Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 1960

Vol. 182 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Deputy Cosgrave.)

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

Before Questions, I was dealing with a question Deputy Cosgrave had put to me some days ago as to what our view was with regard to the proposed new arrangements relating to O.E.E.C. and relating to certain trade alignments taking place in Europe. I mentioned that we had been represented at the 20-Nation meeting in Paris at which a review was made of the progress by O.E.E.C. in order to decide what steps might be taken to either reconstitute that Organisation or continue it as it is at present. It was decided by the 20 nations—the 18 member nations and the two associates, Canada and the United States of America—that two separate organisations be set up, one to examine the future trade position in Europe and one to examine the reorganisation of O.E.E.C. So far as the trade examination was concerned, a working committee was set up under the chairmanship of the Dutch Foreign Minister. We made our case very fully there as to what our views were in relation to any rearrangement in trade alignments in Europe. As well as that, we were represented at the meeting to which that Luns Committee reported. There was also the Committee to which I have just referred, the Committee that examined the reconstitution of O.E.E.C. A group of four described as "The Four Wise Men" was set up to put forward a draft convention. That draft convention was before a meeting of all the member countries and associate member countries in Paris last week. It has now been submitted to a working committee for examination, and I think that working committee has already started its deliberations.

The draft convention differs in certain important respects from the Convention of the O.E.E.C. itself. The most significant point of difference is that while O.E.E.C. had concerned itself largely with trade matters, the subject of trade is not covered at all in this new draft convention for the remodelled organisation, which will be called the Organisation For Economic Co-operation and Development. The Committee of four who drafted that convention suggest that trade problems could be more appropriately considered against the background of the G.A.T.T.—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As a result of that proposition we sent observers to the session of the contracting parties of the G.A.T.T. which was held in Geneva some weeks ago. We have not, of course, taken any decision as to whether we as a nation would adhere to the G.A.T.T. but it is being kept under close review.

Mr. Cosgrave

I understand we are considering that specifically at the moment?

Mr. J. Lynch

That is still the case.

Mr. Norton

No definite decision has yet been taken?

Mr. J. Lynch

No. Deputy Cosgrave also asked whether an examination had been made of the probable effect on our industries, on employment and on exports, of the E.F.T.A. tariff reductions which are due to commence next July. Our position so far as E.F.T.A. countries are concerned, with the exception of Britain, is that our trade with them runs in the region of £500,000. In so far as the E.F.T.A. countries other than Britain will enjoy as between themselves the benefits of gradual tariff reductions, the trade we do with them will, perhaps, be put at a corresponding disadvantage, inasmuch as we cannot enjoy the benefits of these tariff reductions not being a member of the E.F.T.A. Our position as an exporter to Britain will also be affected, but I think the Taoiseach has referred to that and I have referred to it on a number of occasions.

I have suggested that, first of all, we should not feel in any way complacent or despondent about the effects of the E.F.T.A. Agreement on our trade with Britain. We enjoy now a preference of entry for most of our goods into Britain that Britain's E.F.T.A. partners will enjoy only after a period of ten years. It is possible that that period might be reduced, but over that period envisaged at this stage there will be a gradual reduction of tariffs as between the E.F.T.A. countries. Therefore, when all the tariffs have been reduced, Britain's E.F.T.A. partners will enjoy the same degree of preference for the entry of industrial goods to Britain as we now enjoy.

I have suggested that now is the time when we, as an exporting country to Britain, should gear ourselves fully to take advantage of the interim period we enjoy. I think we can be heartened in our approach to that task by the fact that many of our industrialists already compete very successfully on the British market with goods produced within Britain itself. We have also all the advantages of proximity to Britain, of having a mutual currency system, a mutual measuring system and mutual standards of trade and commerce. Therefore, we should be in a position not only to hold our place in the British market but to expand it considerably. It has been suggested on many occasions, and, indeed, during the course of this debate, that that market has barely been scratched, and it is the intention of Córas Tráchtála to concentrate more and more on it. It holds out vast potentialities for the future, and I believe, irrespective of the operation of the E.F.T.A. Agreement, we can very considerably expand our industrial exports to Britain.

