Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Jun 1961

Vol. 190 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 44—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Motion:

That a sum not exceeding £1,841,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of sundry Grants-in-Aid.

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

In moving to report progress last night, I had not quite completed the references I intended to make to An Foras Tionscal. I was suggesting to the House that the autonomy of An Foras Tionscal in the matter of grants for new industries or expansions of existing ones is something we ought to safeguard. While I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, or any other Minister would not like to escape his ultimate responsibility, the system we have is a good one whereby applications for grants can be thoroughly and objectively examined and only the good proposals, the ones likely to last, as is a necessary requirement under the statute, will be assisted by way of grants.

Another aspect of the administration of the affairs of An Foras Tionscal I should like to refer to particularly, having regard to the observations made in the course of the debate, is the location of industries. I want to repeat what I have said more than once in this House and outside that An Foras Tionscal do not, in any way, try to influence an industrialist to locate his undertaking in any particular place. When an industrialist makes an application for a grant, generally speaking, he already has the location in mind. An Foras Tionscal, if he has not got a location in mind, can do no more than give him information that is available to them regarding the amenities of various towns and districts

throughout the country. They take the greatest possible care to ensure that the ultimate selection of location is a matter for the industrialist himself. If only for the sake of their own self-preservation, it is a good standard to apply, because the time could come when, by reason of location, an industry might get into difficulties and, in that event, An Foras Tionscal could not be held responsible or taken to task in any way for the location of the industry in that particular place.

I should like to impress on the House that the Minister for Industry and Commerce in no way influences an industrialist as to the location of his undertaking. As I have repeatedly told deputations, who came to me from particular places, the Industrial Development Authority is a body mainly charged with the encouragement of outside industrialists to set up here or the encouragement of our own people to set up new industries or expand their existing ones. The Industrial Development Authority is supplied, generally, with a list of the locations where it is felt a factory would be an advantage to the district. Most development committees have already supplied to the Industrial Development Authority full particulars of the amenities and promise that their respective locations have for new industries.

There is no truth in the suggestions made here yesterday that an attempt is made to remove a proposed industry from one area to another. No attempt is made to influence an industrialist away from a particular location. On the contrary, Foras Tionscal do their utmost to influence an industrialist to adhere to the particular location and influence him not to change his mind. But they will not influence him to the extent of requiring him to set up in a particular locality. I hope I can convince the House that there is no truth in the suggestion that the Industrial Development Authority, An Foras Tionscal or the Department of Industry and Commerce ever influenced an industrialist away from a particular location.

Mr. Corish

May I ask the Minister a question? If an industrialist comes

with a proposal for the establishment of a factory, would An Foras Tionscal be in a position to say to him: "If you go to the undeveloped areas we can give you so much assistance"? If the industrialist asks what he would get if he establishes the factory outside the undeveloped areas, would An Foras Tionscal be able to tell him what financial assistance he would get?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am glad the Deputy has raised that point because it reminds me to deal with another criticism that was made. The grants laid down in the Undeveloped Areas Act and the Industrial Grants Act are maximum grants —100 per cent. for buildings and 50 per cent. for machinery in the undeveloped areas and two-thirds for buildings and one-third for machinery outside the undeveloped areas. An Foras Tionscal have to work within the terms of these Acts. If a person makes an inquiry as to what grant he will get if he sets up in the undeveloped areas, An Foras Tionscal tell him they can give him up to 100 per cent. and 50 per cent. grants respectively under the Undeveloped Areas Act, and, under the other Act, two-thirds and one-third respectively but, until such time as he submits his full proposal, they tell him they will not be able to say in terms of money how much he will get in either case.

Mr. Corish

If an industrialist comes forward with proposals in respect of the two areas, then An Foras Tionscal would be able to tell him what he would get, and he could make up his mind.

Mr. J. Lynch

No. The location must already be decided upon before An Foras Tionscal will deal with him. The location affects the amount of the grant.

Mr. Russell

Is the question of location not largely decided by the fact that, under the Industrial Grants Act, an industrialist cannot avail of the grants unless the industry is one that cannot be set up in the undeveloped areas? Does that condition not automatically preclude a number of indusdustries being located outside the undeveloped areas? In other words, it is a form of direction to go to the undeveloped areas.

