to the West if——

Mr. Norton

Does the Deputy know that under the Undeveloped Areas Act power is vested in the statutory body to give grants of 100 per cent. for factory buildings and, in fact, 100 per cent. grants have been given?

Mr. McQuillan

I want the Minister to know that so far as the Undeveloped Areas Act is concerned, up to 50 per cent. of the total cost is given. Grants have been given of 70 per cent. for specific purposes.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is wrong.

Mr. McQuillan

It is the Minister who is wrong. The grants are on the basis of the construction of the building, the cost of machinery and the cost of training staff. The Minister knows perfectly well that the grant is worked out on that basis. I have been present on a number of occasions with An Foras Tionscal to argue out the pros and cons of what the grant should be. In relation to other projects, I made very careful inquiries and I have found that in no case did the Minister give grants——

Mr. Norton

The Minister does not give them at all.

Mr. McQuillan

They are given by An Foras Tionscal on his behalf. No grant was given that amounted to 100 per cent. of the cost of the project. I am not aware of any such grants and I would like if the Minister would give us some information when he is replying to this debate if such grants were given in the West of Ireland.

Twelve months ago I asked the Minister, in a parliamentary question, if he was aware of the conditions in Roscommon, Castlerea and Boyle and if he was prepared to bring in legislation to enable the Industrial Development Authority to do something for these towns. His reply was that, as far as he was concerned, any development committees in these towns should send on to him or to An Foras Tionscal particulars as regards sites, money available and employment conditions. He said that if any suitable project to meet conditions in these towns was put he would pass such project on to the towns. That was the position 12 months ago. These towns found it hard enough at that stage to get any industrial projects. I ask the Minister what chance will they have of getting an industry now when a man in the City of Dublin can get 50 per cent. of the cost of a project? Is such a man going to bother to go down to Roscommon, Mayo or Galway to start an industry when he can get 50 per cent. of the cost to start one in Dublin?

Mr. S. Lemass

Two-thirds of the cost.

Mr. McQuillan

I am sorry, two-thirds of the cost of starting it in Dublin. The situation is fantastic and I only hope that Deputies from Roscommon, Leitrim, Mayo, Sligo, Donegal and Kerry will awaken to the fact, before this measure has gone through the House, of the damage that is being done to the congested and undeveloped areas. We have had a lot of talk and ballyhoo about saving the Gaeltacht. A new Minister has been appointed within the last few months to ensure that the language will be preserved by taking the necessary steps in the industrial and economic sphere. The first thing that a colleague of that new Minister does is to give facilities to the East of Ireland that are at least as attractive to industrialists as those that have been given in the West.

I do not see how the Government can reconcile their anxiety about conditions in the West of Ireland and their desire to stop emigration with the introduction of a measure such as this. Are they prepared to say that they have no policy for the West and that they would prefer to see industrial development taking place around Dublin? They should let us know if that is so. It might not be a bad policy, but let us know if it is the policy of the Government. My personal belief is that if a man can get employment within the State, even if it is not in his own town and even if he has to go 100 miles to another town to get it, he would be better off to get it in Ireland than to have to go abroad. I want to know if there is any kind of prepared plan thought out by the Government as to how industrial development is to take place.

This measure has been popped in here to the House and the implications of it are those that I have pointed out. Whatever good was done under the Undeveloped Areas Act is now finished. This present Bill cancels out the Undeveloped Areas Act. I hope that Deputies from the West of Ireland will intervene in this debate to ensure that, so far as it lies within their power, the Minister will take alternative steps by the introduction of some new measure or measures, to counteract the effect that this Bill will have on the West as a whole.

Major de Valera

There is only one small point that I would like to make in regard to this Bill and I think that it has been made already. In the form in which the Bill is, it will undoubtedly have the effect mentioned by previous speakers. Is the Bill the best method for the promotion of industrial activity? It does not strike me as being the best method particularly in certain areas. Rather does it strike me as being the reverse.

Deputy McQuillan has exercised himself with regard to the detrimental effect of this Bill on western areas and perhaps by implication he suggests that the Leinster areas would correspondingly benefit. I think there is an awful lot in what has been said about the damage that will be done to the West but, as far as I can see, there will be no compensating advantage to the East. The giving of grants without some specific and substantial reason must have a stifling effect on enterprise in the industrial sphere. What it will boil down to is that nobody will start a business or an industrial concern in the areas which Deputy McQuillan thought would benefit unless they get a grant.