The Deputy asked also what would be our possible loss in trade as a result of this Agreement and the Common Market Agreement. As I have said, our trade with Britain's partners in E.F.T.A. is comparatively small, about £500,000 per year. Therefore, our losses could not be held to be considerable even if we lost all of it, which is hardly likely in any event. Our trade with Britain, of course, is by far the greatest; and far from losing any trade as a result of the E.F.T.A. Agreement, I believe that the efficiency which our industries will have to reach as a result of that challenge will have the contrary effect and that exports will increase considerably. We have at present a greater degree of trade with the Common Market countries than we have with the E.F.T.A. countries other than Britain.

We have endeavoured to secure that our position will not be worsened by reason of the implementation of these Agreements so far as the right of entry of our goods to each of these areas is concerned. We have been representing in the European capitals in which these matters have been discussed that our exclusion from the benefits of the tariff reductions, which the Common Market and E.F.T.A. will give their members, will put at certain risk the trade represented by the figures to which I have just referred. We hope our representations will be listened to by these countries. Our suggestion is to the effect that any reduction that might be given should be extended to us in compliance with the spirit of European cooperation as expressed in the Convention of the O.E.E.C.

Arising out of the present position one specific question was put to me by a number of Deputies and that was what was being done about the export to Britain of textiles containing synthetic or man-made fibres. As Deputies are aware, there was established as a result of the recent Trade Agreement a permanent committee of officials whose task is to examine trade problems arising between the two countries. One of its first tasks, undertaken immediately, was the examination of this problem.

There are, as the Taoiseach said during the course of his reply to the debate on the Trade Agreement, difficulties other than technical ones. The technical difficulties are pretty considerable but there also emerged certain policy difficulties which the British Government are examining. We are pursuing our negotiations with them and we hope that a satisfactory solution will be found to exclude from the obligation of paying duty at least on goods which contain synthetic fibres of British origin.

Mr. Norton

Could the Minister say whether that was a deliberate policy on the part of the British to impose a tariff on textiles containing man-made fibres which were being produced in England?

Mr. J. Lynch

I believe it was never envisaged that there should be such a duty. When it was brought to their attention they readily admitted the fallacy of the imposition of such a duty and undertook to try to devise a scheme under which such goods would be admitted and excluded from the scope of the duty. However, there is also a policy difficulty.

Mr. Norton

Has any portion being cleared so far by the British?

Mr. J. Lynch

Some progress has been made.

Mr. Norton

Is there anything in writing indicating what can get into Britain?

Mr. J. Lynch

No. It is a problem that has to be dealt with as a whole.

Mr. Norton

Could the Minister give me any indication as to when it is likely to be finalised?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am afraid I could not at the moment. Comment was also made on the rate of industrial expansion in this country and it was suggested that industrial expansion was lower in Ireland than anywhere else in Europe. I think that was true up to a certain stage according to the O.E.E.C. general statistical bulletin. The index of production in manufacturing industries had increased less in Ireland between the period from 1953 to 1959 than in any other of twelve European countries. It is significant, however, that between 1958 and 1959 the percentage rate expansion in Ireland over these two years was the fifth highest of the twelve European countries concerned. We realise that a more rapid rate is desirable but it is significant that now, at the beginning of our economic expansion programme period, we are in a position to record such an improvement and I believe that it will continue apace.