Mr. J. Lynch

Under the Industrial Grants Act there is a provision that the type of industry must be one which is not suitable for establishment in the undeveloped areas. There are a thousand and one reasons why an industry would not be suitable for establishment in the undeveloped areas. I can assure the House that there is no narrow interpretation of the provision requiring an industry, if it is suitable for the undeveloped areas, to be set up there. The approach by An Foras Tionscal is very liberal in that respect. Nevertheless, they must have regard to the provisions of the Act passed by this House.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say if the grants are more liberal for an industry in an undeveloped area?

Mr. J. Lynch

The maximum grants for the undeveloped areas are higher.

Mr. Corish

Are they not more positive? They are more defined. A man knows where he is going in the case of the undeveloped areas. If he decides to set up an industry outside of that the position is not so clear.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is certainly easier to qualify under the Undeveloped Areas Act.

Mr. Corish

We do not intend to cross-examine the Minister, but the Minister knows the feeling there is about all this.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do, but I am under some pressure as to time.

Mr. T. Lynch

Is the Minister aware that an industrialist came to a particular area and signified his intention of opening an industry there? It was not an undeveloped area. He then went to Dublin and this area never heard of him again.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not know the particular case the Deputy has in mind. If an industrialist makes application for a grant for an industry in Waterford and if at a certain stage, An Foras Tionscal having dealt with it and approved the location and the amount of the grant to be given, the industrialist wanted to change his mind it would be very difficult for the industrialist to get out of Waterford if, in the first instance, he had decided to establish an industry there.

Mr. Corish

Could he make two applications—one for an industry to be located in the undeveloped areas and one outside of that area? Could he then compare the type of assistance he would get in each case and make up his mind?

Mr. J. Lynch

The application must be a composite exercise on behalf of the respective industrialist. He must know not only what he will produce, the size of the factory, the amount of capital he will put into it, the number of people he will employ, but he must also say to An Foras Tionscal that he proposes to locate the factory in the town of "X". They deal with the application only on that basis and so there can be no question of a proposition to set up a factory with no location in mind. The applicant must have the location in mind because that affects the amount of the grant.

Mr. Corish

It is still unsatisfactory.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have tried to split up the debate into five parts. That appeared to be the course the debate took. I have dealt with tourism and An Foras Tionscal. The main theme of the debate was our approach to the Common Market. It was suggested on a number of occasions, by Deputies on the other side, that the Government had done nothing to apprise industrialists of the difficulties and the competition they are likely to encounter in the event of our subscribing to the Rome Treaty. That is not so as I propose to prove in a moment. Deputy Russell raised the question of making some estimate of our chance of maintaining our position in our export market. It is, of course, impossible at this stage to forecast in a matter of this kind. Many of the economic conditions that will obtain in the future are matters over which we can have no effective control.

At the moment the situation is fluid and it is very difficult to frame any estimate of our development vis-á-vis developments of the European Common Market. If we join some of our weaker industries will find it difficult to survive because of the competition they will encounter. Not only will they encounter competition from outside but they will also encounter competition on the home market which has hitherto been reserved to them through the medium of protective tariffs. I am sufficiently optimistic to hope that many of our industrial undertakings will, by increasing productivity and efficiency, succeed in weathering the storm. I hope that, by consolidation of control and, if necessary, rationalisation of products, our industrialists would be able to take advantage of the wider and more populous markets that would be open to them in our new position. It seems clear in any event that the measure of whether they will or will not maintain their position in the export markets will largely be their managerial energy, skill and efficiency of technical production and perhaps what is equally, if not more important, the efficiency of their marketing set-up.

I should mention at this stage that in any event if we do adhere to the Common Market we must assume that we will be given at least the period over which tariffs are to be dismantled that is now enjoyed by present members. In fact, it might be reasonable to expect that we would be given a longer period. That was accepted in the European Free Trade Area talks which came to an end in 1958. Perhaps the reason is less urgent now for us but nevertheless I think the same principle should apply because we are still a country in the process of economic development. We are still a country that has not been able to keep pace with the more advanced industrial countries of Europe and therefore it is not unreasonable that we should expect to receive a longer period for the dismantling of our tariffs.

