Committee on Finance. - Vóta 44—Tionscal agus Tráchtáil.

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £2,059,460 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun beith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1963, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála, lena n-áirítear Seirbhísí aiáirthe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, agus chun Ildeontais-i-gCabhair a íoc.

Is é an rud is tábhachtaí a tharla i rith na bliana seo caite go ndearnamar iarratas chun bheith inár gchomhaltaí de Chomhphobal Eacnamaíochta na hEorpa. Tá a fhios ag na teachtaí conas mar atá an scéal ina thaobh sin i gcoitinne agus fé mar is eol doibh freisin, d'imthigh ard-oifigigh ón tír seo go dtí An Bhruiséal ar an 11ú la den mhí seo leis an ullmhúchán a dhéanamh do chruinniú eile idir Air ón Rialtas seo agus Airí ó Rialtais Státchomhaltaí an Chomhphobail.

Tá socrú déanta ag an gCoiste um Eagraíocht Tionscail a cuireadh ar bun anuraidh le haghaidh suirbhéireacht fhorleitheadúil ar thionscail féachaint conas is fearr a d'fhéadfaidís iad féin a chur i gcóir do dhálaí iomaíochta an Chómhargaigh. Tá an obair sin ag dul ar aghaidh go seasta agus tá tuarascálacha ar Shuirbhéireachtaí ag teacht isteach chun an Choiste anois lena mbreithníú.

Mhéadaigh ar tháirgeadh tionscal agus ar an bhfostaíocht i rith na bliana agus laghdaíodh tuilleadh ar líon na ndaoine dífhostaithe. Chuaigh mórán eile gnóthas tionscail i gceann saothair i rith na bliana agus nuair a bheidh siad faoi lán seoil beidh suas le 4,500 duine ar fostú iontu. Bhí tuilleadh monarchana á dtógáil agus meastar go mbeidh tuairim 3,400 duine ar fostú iontu i gceann na haimsire.

Tá breis feabhais ag teacht ar an dea-thoradh as iarrachtaí an Udaráis Forbartha Tionscail chun lucht tionscail ólasmuigh den tír a mhealladh chugainn. Sa bhliain 1961 thosaigh timpeall 50 monarcha, a raibh baint ag dreamanna ón gcoigríoch leo, ar earraí a tháirgeadh, nó bhí siad á dtógáil. Tá na monarchana sin scaipthe ar fud na tíre agus ní hé amháin go dtabharfaidh siad obair fhóinteach do dhaoine ach cuideoidh siad go mór lenár dtrádáil onnmhairíochta. Chuir an tUdarás Forbartha Tionscail feachtas mór poiblíochta ar siúl sa Bhreatain Mhór, i dtíortha éagsúla ar an Mór-Roinn, agus sna Stáit Aontaithe. Tá ábhar fógraíochta á sholáthar i morán teangacha seachas an Béarla. Tá ceathrar ionadaí ag obair anois i dtíortha thar lear agus, ina theannta sin, thug comhaltaí den Udarás cuairteanna ar leith ar thíortha éagsúla d'fhonn lucht tionscail iontu a spreagadh chun tuilleadh suime a chur i mbunú tionscal annseo.

Sa bhliain 1961 gnóthaíodh níos mó ná mar a gnóthaíodh riamh as earraí a onnmhairiú. B'fhiú os cionn £180 milliún ar fad iad, agus tháinig méadú £3 mhilliún san iomlán i gcomórtas le 1960 ar luach na mbunábhar agus na ndéantús a onmhairíodh. Tá Córas Tráchtála ag cabhrú i gcónaí le honnmhaireóirí chun margaí dá gcuid earraí a cháil agus a fhorbairt, agus tá sé tar éis dul i mbun suirbhéireacht i dtíortha an Chómhargaidh ar na deiseann a d'fhéadfadh a bheith iontu chun earraí áirithe ón tír seo a onnmhairiú chucu.

Thagair mé anuraidh do scéim na nDeontas Cabhrach Teicniúla. Ba mhaith liom a threisiú gur ceart breis tairbhe a bhaint as an scéim sin. Na gnólachtaí a bhain leas as an scéim fuair siad gur mhór an chabhair í chun éifeachtúlacht a fheabhsú. Anois an t-am do ghnólachtaí eile chun an dea-shampla sin a leanúint.