When it comes to administering legislation of this nature there will be a lot of heart searching with regard to the provision of grants. In respect of the undeveloped areas you have specific circumstances which would justify the provision of grants, but in the eastern areas people are going to fall back on the grants and there will be no use of their own initiative. Will the Minister be prepared to give grants on such a generous scale that there will be no inhibitions arising from that? Quite apart altogether from the record of the Tánaiste and his Government with regard to delaying tactics in the provision of grants, can you visualise any Government that would be prepared to rubber stamp the issue of loans such as is visualised here?

On the other hand, the fact that certain loans are available will become a sine qua non in the development of industry. People applying for these loans will find themselves sewn up in the administrative details. People who might quite legitimately consider that there is an opening for them will now have to ask themselves whether they qualify for a grant and, if they do not qualify, will a grant be given to somebody else in a comparable position which would render their own project uneconomic. I agree with the people who say that this Bill seems to be a rather ill-conceived piece of legislation. I think the interpretation put on it by Deputy Lemass in his opening statement, reported at column 1944, Volume 160 of the Official Report, is the only possible interpretation.

Be that as it may, as the matter has been so thoroughly ventilated, all I will say is that this does not seem to be a well-thought-out scheme. It will suffer from many of the disadvantages mentioned by Deputy McQuillan. Instead of being a help, it may very well prove to be a hindrance. What is fundamentally lacking is the failure to appreciate that the procedure adopted on former occasions is not, for certain vital reasons, generally applicable in the simple form in which it would apply to this Bill. Quotations and references to the Undeveloped Areas Act can be applied to the general background of this Bill only with a certain amount of discrimination. I think there is not an awful lot to commend this effort, and apart from commendation, which is beside the point, I have very grave doubts whether this type of legislation will prove of great benefit in the promotion of industrial activity here.

Mr. James Tully

I have listened to the debate on this measure and while I can see the point of view of Deputy McQuillan and of others like him from the West, I think it would be only fair they should consider what has been the position heretofore. From time to time all of us have taken deputations to the Department of Industry and Commerce consisting of people who were anxious to start industries here. We have had the galling experience of somebody pointing out a blue area on a map and saying: "If you are prepared to start there, you will get substantial grants but, if you do not, you will get nothing."

I have great sympathy for the people of the West, although sympathy is of very little use to them. However, as Deputy McQuillan and other Deputies from the West of Ireland know, people from the West have been getting their share and, in my opinion, more than their share over the years. They have been given preference in this, that and the other. My own constituency has a grouse over land division because they see people from the West getting preference there too.

I think it is only fair that the people who live in areas outside the congested districts should get a chance; I feel that when industrialists come along they should be given some opportunity of starting new industries in areas other than the West if they so desire. The law as it stands gives quite a substantial advantage to the congested districts. The people who want to take advantage of the benefits available in the West can still do so. There will be plenty of people who will be willing to take advantage of the benefits that exist.

At the same time, I think there is no reason at all why something should not be done to encourage industries in areas such as that in which I live, not talking at all about Dublin City. From time to time all of us representing country constituencies have complained about industries starting in Dublin. We have overlooked the fact that one-fifth of the country's population live in Dublin at the present time, a great many of them unemployed. Nobody would begrudge those people an opportunity of getting a day's work if it could be provided for them.

Possibly when this Bill becomes law, we shall find an influx of people anxious to start industries. One section of the Bill lays down that the type of industry to be started must be one not at present in operation in the country.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I think only industries of a new type will be considered. I would appeal to the Minister that, when the Bill becomes law, if people come along asking for facilities to start industries they should get early attention. I know quite well the people in the Department of Industry and Commerce are up to their eyes in routine work. I will not propose there should be another Minister appointed for the purpose of looking after new industries, but I think we could get rid of a great deal of the red tape, the green tape, or any other colour tape so that people who are anxious to start new industries would be able to do so with the minimum of delay.