Having said that, however, I want to repeat what I mentioned in my opening statement. There should be no relaxation and no question of deluding ourselves that we can get favourable terms because of, perhaps, the sentimental view people have of the Irish people. It has been suggested to me that when the Free Trade Area negotiations broke down the sense of urgency that had been created amongst Irish industrialists with regard to improving their efficiency and production techniques had eased and that some people were glad of that. The usual "I told you so" was said to those who had been urging for greater production efforts. Even in the light of the breakdown of the Free Trade Area talks, that was wrong because the Common Market was already a fact and still is a fact now more so than it was.

Having said that too it is not unreasonable for Deputies to ask what the Government have been doing about the Common Market and about making sure that our industrialists were fully aware of the difficulties of the new competition they were likely to face. As some Deputies have observed speeches have been made at chambers of commerce. I do not know whether or not it was suggested that I like going to chamber of commerce dinners and making speeches. It is a chore I would gladly avoid although having gone to them I am glad to be able to talk to the people I meet.

Those talks are worth while because we get a cross-section of complaints, criticisms and suggestions from manufacturers, businessmen and industrialists of all kinds. It is very useful to any Minister to take advantage of those occasions to put across whatever admonitions and exhortations are proper at the moment. I have taken full advantage of those occasions to stress the need for greater productivity and efficiency. However, those are the more publicised things that happen.

Apart from that, in my own Department, as one would expect, my officials and I separately and jointly have been having consultations with groups of industrialists representing the different trades and with the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. We have discussed all aspects of their products and made suggestions to them even up to the point in appropriate cases of rationalisation. As Deputies know the Federation have not been idle in that respect either. They have appointed a very well-known economist who has studied very closely the likely impact on us of the Rome Treaty. As well as that, they have set up various group committees that are examining the whole problem and the problem as it applies in their own trades and industries.

I have also had conversations with the President of the Federation and with the General Secretary in which I reviewed with them the progress of the Free Trade movement in Europe. We felt that the officers of the Federation could organise their members to greater efforts to meet the new situation. Apart from that we have, of course, the different schemes that exist within the Department. First of all, there is the technical assistance scheme and, in that respect, some Deputies have asked why it was reduced from £205,000 to £200,000 in the current year.

Deputies may be aware that I have been making complaints at some of these chamber of commerce dinners of the comparative lack of interest in that technical assistance scheme and have been urging industries that have not yet taken advantage of it to apply for grants and other aids that would help to make industry more efficient. The amount fixed this year, £200,000, was a realistic appraisal of what is likely to be sought by way of technical assistance grants for industry. I can assure the House that lack of money will not prevent any industry from getting full value and the full effect of the grants within that scheme. I am quite sure that if I come to the House at any stage and indicate that £200,000 is not enough the House will give me increased moneys for that purpose.

I want to tell the House that the Government have not been idle, and that my Department and I have not been idle, in the matter of consultations with the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and with the different groups. I want to say, too, that these consultations are proceeding apace and ultimately will probably be even more detailed. As they become more detailed, the House will be informed and following the issue of the White Paper, as I said in an intervention yesterday, with regard to the setting up of the Common Market published by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government, we hope at this week-end, there will be an opportunity for a full debate by the House on all the aspects and implications of the Common Market. That debate will take place at a very early stage.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

May I ask the Minister a question at this stage? What effect will our entry into the Common Market have on the establishment of industries in under-developed areas? Has the Department examined it in that light?

Mr. J. Lynch

It has been examined in that light. The Deputy will appreciate that there are many imponderables when we are examining a situation which is so fluid and will continue to be fluid. I believe that one of the biggest attractions we can have if we go into the Common Market is to have available to us a skilled, semi-skilled or non-skilled, but at all times intelligent labour force. As was observed by the Leader of the Opposition, the industry that will be attracted mainly by these considerations will be a good one. So long as we have that labour force—and I have heard many tributes paid to it by visiting industrialists—we will have an attraction over and above many other areas in the countries now forming part or likely to form part of the Common Market.

Mr. Corish

Would the Minister care to make any comment on the suggestions made by several Deputies during the debate as to what might happen some of the industries recently established if we were to join the Common Market?