Chuaigh an Foras Tionscail ar aghaidh ag cuidiú le tionscail a bhunú i gceantair neamhfhorbartha. Cheadaigh siad os cionn £1½ milliún de dheontais anuraidh; tugann sin soláthar iomlán na ndeontas sin go dtí breis is £6 mhilliún. Táthar ag súil go bhfostófar timpeall 10,500 duine sna tionscadail éagsúla atá ceadaithe go dtí seo. Cheadaigh an Foras Tionscail freisin anuraidh breis is £2½ mhilliúin mar dheontais do thionscail taobh amuigh de na limistéir neamhfhorbartha, agus meastar go dtabharfaidh na tionscadail éagsúla atá ceadaithe do na limistéir sin fostaíocht do 11,500 duine no mar sin. Is le honnmhairí is mó atá baint ag na tionscadail sin.

In the Book of Estimates, the net Estimate of £3,089,460 for 1962-63 is compared with a sum of £2,234,340 granted in 1961-62 (including a Supplementary Estimate for £172,990 less £699,650 in respect of services transferred to other Departments) and shows an increase of £855,120 compared with the sum granted last year. In March, 1962, after the Book of Estimates had been printed and circulated an additional sum of £420,000 was granted in two Supplementary Estimates bringing the total amount granted in 1961-62 to £2,654,340. The actual increase in the Estimate for 1962-63 compared with the amount granted in 1961-62 is, therefore, £435,120.

The first Supplementary Estimate provided £72,990 for Dundalk Engineering Works (there is no provision for this service in 1962-63) and £100,000 for Nitrigin Éireann Teo. Two further Supplementary Estimates were taken in March, too late for inclusion in the printed Estimates.

The first provided £170,000 for St. Patrick's Copper Mines Ltd. This was a new service for which no provision had been made in the original Estimate for 1961-62.

The second sanctioned an increase of £350,000 on the original Estimate of £650,000 for An Foras Tionscal under the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952. This brought the total grant for 1961-62 up to the 1962-63 provision of £1,000,000. The £350,000 required was met to the extent of £100,000 by way of savings on other subheads and an additional grant of £250,000.

The services of tourism for which £699,300 was provided (£700,000 less £700 Appropriations-in-Aid) were transferred to the Department of Transport and Power and are provided for in that Department's Vote for 1962/63. The annual subscription to the International Sugar Council for which £350 was provided in 1961/62 in this Vote is provided for in 1962/63 in the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.

The principal increases are in the provisions for Salaries £76,000 (Subhead A); Córas Tráchtála £20,000 (Subhead H); and Fóras Tionscal £500,000 (Subhead J.2.). There is a decrease of £34,861 in Appropriations-in-Aid which is equivalent to an increase in the net grant. Increases in other subheads amount to £31,995, making a total of £662,856. To this must be added a further sum of £100,000 representing an increase in 1962/63 as a result of reducing the provisions on other subheads in 1961/62 by the transfer of this sum to the grant subhead (J.J.) for Foras Tionscal in the "late" Supplementary Estimate for this service. Total increases in 1962/63 thus amount to £762,856.

The principal decreases are in the provisions for Córas Tráchtála (Promotion of Whiskey Exports) £40,000; Technical Assistance £50,000 (Subhead L); Nitrigin Éireann Teo. £50,000 (Subhead N); St. Patrick's Copper Mines £100,000 (Subhead R). (The increase of £70,000 shown in the printed Estimates was changed to a decrease of £100,000 by the "late" Supplementary Estimate of £170,000 for this service); Dundalk Engineering Works—Staff Redundancies £73,000. Decreases in other subheads amount to £14,736, making a total decrease of £327,736.

As I have already stated the net increase in the Estimate for 1962/63 compared with the actual sum granted in 1961/62 is, therefore, £435,120.

The most significant development in the past twelve months was our application for membership of the European Economic Community. Our formal application was made on the 31st July, 1961 and this was followed by a meeting with Ministers of the Governments of the member States on 18th January at which the Taoiseach made a statement the text of which has been published. It was expected that a further meeting would be held in late March or early April after the statement of our case had been considered. It has not been found possible to keep to this schedule owing to the heavy programme of work with which the Community is faced. However as Deputies are aware a meeting between the Permanent Representatives in Brussels of the member nations of the Community and senior officials of the Irish Government was held last week for the purpose of preparing for a further discussion between Irish Ministers and Ministers of the Governments of the member states.