Deputy Cosgrave made the comment that while the import price levels had fallen there was inflation and an inflationary tendency as regards the price of home-produced goods. I forget what the exact terms were but I should like to correct any suggestion that Deputy Cosgrave might have been making that there has been a constant or gradual increase in the cost of living. I readily admit that there have been increases in certain commodities, relating to the food subsidies and to prices paid to farmers for their produce. However, taking 1958 and 1959 I think I can prove that prices have been held at a stable level. The index for February, 1958, taking August, 1953 as the base equal to 100, was 115.4. The figure for February, 1959 was 117.7 and for February, 1960 it was 115.4, again going back to the figure of two years ago. There were very slight fluctuations but we can claim that the cost of living has been reasonably stabilised as reflected by these index figures.

Mr. Norton

The Minister has not overlooked the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach stated in March last that in the case of 148 items out of 200 there had been increases in prices since 1957? That is pretty good going.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have admitted that there were increases in prices from the time the Government came into power but the object to be aimed at now is the stabilisation of prices and I think that the figures I have given show that a degree of stabilisation has been reached in the last two years which is a most desirable achievement.

Many Deputies referred to the claims made by this side of the House on the figures published in the statistics given with the Budget that there has been an increase in industrial employment. They referred in particular to Table 16 of the Central Statistics Office Publication entitled "Economic Statistics". These figures showed a decrease of 51,000 in employment compared with 1955.

The reduction in non-agricultural economic activity between 1955 and 1959 was 34,000, but in that 34,000 there was a reduction of 22,000 under the heading of construction and that, as can readily be seen, arose as a result of the tapering off in those engaged in building construction from 1955 to date. There was a very rapid decrease in 1956 but as a result of the completion, or near completion of the housing programmes of many local authorities, that reduction can be readily understood. The reduction of 34,000, as well as including 22,000 in construction, also includes a reduction of 5,000 in manufacturing industries and smaller reductions in a number of other sectors.

What is significant is that the figure for manufacturing, which was 191,000 in 1955, and which had decreased to 182,000 in 1957, recovered in 1959 to 186,000. So, when one compares 1955, which was a peak year in many respects, with 1959, one may of course record a reduction, but, following 1955, the economy was going down hill. It was obvious that the peak reached in 1955 was based on some false premises. There was some shifting sand foundation as a result of which the economy went down hill, in consequence of which in turn there was a steady decrease in employment, and it was not easy to reverse that trend. It was not reversed in 1957 but it was halted in 1958 and, as a result of this Government's policy, the reverse trend operated in 1959 as revealed in these figures—the increase in the number in manufacturing employment from 182,000 in 1957 to 186,000 in 1959. That is an increase of 4,000.

Deputy Corish complained in respect of employment outside agriculture that of the 692,000 that were in such employment, 177,000 were engaged in what is described as other economic activities, and he seemed to suggest that many of these were engaged in unproductive work, work which, perhaps, was not very worthy. I should like to remind him—and this is apropos of his commendation of the efforts made to expand the tourist industry— that within that figure of 177,000 engaged in other activities, all the tourist industry workers are bracketed. That includes hotel and boarding house workers, and there are, of course, persons engaged in various other professions as well, so it is not true to say that because there were 177,000 people engaged in employment other than agriculture, manufacturing and building, these people were engaged in non-productive employment.

The volume of industrial production was referred to, again I think by Deputy Norton in particular, and he said that the volume of production for all industries and services was 106.9 in 1959, as compared with 107.8 in 1955. That statement is true when one compares the overall figure, but again I should like to remind the House that these figures include the building and construction industry, which as I said, had been declining for a number of years as a result of the completion of local authority housing programmes.