Mr. J. Lynch

Most of the industries recently established—I do not have to make a distinction between those established by outside interests or with the aid of outside interests and those established at home—were established in the main for the export market. Many of them were established under the Encouragement of Investments Acts, 1958, where they were permitted even without a manufacturer's licence to set up here as long as they exported 90 per cent. of their production. Already they are doing that, and not only to the British market but to many parts of the world. Since that, in the main, is the pattern of the new industries, I do not think they will have much to fear from the Common Market. Apart from that, we have the advantage that they are new factories. New factories and new layouts have a great advantage over old-established concerns by reason of more efficient techniques and the time and labour-saving devices that can be introduced.

Mr. Corish

Would our main market not be Britain?

Mr. J. Lynch

The main market may continue to be Britain, but not necessarily. We will have the 200,000,000 people of the existing Common Market countries, and in the EFTA countries, whose entry into the Common Market at some future date is not unlikely, there are an extra 100,000,000 people, making in all a market of over 300,000,000 to which we might have free access, admittedly only on the basis of price, competition and quality.

Mr. Wycherley

When we join the Common Market, are we limited to that market?

Mr. J. Lynch

No, you can export to every country in the world. There is no limitation whatever. The Common Market has only cleared tariffs between the participating countries. I hope it will soon have an agricultural policy as well. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, there will be no difficulty whatever about any member country coming to its own arrangements.

Mr. T. Lynch

Some of these countries can undercut us very much.

Mr. J. Lynch

I suppose they can.

Mr. T. Lynch

The French are sellling wheat on the open market in London.

Mr. J. Lynch

As I said, I hope the Common Market will have an agricultural policy very soon. I believe joining the Common Market would be an advantage to Irish agriculture. I want to comment on what the Leader of the Opposition said about a wider basis and extension of the Common Market. I would agree with him. We all know American subvention assisted greatly these countries to rehabilitate themselves economically to the point that they could form this bloc. Naturally, it had a political content.

First of all, the aim was to make these countries as economically sound as possible in order to withstand any ideological pressure from outside on the way of life of the people forming the Common Market. It is essential that that concept, or an even stronger one, will have to be on a broader basis and extended certainly to the free countries of Western Europe. Since the United States and Canada have now come into OEEC in its revised form, OEECD, it is not unreasonable to hope that the basis of the Common Market concept will even further be extended. If it is, the stronger it will be.

Labour relations were referred to on a number of occasions during the debate. As I have announced, the Conditions of Employment Act and the construction of the Labour Court itself are being examined. I should like to say, however, that, contrary to what has been suggested here, the Labour Court has performed a very useful function. It has been said on a number of occasions that the recommendations of the Labour Court formed the basis of settlement in 75 per cent. of the cases coming before it. In 1960, for example, it was instrumental in the settlement of all but 21 of the 246 disputes coming before it, which I think was a creditable performance.

We have not yet reached the stage— I do not think we ever will or that we would ever want to—of saying to any of our workers that he will not have the right to withdraw his labour if the conditions under which he works are so bad as to make it intolerable for him. Even if we did, we would have the question of enforcement; and I do not think we would face with any degree of equanimity the prospect of sending people to jail because they established what they felt were their traditional and treasured rights. We must face facts. We have a very good instrument in the Labour Court. Its method of procedure is an excellent one, but we have the difficulty, in my opinion, that its ultimate findings are no more than recommendations which are not binding on either side.

In the main, its recommendations have been accepted. The difficulty arises in the few cases in which they have not been accepted. It has been no pleasure for me to intervene in one way or another in a few strikes recently. I do not think it is a situation that should be allowed to continue. I know it is a situation the Labour Court itself did not view with any degree of equanimity. I fully appreciate their point of view. Nevertheless, there were serious matters depending on the peaceful settlement of these disputes; and, fortunately, in the few cases in which intervention was made, there was a settlement after a short time.