The Committee on Industrial Organisation was formed last year, to arrange for a comprehensive survey of the industrial sector for the purpose of making a critical appraisal of the measures that may require to be taken to adapt different industries to the new conditions of more intensive competition, to examine the difficulties which may be created for particular industries and to formulate positive measures of adjustment and adaptation. The membership of the Committee is drawn from the Federation of Irish Industries, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Federated Union of Employers and the Departments of Industry and Commerce and Finance.

The Committee has appointed a number of survey teams, each of which is comprised of a senior Government official and an economist from the Department of Finance or from outside the Public Service. It is at the option of each industry being surveyed to appoint a representative who will act as a full member of its survey team, or as an associate member or liaison with the team.

Surveys of a considerable number of industries are in hands and the exercise is being extended as rapidly as possible to other sectors of industry. Substantial progress has already been made in the case of a number of surveys and the first reports of survey teams are, I understand, now commencing to come before the Committee for consideration.

Pending the outcome of the industrial surveys, all firms have been urged to concentrate their attention immediately on an examination of the problems which will arise for them under conditions of European Free Trade and the measures which will require to be taken to overcome these problems. As announced by the Minister for Finance in the course of his Budget Speech, the Government have accepted the recommendations in an interim Report of the Committee on Industrial Organisation for the granting of special forms of State aid designed to assist and encourage industry to carry out the necessary adaptation measures in the shortest time.

I am confident that our manufacturers will take the necessary action to equip themselves to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be presented to them. I am hopeful too that the opening up of new markets for Irish industry will provide an added inducement to foreign manufacturers to extend their activities to this country and thereby to contribute further to our economic advancement.

The rapid increase in industrial production which was evident in 1960 continued in 1961. For the year 1961 the provisional index of volume of production (to base 1953=100) of manufacturing industry was 134.0 compared with 123.5 in 1960 and 114.8 in 1959. The average number of persons engaged in manufacturing industries is provisionally estimated at 155,300 in 1961 compared with 149,500 in 1960. There has been a further reduction in the total unemployment figures as compared with recent years. At the end of February, 1962, the number on the Live Register was 56,700 compared with 60,000 at the end of February, 1961.

Excluding projects in which the capital involved was less than £10,000 in each case, 36 new industrial undertakings or extensions of existing firms came to notice as having commenced production in the year ended 31st December, 1961. The aggregate capital investment in these 36 undertakings is estimated at £6½ million and the employment potential is estimated at 1,500 initially rising to 4,500. Included in the 36 are 27 with external participation.

Apart from projects which had already reached the production stage, there were, at the end of the year 1961, 28 factories in course of construction. These additional projects will involve a total capital investment in the region of £10 million and are expected to give employment ultimately to 3,400 workers.

Industrial proposals before my Department and the Industrial Development Authority, which had reached a stage at which it was considered likely they would come to fruition, numbered 88 as at the 31st March, 1962.

When referring to technical assistance grants this time last year, I mentioned that amidst the many uncertainties and obscurities of the future many things stood out clearly; the trend towards freer international trade was becoming more marked, international competition was getting keener, and the need to reach and maintain the highest peak of productive efficiency was, accordingly, becoming all the greater. Now that we have applied for membership of the Common Market, the urgent necessity for each individual industry to direct its full attention to the problems of the future, and the measures necessary to overcome them, has become even more acute. The importance of action now cannot be over-emphasised: and I regret very much that greater use has not been made of the technical assistance scheme.

Through the employment of industrial consultants to re-organise their businesses a number of firms have taken a step in the right direction. Firms who have availed themselves of technical assistance grants have reported that the improvement schemes carried out at their factories have been of invaluable assistance in reducing costs, increasing productivity and improving general efficiency. But the demand for grants has been altogether too small. In 1961/62 a sum of £72,000 was provided for industrial consultancy projects. A large number of grants which had been approved did not arise for payment within the year and actual expenditure was only £34,000.

I had such a big surrender under this Subhead for 1961/62 that I felt obliged to revise the estimate for 1962/63 and relate the provision for industrial consultancy projects to the likely sum that could come in course of payment. This provision therefore represents the estimated actual expenditure in 1962/63. If, as I hope, there is a continuing and growing demand for grants I have a clear understanding with the Minister for Finance that more money will be provided if it is needed to meet payments arising in the present year. While interest in the Technical Assistance Scheme has recently shown an encouraging growth, there can be no doubt that there are still very many firms whose efficiency could be improved by resort to the scheme. I counsel manufacturers not to neglect this opportunity.