The volume of production index for all industries and services declined from 107.8 in 1955 to 104 in 1956, and went even as low as 99.1 in 1957, but again what is significant, and what I would like to impress upon the House is that from there came the reverse trend and the volume of production increased from 1957, when it was 99.1, to 106.9 in 1959. These are production figures for all industries and services. If we come down to the manufacturing industry the volume index increased from 106.4 in 1955 to 112.1, and for transportable goods industries—that includes turf production, mining, etc.—the volume increased from 107.5 in 1955 to 114.5 in 1959. It will readily be seen that, if one excludes building and construction, over these years there has been a steady increase in the volume of production of other industries and services, and in particular a steady increase in the volume of production in manufacturing industry. Deputy Corish suggested that the worker, as he called him, had not received his fair share of the increased income from which the country benefited in the past year. He said that income from wages, salaries, etc., had increased from £234,000,000 to £243,000,000 in 1959, and that other income had increased from £95,000,000 to £105,000,000 and he pointed to the increase of £10,000,000 there, which he suggested were directors' fees, etc., as compared with £9,000,000 out of a greater figure for wages and salaries. The Deputy, however, did not take into account that the figures he quoted were for the year ended 1959, and had not taken into account that the effects of the round of wage increases in 1959 had not begun to have effect until early this year.

I should like to make it clear to him that when I suggested that it was possible that there might be an adverse effect on our export capacity as a result of an increase in wages, unless there, was a corresponding and, if possible, more than a corresponding increase in productivity, it was not my point that that had already taken place, but I referred to the effect which these increases would have on industrial costs and prices, and the possible effect on our exports and balance of payments. The figures he quoted cannot be interpreted as he interpreted them. Wage movements in the year 1959, as I said, cannot be taken to reflect the full effect of the seventh round increase. That round did not get really going until the last quarter of the year and, therefore, its effects would hardly make their consequences fully felt until sometime during the present year.

Some questions were raised in relation to our mining operations and in particular in relation to St. Patrick's Copper Mine at Allihies in West Cork. Saint Patrick's in Avoca have been operating for some years now and, as the House knows, there was a Supplementary Estimate earlier in the year which made provision for an increased guaranteed loan for the operations in that mine. The fact was that, as a result of meeting old workings, the content of the ore which could be extracted made it difficult to achieve economic output.

The suggestion was made to me that if the company had more money at its disposal and operated on the other side of the Avoca river at Tigroney that from the assays made, the company could produce a better grade of copper and that they could concentrate on selective mining on the original site. World copper prices, which affect the economy of such a mine, have not yet been sufficiently stabilised and I cannot at this stage give an indication as to what the ultimate prospects are at Saint Patrick's Mines, except to say that, at the copper content of the ore they are now extracting, there are very good prospects that the mine will ultimately prove a success.

The company at Allihies are operating on their own capital. At the moment they hold only a prospecting licence and until such time as they acquire a State mining lease they will not be in a position to commence the winning of copper from these mines. The terms of the proposed lease have been agreed with the company, but there are still outstanding questions of title and ownership on which is dependent the question as to whom compensation and royalties will be paid. It is my hope that the question will be resolved at an early date. At the moment they are not in a position to decide how much money will be required and to what extent they should look for capital to operate the mines.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister say whether the copper content in that area is likely to justify the economic operation of the mines?

Mr. J. Lynch

I have no information as to what the copper content is, but I am told it is highly satisfactory. There have not been any extractions of copper: the only work has been the clearing out of the old mine, which was flooded, and some exploratory borings.

Deputy Norton asked also about the activities of the Ambassador Oil Company to which a petroleum licence was given this year. The licence was in fact given to Ambassador (Irish) Oil Limited, which is a subsidiary of Ambassador Oil, of Fort Worth, Texas. The licence given will enable Ambassador (Irish) Oil to explore for minerals subject to their fulfilling certain financial requirements which require them to make certain financial deposits in this country. They must make deposits here before next September, or three months from the date of the issuing of the licence to them. The company are still within the terms of agreement and the licence and it is hoped that exploration work will be carried out by them at an early date.

Before I go into more detailed matters, I think I might refer to comments made by Deputies about the imbalance in our trade with certain European countries. It is unsatisfactory to know that our trade with many European countries is in imbalance, ranging from two to one, three to one and as high as four to one and even more. Deputy Dillon in particular referred to the position in which our trade with Germany is and to the canned meat quota. There was, as he knows, a certain difficulty there which was adverted to in the Agriculture Marketing Committee. Up to 1957 and 1958 we had no specific quota for canned meat in Germany and provision for imports had to be based on what was called a pro memoria basis. In 1958 the Germans did give us a quota—for £40,000—and it was increased between October, 1959, and December, 1960, by almost double that amount.