What I hope to see is the system whereby conciliation will be tried and tried, with recourse to the Labour Court at a very late stage or, possibly, the latest stage in the course of any dispute. As long as we can keep parties talking about the difficulties before any serious action is taken, there is always the prospect that the difficulties and differences between them can be resolved. As Deputy Sherwin aptly observed yesterday, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the right side. Perhaps that is the case in labour disputes as well. I should like to see, even when the conciliation efforts have failed and the matter ultimately comes to the Labour Court, and even when the Labour Court's ultimate recommendations are not acceptable, that the conciliation system would continue right through to make sure that the parties will not continue sniping at each other from a distance through newspaper advertisements and other ways; in other words, that at all stages of a labour dispute there should be some means of conciliation, some means of keeping the parties in conference and in touch with each other so as to avoid the difficulties, hardships and, in some cases, the bitterness that often accompany strikes.

As I have said, the situation is being closely watched and we are undertaking an examination of how the method can be improved. The more we think of it, the greater must be our realisation that we have a very good system. Nobody can suggest there is an easy or readymade solution to the problem. At all events, we have the situation in which the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are in close consultation with each other on labour problems.

I do not know what scope these consultations embrace, whether they are limited to immediate wage demands and hours of work or whether they can be extended to the broader question of labour relations. Nevertheless, it it a good thing they are sitting down together and I believe nothing but good can emanate from it. I will await the outcome of these conferences. I expect to be kept informed, particularly having regard to the fact that the parties know that the Department of Industry and Commerce is examining the labour relations position. I think the House will agree with me it is a matter that is not easy of solution and one in which no quick decisions ought to be made, particularly as the two main partners in industry are sitting down together and discussing their problems.

Another matter mentioned by a number of Deputies was the cost of living. Comment was made on the fact that I did not advert to the cost of living in the course of my opening statement. I can assure the House that the omission was by no means deliberate and that I had no fears whatever in referring to the cost of living as it stood or as it stands. This Government before it came into office said that the important thing was to achieve stability in the cost of living. If one looks at the statistics for the past three years one will readily see that that stability was maintained. The figure in mid-February, 1958, and mid-February, 1960, was the same at 144. There were fluctuations in the meantime but in the main the figure of 144 was maintained.

Between the same starting period, mid-February, 1944, and mid-August, 1960, there was a fluctuation of 2 points up to 146 and the latest figure now being taken for 1961 is 150.3. Some of the Opposition speakers yesterday based the sums of money which they quoted, as between now and 1957, on the supposition that 15 points was 15 per cent. In fact the 15 points is only 10 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

Surely it is 11½ per cent?

Mr. J. Lynch

In a quick calculation this morning I made it over ten per cent, but I stand corrected.

Mr. Dillon

Would it not be a percentage of the figure 135; 15 over 135 is 11¾?

Mr. J. Lynch

In my quick calculation I made it over 10 per cent.

Mr. Corish

It is too early in the morning for that kind of thing.

Mr. Dillon

It is a substantial difference.

Mr. Corish

It is and the Deputy is correct.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Dillon mentioned that while industrial workers were in the main able to keep pace with the increased cost of living the agricultural community were unable to do so. However, the increase in the cost of living largely referred to the increase in the price of milk, butter, flour and bread. Some of these commodities were increased, as will be admitted, as the result of the withdrawal of the subsidies which at the time accounted for some eight points. But the same table as Deputy Dillon quotes from, shows the increase between 1957 and 1960 in food was 102.1 to 116.6. That was to August, 1960. I have not got the other figure. Therefore that was 14.5 points. There were, of course, fluctuations on the other headings which had an effect—

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will recall that in the statistics published prior to the year 1961, the figure has gone up by 2.7, page 26, table 14.

Mr. J. Lynch

What figure is that?

Mr. Dillon

The consumer price index number has risen from 115.4 to 118.1 on the August, 1953, base.

Mr. J. Lynch

That brings the figure to two months later, to the one available in the Statistical Abstract. However, the point I want to make is that apart from the increases for which the abolition of food subsidies was responsible, there were increases in the price of commodities which automatically increased farm income, for example in milk, and which was deliberately done to try to equate the position of the person living on the land with that of the person who is earning his daily bread from industrial employment. It is wrong, therefore, to say the increase in the cost of living, as it stands now, has taken no account of farm income. In fact farm income remains largely the same as it was in 1958, notwithstanding the reduction in output of cattle and other things in the meantime which was caused largely by the weather.