During the past financial year An Foras Tionscal approved grants amounting to £1,613,701 for projects located in the undeveloped areas bringing the total provision for such grants to £6,167,659. Of this amount grants totalling £3,045,780 were paid to 31st March, 1962, leaving outstanding commitments of £3,121,879. The total capital investment involved in the approved projects amounts to over £15 million and it is expected they will give employment to about 10,500 persons. Seventy-two projects assisted by An Foras Tionscal are in production in the undeveloped areas and there are 46 other projects for which grants have been promised and which are in varying stages of development. A substantial number of these projects are related mainly to exports.

The amount of the estimate, £1 million, is the same as the provision for last year including the supplementary estimate for £350,000.

As regards grants by An Foras Tionscal for industries outside the undeveloped areas during the year ended 31st March, 1962, An Foras Tionscal approved grants amounting to £2,672,120 bringing the total grants approved for such projects to £4,478,470. Of this latter sum grants totalling £1,036,690 were paid to 31st March, 1962, leaving outstanding commitments of £3,441,780. The total capital investment in the approved projects amounts to almost £20¾ million. It is estimated that these projects, which are mainly in the export field, will employ about 11,500 persons.

In August, 1961, the Industrial Grants (Amendment) Act, 1961, became law. This Act provided for an increase from £10 million to £15 million in the aggregate amount of the grants which might be made by An Foras Tionscal. The Act also provided for an increase in the number of members on the Board of An Foras Tionscal and I appointed two additional members some time ago.

In my speech last year introducing the Estimate for my Department I mentioned the desirability of a review of the original concept of the undeveloped areas and of the industrial grants scheme. This review is now proceeding and I hope to bring before the Dáil at an early date such proposals for the amendment of existing legislation as may seem desirable following the review.

The Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961, was brought into operation on 4th October, 1961. The functions of the Institute as reconstituted under the Act will be in the main similar to those provided for in the previous Acts of 1946 and 1954, now repealed, but with the completion of its new laboratories, the Institute will be in a much better position to meet the needs of industry, particularly in the field of testing. The 1961 Act removed the statutory ceiling applicable to the annual grant towards the expenses of administration of the Institute. In future the amount to be provided will be decided in the light of the Institute's requirements for each year. This amendment was considered necessary as the demand for the services of the new laboratories will involve greater expenditure in the running of the Institute. Approval for any grants will, of course, continue to be sought in the annual Estimates. The responsibility for the administration of the affairs of the Institute devolves, under the Act, on a Board of nine members appointed some time ago by me.

The gross national product increased in 1961 by about 4½ per cent. compared with 1960 as against an annual increase of 2 per cent. envisaged in the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion. This increase reflects the new dynamism which has entered the economy and stems particularly from the rapid and sustained advance which has taken place along the industrial front. The successful efforts of existing industries here as well as the addition to the country's industrial potential of the many new factories which have recently commenced production, or are rapidly nearing the production stage, provide grounds for confidence in our ability as a nation to achieve further industrial and general economic expansion. If our application for membership of the European Economic Community is accepted, the continued progress of our industrial sector will, of course, depend on the success of our industries in meeting the more intensive competition that may be expected in home and export markets.

Deputies are aware of the campaign which is being pursued to encourage external investment in industry in Ireland. The Industrial Development Authority, who are carrying out this campaign, have intensified their efforts to attract foreign industrialists to the country and are meeting with increasing success. During 1961, some 50 factories, in which there was foreign participation: 27 commenced production and 23 were in course of construction. These factories, which are located in various parts of the country, will provide much-needed local employment and, what is most important, make a substantial contribution to our export trade.

During the year, the Industrial Development Authority carried out an intensive publicity and advertising campaign in the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany and to a lesser extent in Switzerland, Belgium and other European countries. The advertising programme included the placing of advertisements appropriate to each country in the more important trade and financial journals and newspapers. Visits by members of the Authority and their field representatives to industrial centres were supported by planned advertisements in the local press of the countries visited.

A feature of the Authority's advertising programme is their explanatory brochure "Opportunities for Industrialists." French and Italian as well as English versions of the brochure have been printed and are widely distributed at home and abroad. A German version of the brochure is in course of preparation and also a special brochure for the United States Campaign. Arrangements are also in hand for the production of other publicity material.