However, the difficulty is that so many persons in Germany are entitled to participate in this quota that it is fragmentary and that makes it difficult for any Irish exporter to deal economically with any one or any group of these licence holders. The possibility of overcoming these difficulties is being considered by the Department of Agriculture at present. Apart from that specific instance there are aspects of our trade arrangements with European countries which must be taken into account when one criticises our imbalance.

The important thing is to achieve an overall balance in our external trade. We have managed to achieve that fairly well, even though there is a balance against us in many countries. As well as that, we could impose certain restrictions on imports from European countries, and indeed we made such an offer to the British. Notwithstanding that, however, we cannot impose certain restrictions at the moment because we might make difficulties for home manufacturers, in particular, manufacturers of goods for export.

Many of our imports from those countries are in the form of industrial machinery which is used for the production of goods in this country and it is an advantage to our own industrialists to secure those goods in the cheapest possible markets. For that reason there is that advantage to our manufacturers here.

On the other hand, the position that has been reached in some countries cannot be viewed with any degree of complacency, and I certainly intend to keep the matter under review. If reason does not prevail in some instances, I think the action which has been suggested by Deputy Dillon will have to be considered most seriously. I do not like to comment further on that. It is not our intention to depart from the principles of liberalisation, to which we have adhered in our O.E.E.C. obligations much better than most other countries, but we must not be allowed to suffer unduly to the extent that goods can come in unrestrictedly from countries to which our goods find great difficulty in gaining access.

At the beginning of my speech I referred to the diversity of opinions expressed in respect of many matters raised during the course of the debate and one in particular was the attitude to the encouragement of foreign investment. We have in existence the Control of Manufactures Act and I cannot say to what extent the enactment of that legislation found general approval in the early years of our industrial drive but the purpose of it was to secure so far as possible that investment by Irish nationalists would get the cream of the market at home. By and large, I think they have done that. They have produced to a considerable extent the goods we require for consumption in this country. Many of them have produced more than that and have succeeded in competing in other countries throughout the world.

There are two points of view about the continuation in existence of this Act, as was brought out very forcibly even by members of the Fine Gael Party who spoke in opposition to one another. It is not unknown in this country that people in Irish industry, people who are not Irish, by some means get around the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act. While a 10 to 15 per cent. or even up to 20 per cent. dividend would have satisfied any reasonable industrialist, there has been evidence of some of these non-nationals taking dividends far in excess of that—even three times as much—with the result that no provision was made in these industries for replacement of depreciated or obsolete machinery; no provision was made for sinking fund or other capital needs. It was almost inevitable, and it did happen in some cases, that these industries unfortunately should go to the wall. Experiences such as those must also be taken into account.

On the contrary, there was the easement in the situation by the Encouragement of Exports Act of 1958 under which any industrialist may set up in business, notwithstanding the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act, if the output for the home market is limited to ten per cent. of his total output and the remaining 90 per cent. is for export. Many industrialists are availing of that provision nowadays and I hope that, as a result of the easement given in that Act and as a result of the inducements given in our industrial encouragement measures, we shall have much of that type of industry coming into the country.

In connection with exports I should like to refer to the suggestion made on more than one occasion that there are people acting not quite fairly in relation to exports of industrial goods processed or partially processed in this country. Deputy Dillon was the first to mention it although he did not mention it in the context that anybody was doing anything wrong. The sewing machine industry was the case the Deputy quoted and he said that, for £1,000,000 worth of exports that industry might reach in a year, there was the necessity to import about £900,000 worth of raw material.