I want to repeat that I had no ulterior motive in not mentioning the cost of living figure in my opening statement. It was an omission on my part and certainly not one the members of the Fine Gael Party can seize upon as something I was trying deliberately to avoid.

With regard to emigration, the Taoiseach mentioned yesterday that the outward-inward balance had been reduced considerably. He mentioned in the course of his reply to that Dáil question that the highest figure for net emigration we ever had was in 1956. That brought howls of protest from the Opposition benches but I would like to refer the Opposition Deputies again to the Statistical Abstract, 1960, page 17, table 6. It gives the net emigration figure for the period to 1956 as 196,763 which was the highest figure attained since the 'twenties.

Mr. Cosgrave

What about the figure given recently in the British House of Commons, that 78,000 had employment insurance?

Mr. J. Lynch

There was a qualification of that figure. The publication which I heard Deputy O'Malley read out and which I presume was an official British publication said the possibility of duplication could not be overlooked. There was another figure in table 164 of the same Statistical Abstract which indicates that the total live register for unemployed as at January, 1957, stood at 94,648. That allied to the net emigration figure for 1956 is a pretty dismal picture of the social conditions available from the statistical figures for the years 1956 and 1957. It was not easy to recover from a position like that but we have done so fairly well.

Mr. T. Lynch

There were 4,000 single tickets sold out of Waterford last year. There is no recovery there.

Mr. J. Lynch

We should try to avoid boom conditions in any sector of our economy. They do not last very long. Steady progress is being maintained and it is admitted by outside observers, for example the most recent O.E.E.C. report on our country, that we are set on the right road. Many other questions were raised by Deputies. It is difficult for me to follow all of them, but I owe it to Deputy Dillon to refer to his comments on the adverse trade balance. He takes the figure for May at £10,000,000 and multiplies that by 12 and produces an adverse trade balance of £50,000,000 in the current year. Deputy Dillon knows more about statistics than I do.

Yesterday the Deputy quoted from The People, a British Sunday newspaper, to illustrate a point he wished to make in reference to his observations on our adverse balance. I should like to refer him to to-day's Irish Independent which, I hope, he accepts as a more dependable journal than The People.

Mr. Dillon

Might I interrupt the Minister? He quoted Table 6, giving as the net emigration for one year, 1956—196,000. Does the Minister refer to the fact that he has given the figure for a quinquennial period for one year?

Mr. J. Lynch

I was relating that figure to the unemployment——

Mr. Dillon

The Minister said that emigration in 1956 was 196,000.

Mr. J. Lynch

The net emigration figure given in Table 6 shows——

Mr. Dillon

That was a figure for five years.

Mr. Cosgrave

It was less for five years than four years under Fianna Fáil.

Mr. J. Lynch

We have not got the figures yet for 1961. The next quinquennial figure will show an improvement. May I come to the live register for 1956-57?

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister deal with the reference to Table 6? It is slightly ambiguous.

Mr. J. Lynch

Perhaps, I am ambiguous.

Mr. Dillon

I would not dream of charging the Minister with being deliberately ambiguous.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am dealing with the Deputy's observations on the balance of payments situation, and I am quoting for him the treatment of that position by to-day's Irish Independent. The article says:

Imports rose, but not so markedly, the increase being most noticeable since the middle of last year. As a result, the import excess, which declined to £72,000,000 in the 12 months ended September, 1960, has shown an upward tendency, rising to £76,000,000 in the 12 months ended March, 1961.

Lower down it says:

Import prices in the first quarter of 1961 were about one per cent. above those for the corresponding period of 1960, but about the same amount lower than for the last quarter of that year.

The final paragraph says:

As a result of these relatively slight movements, the terms of trade were somewhat worse in the March 1961 quarter than in the March 1960 quarter, though better than in the December 1960 quarter.

The increase referred to some extent to the increase in the import of raw materials. Deputy Dr. Ryan, in his Budget Speech, adverted to this fact and said there would, perhaps, be an increase on that side. At Column 659, Volume 188, for the 19th April, 1961, he said:

However, imports will probably rise noticeably also, partly because of the bad grain harvest last year and partly because of the demand for equipment and raw materials for expanding factories. It is possible that a small deficit may emerge, but this need not cause concern.