When an industrialist makes an application there are long delays because inquiries of all sorts have to be made in various parts of the world. Those people are left kicking their heels for long periods. I am not blaming the Minister or the Department, but that has been the practice down through the years, not alone in our Department of Industry and Commerce but in similar Departments throughout the world. There is this system of taking things easy in the hope that to-morrow they would appear in a different light. I think that in this Bill the Minister has taken a step which will make a general improvement in industrial development. I would appeal to him that, when the Bill becomes law, applications for the establishment of new industries would be dealt with as quickly as possible. If there is an unavoidable delay people should be told the reason for the delay and the soonest possible time they can expect a definite decision.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

I think there has been a good deal of misconception in connection with this Bill. It is hard to imagine, if Deputy McQuillan read the provisions of the Undeveloped Areas Act, that he could be guilty of so many misrepresentations in his attempt to describe what the Act does. As far as the Undeveloped Areas Act is concerned, I think I am entitled to clear up some misrepresentations, or attempted misrepresentations, of my position in connection with that Bill when it was discussed in the House. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, as reported at column 492 of the Official Report for December 6th, 1951, I said:—

"If the real purpose of this Bill is to improve the economic and social conditions of those of our people who reside on the Atlantic seaboard, then I welcome it as a move in the right direction. The problem along the Atlantic seaboard is a very old problem. It is deep-seated and widespread. Generations of oppression, generations of neglect, poor land, shallow land and no industries have given us the problem of the western seaboard as we know it to-day."

Anybody who cares to follow my speech through will see it was one of support for the Bill, expressing here and there doubts as to whether or not it would succeed in producing any miracle changes as far as the West was concerned. I concluded with this statement:—

"In so far as this Bill will make a contribution to relieving that situation, to improving the social and economic conditions of the people along the western seaboard I most heartily welcome it in so far as it makes that genuine effort. I would be prepared to make all the money necessary even in excess of £2,000,000 available to the board realising that we are expecting the board to undo in a relatively short time all the neglect and to reverse the process which has been in operation for generations.

"As I said at the outset, I do not think there is any one solution to the problem there. I think substantial alleviation should be found and will be found by getting a number of agents to co-operate to relieve the problem. But the problem is there and I think everybody concerned with relieving it and relieving the plight of these people will welcome a Bill of this kind especially if it is used as a genuine effort to face up to a problem which is a challenge to the existence of this House."

In face of those two obviously enthusiastic statements in support of the Undeveloped Areas Bill, Deputy McQuillan sets himself the task of trying to prove that I was opposed to that measure. He carefully omits those two quotations and tries to give the impression that this is a method now of wreaking a vengeance which did not exist on the Undeveloped Areas Bill. Every fair-minded Deputy will agree that I supported that Bill realistically and in terms which did not permit of any misunderstanding of my position.

So far as the implementing of the Undeveloped Areas Act is concerned, I think my record in this field is a pretty creditable one. Let me give the House some information. In the year 1952-53—I shall take even thousands of pounds for convenience—approval was given for £104,000; in 1953-54, £129,000; in 1954-55, to June, 1954, £140,000. This makes a total for these two and a half years of £375,000. This Government came into office then. From the 2nd June, 1954, to the end of that year it made available £79,000. In the year 1955-56, it made available £301,000. In the year 1956-57 to the 3rd December, 1956, it made available £517,000.

If you want to make a calculation so far as approvals are concerned, in the period 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, up to the 2nd June, 1954, approvals amounted to £373,000. Since then and under this Government they have amounted to £890,000, a very substantial increase on the previous operations. Now let me refer to payments in each of the years. In the years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55, to the 2nd June, 1954, total payments were £69,000. Since the 2nd June, 1954, the total payments amounted to £232,000.

Anyone who tries to say that the Government was endeavouring to sabotage the Undeveloped Areas Act or was not encouraging the fullest expansion of activities under the Undeveloped Areas Act will have these figures to confront them, to confuse and confound them. I am as much in favour of the Undeveloped Areas Act to-day as I was when I voted for it and I propose to continue in favour of the Act and to continue to give every possible assistance in the full implementation of the Act.

The Act is due for renewal, I think, in 1958. If we are contemplating continuance of that activity, the renewal of the Act will have to take place much earlier than that because some people would require to know just where they stood under the Act and others would want to feel that, if the Act came to an end, the authority to help them to develop industries in the undeveloped areas did not die with the lapsing of the Act. I have had under consideration the question of recommending to the Government not only the continuance of the Act but making more and still more money available to continue that measure. Therefore, there is no reason, unless somebody wants to do political mischief, why anybody should be afraid that the activities under the Undeveloped Areas Act are being curtailed in any way. More and more money is being paid out and more and more approvals are being given. It is my hope that the Act will be continued and that more and more money will be provided to continue it.