Two additional field representatives were appointed by the Authority in 1961: one permanently resident in the United States and the second a travelling representative in Europe who is concentrating his efforts mainly in Germany for the present. The Authority has now four representatives operating abroad; the other two operate in Britain, France, and other European countries. The promotional work of these representatives has aroused a good deal of interest in the many advantages that this country has to offer the potential promoter of industrial enterprises.

During the year under review, visits were made by members of the Authority to various European countries and to the United States. In September last, the Chairman of the Authority held a Press reception in London for representatives of the financial, economic and trade press which resulted in substantial publicity in a number of publications.

In October, 1961, a delegation headed by the Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority visited Italy where he addressed industrialists, bankers and Chambers of Commerce in the cities of Milan, Genoa and Turin. Initial enthusiasm aroused in that country was followed by a visit by the Authority's travelling representative to Italy. It is too early yet to say what the results will be from this campaign but the Industrial Development Authority can be relied upon to do all they can to develop any worthwhile projects that may emerge.

In November last, a member of the Authority visited the United States to meet bankers and industrialists; he also studied the progress of the promotional campaign in America. A number of extensive visits were also made by a member of the Authority to Germany and Denmark and the inquiries resulting from these visits are being pursued.

It is evident from the success achieved in 1961 in attracting foreign investment to the country that the Authority's campaign is bearing fruit in increasing measure. There is every indication of a growing awareness among foreign industrialists of the advantages which Ireland has to offer as an industrial centre and the trend towards increasing participation by manufacturers abroad in our industrial development is expected to continue.

In the field of exploration of our mineral resources, the most interesting development of the year was undoubtedly the discovery of the deposits of lead together with some zinc, copper and silver in the Tynagh area of County Galway by Irish Base Metals Limited, a subsidiary of Northgate Exploration Limited of Toronto, Canada. The Company have published from time to time the results of their findings. As Deputies are aware, I recently made an Order compulsorily acquiring the minerals underlying a number of townlands in the Tynagh area which were not already in State ownership, so as to ensure the orderly development of mining operations there if mining should prove worthwhile.

Consequent on the mineral discovery in Tynagh and the resultant publicity, considerable interest in the potential of our mineral resources has been aroused, principally among Canadian mining concerns. Well over one hundred applications for prospecting licences over areas mainly in Counties Galway, Clare and Tipperary, where the geological structures are somewhat similar to those at Tynagh, have been received and I have decided to grant a substantial number of prospecting licences in these areas.

As regards exploration for oil, Deputies will recall the Agreement with American interests for the carrying out of a comprehensive scheme of exploration for oil and natural gas in this country. During the past year the Oil group continued their exploration work and carried out seismic surveys in the midlands, in West Clare and North Kerry and along the West coast from Galway to Tralee and in the Shannon Estuary. The results of these investigations and surveys are said by the group to be encouraging and it is expected that the localities in which the first test wells are to be drilled will be selected in the near future.

St. Patrick's Copper Mines Limited of Avoca was the subject of a debate in this House earlier this year in connection with a Supplementary Estimate. The Company have since been able to continue in production without the necessity of laying off any of their workers, but I have recently learned that they have run into further production difficulties. I am getting all the information necessary to consider the situation but it is quite possible that I may have to come to the Dáil later with a statement of the situation and of any proposals that may prove necessary for me to put forward for dealing with it.

Exploration of the copper deposits at Allihies, County Cork, was continued during the past year by the Emerald Isle Mining Company Limited, with the financial backing of Denison Mines Limited of Canada. The exploration carried out to date has proved the existence of certain reserves of ore, but it appears that these reserves may not be adequate on their own to support an economically workable mine. The Company are anxious, therefore, to establish the existence of additional ore reserves at Allihies and they have submitted proposals to me for further exploration and development work for which they are seeking State financial assistance. These proposals are at present being examined by my Department.

The New Abbeytown Mining Company Limited which operated at Abbeytown, County Sligo the only mine producing lead and zinc in this country in recent years, went out of production last November, when they had come to the end of the known ore deposits and had failed to discover new ores by an exploration scheme then completed.

The Technical Assistance project of coal exploration in the Leinster and Connaught coalfields, which is being financed out of the U.S. Grant Counterpart Funds, progressed satisfactorily during the year. The drilling so far carried out has been effective in giving precise information as to the existence of coal, the thickness of the seams and the quality of the coal in certain areas, and as to the absence of coal in other areas. The survey of the coalfields is expected to be completed later this year and the full significance of the results being obtained cannot be deduced until information has been gathered from all the planned boreholes.