The figures quoted by Deputy Dillon yesterday need not cause him concern. The position is being watched very closely. In the figure which Deputy Dillon quoted for last month there are, as he knows, raw materials and machinery for new factories. It is hoped that not only will that be offset but that our exports arising from some of these new factories, which are in the main export factories, will have the desired effect on the balance of payments position.

There were a number of other questions asked in the course of the debate on a variety of subjects. I made some inquiries about the grant given to the chewing gum factory to which Deputy Dillon referred. Under the Encouragement of Investment Act, 1958, that factory is one which did not require a new manufacture licence and, therefore, no facilities were given under the Control of Manufactures Act, because their output conformed with the terms of the Encouragement of Investment Act that 90 per cent. at least was for the export market.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is the Minister satisfied they are not exceeding the ten per cent.? There were complaints from home manufacturers.

Mr. J. Lynch

The first complaint I got was from Deputy Dillon yesterday. While we have no complaints yet, I would expect that the Federation of Industries themselves would keep a close watch and report any breaches to the Department of Industry and Commerce. If there are any such breaches, I would be very glad to hear of them.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Minister will examine——

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, I had only time to inquire about one side of it. I may have misunderstood the Deputy when he said that existing manufacturers get no assistance by way of concession on tax in relation to export profits. Even on existing exports there is a remission of 25 per cent. I have a function to attend to this morning which precludes me from referring to the other points but I can assure the Deputy who raised those points that these will be attended to. I have a full note of them. Deputy Dillon made a case about a furniture manufacturer in some rural part. I made some inquiries about that. The existing Apprenticeship Committee was dealing with that. The new Apprenticeship Board will now look at it and I hope they will be able to come to that person's assistance in some way. I think they will be able to come to his assistance in some way.

Deputies raised the question of entry on land for the purpose of mineral exploration. I am in close touch with the National Farmers Association about the problems which open-cast mining are causing for farmers in the Kilkenny area. I can assure Deputy Dillon that the case I think he had in mind and which Deputy Crotty mentioned afterwards is not as bad as thought. I have arranged with the parties concerned for an arbitrator, appointed by me, to decide on the compensation due to the man concerned. I do not think there is any question that the man will be done out of his compensation. In the meantime, having regard to that experience, I can assure the Deputy that the suggestion about some security or some bond to be placed in advance by these prospectors or miners will be very carefully looked into.

I was asked about oil exploration. Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Norton and, I think, Deputy Russell asked what exactly was being done in oil exploration and what was behind the change in the set-up of the existing company. They wanted to know whether Irish Ambassador Oil had ceased to exist and whether there were any new Irish directors or new Irish money in the new company. The Continental Oil Company and the Ohio Oil Company will join with the Irish Ambassador Oil Company. They are two of the top Oil exploration companies in the United States. The Irish Ambassador Oil Company indicated to the Department that participation of these companies in the project would enable the work proposed to be done in this country to be done at a faster rate. They also pointed out that, if oil or gas were found, the Continental Oil Company and the Ohio Oil Company could, between them, and with the assistance of the Irish Ambassador Oil Company, finance subsequent developments which the Irish Ambassador Oil Company, by itself, may not be able to do.

The main advantage from the country's point of view, then, is that exploration work will be finished more quickly and any benefit derived from a discovery of oil or gas will be available earlier. The arrangements to give effect to the amalgamation between the Irish Ambassador Oil Company, the Continental Oil Company and the Ohio Oil Company have not yet been completed. When they are completed, the Irish Ambassador Oil Company will cease to exist and a new Irish company composed of the three will be formed with the same agreement as the existing one with the Irish Ambassador Oil Company.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will there be any Irish holding?

Mr. J. Lynch

No, and no Irish money will be involved. To date, the company have not found any oil or natural gas but they have established in the course of their surveys that we have underground structures capable of holding oil or natural gas.

If there are any points which I have omitted, I have a full note of them. They are points of detail which were raised by Deputies. They will be carefully checked and looked into and, if any remedy is necessary and possible, it will be put into effect.

Vote put and agreed to.