The Deputy knows that in the case of goods which leave this country and qualify for duty-free import to Britain there must be, in their cost make-up, at least 50 per cent. represented by Irish labour, Irish materials or Commonwealth or British labour and materials. I think we can claim that the relations between the officials in Ireland and those in Britain to ensure the satisfactory working of these arrangements are very cordial. As far as we are concerned we shall not condone any attempt at evasion or deception. I should like to take this opportunity of warning any industrialists who may be tempted to get around the 50 per cent. requirement that my Department will co-operate in dealing with them and that certainly we shall have no hesitation in asking the Revenue Commissioners to make a full disclosure to the Revenue Officers of Britain of any of these activities. However, by and large, I think there is a full degree of confidence and trust obtaining between officers of both sides—and it is only right that that is so—to ensure, as has been suggested here, that Ireland will not be used as a back door for the entry of certain types of goods to the British market.

There are many other details with which it would take too long to deal. However, I should like to say in reply to Deputies who commented on the activities of Bord Fáilte that Bord Fáilte have to treat the whole country as they see it and that there is no attempt, either deliberate or subconscious, to exclude from its scope of operation any part of the country. Deputy Corish seemed to suggest that the east coast and the south-east coast, in particular, were not as favourably treated by Bord Fáilte as other parts of the country.

The truth is that Bord Fáilte have in their brochures the best features in every part of the country. It may be that some parts of the country, by voluntary means, would have more attractive publications than others but where Bord Fáilte find amenities and attractions they will publicise them in their propaganda without any degree of selectivity as to location. I can give an example of the extent to which they advertise the east coast, that is, in their sea-angling guide. Very full reference is made there to the facilities that are offered on the east coast. I should like to assure the Deputy that as far as the east and particularly the south-east coasts are concerned, there is no attempt whatever to exclude them from Bord Fáilte publications or from the financial benefits that Bord Fáilte may give.

Questions were asked about the expenditure of £1,000,000 on the major resort development scheme and as to how the money was being allocated. In allocating this money Bord Fáilte had to decide what a major resort was and they decided that a major resort was one which had a certain number of hotel bedrooms available in it. However, it was pointed out to them that that might of necessity concentrate the benefit of that scheme in already well established areas, particularly many of those on the east coast, and perhaps some of the more important ones on the south coast, and that large areas like West Cork and Connemara might not be included.

As a result of a reappraisal of that policy, they decided areas such as West Cork which, taken as a whole, would have a certain quantum of bedroom accommodation, could be included in that scheme, and they now are. The scheme will require a reasonably substantial contribution from local authorities, or other local development associations. Allocations have been made in respect of many areas. Since, in most cases, the local contributions have not yet been decided upon, I do not think it would be proper for me at this stage to comment further.

Criticism has been made against An Foras Tionscal and, in particular, against the restrictive way in which they are alleged to deal with applications. First of all, I do not want in any way to evade my ultimate responsibility in so far as the activities of Foras Tionscal are concerned, but it must be remembered that they are a body given a certain degree of autonomy by this House. I fully subscribe to the action of the House in giving them that autonomy. They are an independent body who examine objectively each application that comes before them. As Minister for Industry and Commerce I do not try to influence in any way their decisions. I think it right that the principle of keeping any element or any suggestion of political influence away from the decisions of this body should be resolutely adhered to. It is the old maxim of justice not only being done but appearing to be done.

I have repeated, time and again, to people who have asked me to use my influence with An Foras Tionscal that I do not intend to use any influence with that body. I readily admit that on occasions I have met groups which may have been disappointed in the decisions given by An Foras Tionscal in relation to their applications for grants. Having met them, I have noted the points they wished to make and I have told them that I would bring those points to the notice of An Foras Tionscal to ensure that all aspects of their cases would be considered, and also in case there might be any points made to me which might not have been made to An Foras Tionscal. But all that is apart from having regular reports from An Foras Tionscal and, of course, a proper liaison with them. There is no attempt on my part, or on the part of my Department, to influence An Foras Tionscal in any way. That applies, in particular, to the location of industries.