What does the Act do? Deputy McQuillan made a comparison which I think was a grossly unfair comparison. He took one case where a factory got 50 per cent. and he said that if you put up that factory anywhere else besides Castlerea you could now get 66? per cent. automatically. An Foras Tionscal has power to make grants up to 100 per cent. of the cost of the buildings. It has power to make grants of 50 per cent. of the cost of the machinery. It also has power to make a contribution towards the training of workers. All this is subject only to one thing and that is only a temporary limitation removable at ease by this House, that they can do all that within a maximum expenditure of £2,000,000. No doubt when the £2,000,000 mark is reached the Minister will come to the House and say: "I want more money because the original allocation has been used up."

That is the position under An Foras Tionscal. What does this Bill do? This Bill enables a grant to be given towards the cost of the buildings and it is subject to an absolute maximum of £50,000 or two-thirds of the cost of the building, whichever is the lesser. Somebody obviously needs a lesson in simple arithmetic if they cannot see the difference between a scheme which permits a grant to be made of 100 per cent. of the cost of the building, 50 per cent. of the cost of the machinery and a grant towards the training of workers, and a scheme which permits as a maximum 66? per cent. of the cost of the building.

Mr. McQuillan

There is a difference between permission and what actually is done.

Mr. Norton

So far as An Foras Tionscal is concerned, it has power to do that. So far as this body is concerned, it will have power to do it. The powers in each case are the same. This body may not give an industry 66? per cent. of the cost of a factory. It has power to do it as An Foras Tionscal has power to give 100 per cent. An Foras Tionscal may say it does not think the circumstances justify a 100 per cent. grant and this body may take the view in a given set of circumstances that a 66? per cent. grant is not justified. For the purposes of making a comparison, Deputy McQuillan surely ought to have compared like with like and he obviously did not do it, as these figures indicate.

A number of questions have been raised on this debate and some of the speeches have really answered the others. Deputy Lemass opened by playing down the Bill as much as he could and finally wound up by saying:

"The Minister can have his Bill as far as I am concerned but I want to make it clear that in my view, and I may at some time in the future be empowered to influence Government policy, I think it has no importance whatever in relation to our industrial development. Therefore, this means nothing."

A member of the same Party, Deputy Brennan, reading the same Bill, speaking on the same day, from the same benches said he interpreted this Bill —remember Deputy Lemass said it was doing nothing—to mean the death knell of the Undeveloped Areas Act. Am I unreasonable in saying that both of these Deputies cannot be right? If Deputy Brennan is right, Deputy Lemass is wrong; if Deputy Lemass is right, Deputy Brennan is wrong, but they both cannot be right expressing these diametrically opposite views. I think I had better leave it to the two Deputies to settle this dispute between themselves. Interference from me would not produce any measure of cordiality in this field.

Deputy Lemass said also that I could if I wanted extend the Undeveloped Areas Act in such a way as to apply it to an area other than the undeveloped areas, in other words, to places not at present within the undeveloped areas. That was one of the suggestions made by Deputy Lemass to avoid the introduction of a Bill of this kind. I know of no better way of killing the Undeveloped Areas Act and of killing the undeveloped areas——

Mr. S. Lemass

The Minister should not represent me as suggesting it. I said it was a course open to him.

Mr. Norton

It was because I did not want to kill the Undeveloped Areas Act or to harm the undeveloped areas that I did not take that course. If I did, it would mean providing the rest of the country or a substantial area of the country with the same facilities as are granted in the undeveloped areas. I wanted to keep the Undeveloped Areas Act, with its special facilities for people living in those areas, while at the same time not denying to other areas in the country the benefits which will flow to them from the implementation of this Act but to extend the Undeveloped Areas Act to other areas throughout the country would at once put them in the most deadly competition with the undeveloped areas. If you could get the same facilities for establishing an industry in Meath or County Dublin as you would by establishing it in Donegal or Connemara, it is quite clear nobody would go to Donegal or Connemara; they would all crowd around the capital of the country and draw the same benefits there as they would draw in the western areas if I had fallen into the trap and had been guilty of what I would consider an unpardonable crime against the development of the western areas.