It has been suggested on a number of occasions not only here but elsewhere, that attempts have been made to deflect from a particular area industry which could very well have been established in that area. I want to assert that it is the policy of An Foras Tionscal and of the I.D.A., who process these industrial proposals before they come to An Foras Tionscal, not to try to influence anybody who has a proposal for a particular location to leave that location and set up somewhere else. When inquiries are made, without any location in mind, it is the policy and practice of the I.D.A. to bring to the attention of the inquirer facilities that are known to be available in different parts of the country. These have been supplied in almost every case by local industrial development associations and organisations of different kinds.

There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that any attempt has ever been made to influence an industrialist away from an area he has in mind for the establishment of an industry. Conversely, there is the policy that no industrialist is required, or requested, to settle in any particular place. The reasons for that policy are obvious. If an industrialist, who has decided to set up in one place, is deflected to another and if, by reason of his location, or for some other reason, he runs into trouble, it would be very easy for him to blame those who sent him to that area. For their own sakes, therefore, neither Foras Tionscal nor the I.D.A. make any attempt to influence prospective industrialists in that fashion.

I should like to refer, in particular, to the Waterford chipboard project. A public meeting was held in Waterford recently advocating the establishment of a chipboard factory in or near Waterford city. I join with those who expressed the view that the holding of that meeting was ill-advised. It is infinitely better that the promoters of an industrial undertaking should be left to do their own work, to make their own approaches for grants, or for other financial assistance as they see fit, and to make their own case. There was a proposition some months ago for the establishment of a chipboard factory in Waterford, but not necessarily in the city of Waterford. A grant was not made available then by An Foras Tionscal. The proposition was subsequently reconstituted and resubmitted but, at that stage, it was suggested that market conditions in Britain had changed, largely because of the EFTA Agreement, plus increased activity in the manufacture of chipboard in many parts of the world.

The Waterford people had no doubt that ample opportunities would exist for their product when it would come on the market. On the other hand, there was a chipboard factory in County Clare—a factory which had been assisted by An Foras Tionscal— and the proprietors there thought there was not room for a second chipboard factory having regard not only to the home market, in which it was suggested the Waterford people were not interested, but also to developments in the British market. Conflicting statements were made by one side and the other.

An Foras Tionscal were not in a position to decide between the interested parties. They adopted, therefore, the obvious course. They asked for an independent inquiry, and that independent inquiry is being conducted through An Foras Trachtála. Normally, I do not mention the activities of An Foras Tionscal, and for obvious reasons. Having regard, however, to the publicity given to the chipboard proposal for Waterford, I thought it well to state clearly what the present position is. If it is established that there is a market in Britain for the output of Waterford as well as Clare, I would be very, very happy to see a new industry for the manufacture of chipboard set up in Waterford.

There were many other questions on matters of detail and many suggestions were made. I trust Deputies will be satisfied if I give them an assurance in respect of those. Due regard will be had to all the details and suggestions when their contributions to the debate on the Estimate come to be examined in the Department.

Perhaps I may sum up with an omnibus question asked, not by my immediate predecessor but by his immediate predecessor in this office, Deputy Norton. He asked: what is the Government's policy in respect of unemployment and emigration? The solution for these problems must be found in economic expansion. The Government's Programme for Economic Expansion, published in November, 1958, is the basis upon which the Government hope to achieve that expansion. This programme is being implemented, I submit, with vigour and determination. The Central Statistics Office publication, Economic Statistics, referred to in the course of the debate, shows that there have been appreciable advances, particularly in the industrial sectors of the economy, since this programme was published.

We realise that we are still confronted with difficulties. We are not being complacent about the situation. I know that much further industrial expansion is essential to provide work at home for our people and to improve their standard of living, but we are confident that with the co-operation of all sections of the people and with a continuation of the buoyant spirit which now permeates the country the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion will be successfully carried out with resultant benefit to the entire community.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.