We have to recognise that all this money for industrial development is money of the Irish people. We have treated the western areas generously and we are treating them generously. I do not know if there is any greater incentive given in the legislation of any country than we are giving in the Undeveloped Areas Act, but there are other areas with claims as well who have a right to feel that they would get assistance for the provision of extra industries. From the overall Irish point of view is it not better that we should do everything we can to deal with the problems of emigration, unemployment and other endemic problems and establish new industries whenever it is possible to do so either under State auspices in the form of State sponsored bodies or by the assistance which is given to enterprising industrialists in the schemes contemplated here?

I think the rest of the country is entitled to some consideration. Let us do what we can for the West under the Undeveloped Areas Act. Let us help the West in every way possible. But it is not necessary to detest the rest of the country and to deprive it of benefits in order to help the West. I do not see that the enactment of this Bill will harm the West because it still has outstandingly greater benefits than will be available under a Bill of this kind.

Mr. S. Lemass

Could the Minister give us some figures? Tell us the number of new industries established in the Undeveloped Areas and outside in the past three years.

Mr. Norton

Would the Deputy opposite tell me how many were established during his period of office? You do not carry these figures around in your pocket.

Mr. S. Lemass

If I were bringing in a Bill I would have these figures.

Mr. Norton

If the Deputy will table a question for to-morrow we can have all that information for him when the House reassembles. I think the Deputy can see at all events that, as far as helping the undeveloped areas is concerned, these figures speak for themselves. In fact, I think it is now true to say that we can find places outside the undeveloped areas which are worse off than some places in the undeveloped areas. For example, there were some places that were hit by the changes which took place in 1922 and which never recovered——

Mr. McQuillan

Extend the Undeveloped Areas Act to cover those specific areas.

Mr. Norton

I do not think we can do that in the in and out kind of way the Deputy contemplates. This is the first time anything has been done for these areas and I hope what we are doing now will be of substantial assistance there. It is the first time they got that assistance and I hope they will avail of it.

Mr. McQuillan

If they are as bad as the undeveloped areas they should get the same assistance.

Mr. Norton

Again, I commend the Deputy to some of our friends opposite who say this Bill as it stands at the moment is a challenge to the undeveloped areas. If you do that in that kind of way you probably will be told you are using up on the East and the Midlands the money that should have been reserved for the western areas. Under this Bill we can do what we can to help the Midlands, eastern and southern areas without harming the undeveloped areas and I think that is a desirable development.

Deputy Gilbride referred to the fact that I was at a meeting in Sligo on the 17th November and I did not say a word about this scheme coming along. I do not know to what extent Deputy Gilbride considers dates or knows what is happening in his small part of the world. All I can tell him is that a speech was made by the Taoiseach on the 5th October in which he indicated that a Bill to give effect to this scheme would be introduced——

Mr. MacEntee

Why bring that up?

Mr. Norton

Trouble-the-house has come in now.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Minister not let the Taoiseach's speech die?

Mr. Norton

Why did the Deputy not come in and ask his questions to-day?

Mr. MacEntee

I was better occupied than listening to the Minister's evasions.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy comes in now when questions are over acting the hero. The Taoiseach made a speech on the 5th October saying that this Bill would be introduced to give effect to the scheme which is now outlined. I made a speech at Sligo on the 17th November six weeks afterwards. Although the Taoiseach's speech appeared in the Irish Press of the 6th October Deputy Gilbride said he never heard of it between that date and the 17th November and that nobody knew about it when I was talking in Sligo on the 17th November. You might as well argue with a fog as argue with reasoning of that kind and I just have to give it up. These are the facts and Deputy Gilbride does not pay his memory or his sagacity a very great tribute by making confessions of that kind in the House.

I think, Sir, these are all the points which have been raised on the Bill and I want to conclude by saying that I do not think that this is a challenge to the Undeveloped Areas Act. I hope it will not be operated in that kind of way. There is a special problem in the undeveloped areas. We should watch that problem and aid its solution in every possible way while at the same time not denying to other parts of the country, some of which are or will be in the course of time in a worse position than some places in the undeveloped areas, some assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Norton

To-morrow, Sir, if the House would agree.

Mr. S. Lemass

Provided that it is understood that amendments will be accepted to-night.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy has three amendments in.

Mr. S. Lemass

They are not legally in until the Second Stage has been passed. I take it there will be no question of their being ruled out under Standing Orders.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 13th December, 1956.