A scheme of technical assistance grants for private exploration of minerals is also in operation. Grants of up to one-half of the cost may be given where there are likely to be commercially workable deposits of minerals in an area and their development is desirable in the national interest. Since this scheme was introduced just over two years ago, I have approved ten projects at an aggregate cost of £50,000.

A company entitled Nitrigin Éireann Teoranta has been incorporated under the Companies Acts, in pursuance of the decision of the Government, to negotiate binding tenders for a nitrogenous fertiliser factory to be located at Arklow and using fuel oil and Avoca pyrites. It is the intention to promote legislation at the appropriate time to provide a statutory basis for the company.

The Government are satisfied that the economics of using all possible raw materials at alternative locations in this country have been fully considered and that a nitrogenous fertiliser factory operated by a State Company at Arklow could produce nitrogenous fertiliser for sale without subsidisation at prices in line with prevailing import prices.

Drainage operations and other preparations for grass meal production at Geesala, County Mayo, were continued by Min Fheir (1959) Teoranta during the past twelve months. It is anticipated that in the course of the coming year, construction of the factory will be completed and production of grass meal commenced.

In the field of employer/employee relations the outstanding events of the past year were the general reduction which took place in normal weekly working hours without loss of pay and the general increase in wages, popularly known as the "eighth round", which followed closely upon it. There is no need for me at this stage to go into the history of this "eighth round", the House will be already fully acquainted with it. The general increase which emerged was well in excess of any general increase which had emerged in previous "rounds" and anxiety was felt that the increase in labour costs resulting from this and from the reduction in weekly working hours might not be offset by increased productivity. In this event there would be a serious danger that the cost of living would rise still further, thereby doing away with most, if not all, of the benefit which workers had hoped to gain. There is also the danger that costs of production will increase to such a degree as to prevent us from maintaining our export trade or achieving that increase in exports on which all are agreed the future prosperity of our country must largely depend. The eighth round developed in a rather haphazard fashion—and the question arises whether this development was in the best interests of the country as a whole or even in the best interests of the workers themselves. It can be said with truth that another development of this kind could be very serious and this has underlined the need for the most serious examination of the whole position and for an attempt to deal with it which will be in the general interest. I am glad that the organisations of employers and workers have come together at the highest level with this object in mind and I hope that the National Employer-Labour Conference planned to start on 23rd May will prove to be fruitful and that it will mark the beginning of a new era in these matters. The Government would prefer that a method of dealing with the problem should be worked out by employer and labour interests co-operating together than that it should have to be dictated by the State.

Recent events have also shown the need for certain other improvements in our industrial relations machinery. A review of this machinery is at present going on in the various Government Departments concerned and it is intended to consult employer and worker interests before any proposals are finalised. I note that the National Employer-Worker Conference has this item also on its Agenda. I cannot, therefore, at this stage attempt any forecast of what changes will be made.

Another significant development during the year, of interest to workers and employers, was the bringing into force in August last of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961. This Act gives to all workers, irrespective of wage or salary level, a statutory right to two weeks' annual holidays with pay in addition to public holidays.

An Cheárd Chomhairle, the National Apprenticeship Board, which was set up under the Apprenticeship Act, 1959, to secure improvement in the arrangements for recruiting and training apprentices, has, since its establishment, been formulating and publicising a national apprenticeship policy. An Chomhairle has now taken positive action to put this policy into effect. Formal examinations under the Apprenticeship Act, 1959, have been carried out in respect of seven trades— electrician, motor mechanic and five trades in the furniture industry. As a result, all of these trades have been designated under the Act and apprenticeship committees have been established on a national basis to regulate their apprenticeship arrangements. Since it could not examine all trades under the Act simultaneously, An Chomhairle decided to encourage the establishment of voluntary apprenticeship committees for certain trades. It has succeeded in getting voluntary committees established for the engineering and metal trades, the dental technicians' trade and for the building trades in certain areas including Dublin and Cork. It has also established satisfactory liaison with a number of apprenticeship committees which were already in existence, for instance, in the Dublin printing industry. All of these committees—whether statutory or voluntary—have commenced the work of implementing An Chomhairle's policy in the trades with which they are concerned. It is expected that the voluntary committees will be brought under the umbrella of the Act at a later date.

I think it is fair to say that with a few noteworthy exceptions, far too little attention has been paid in the past to questions relating to the recruitment and training of apprentices. Shortages of skilled men or inadequacies in skill due to deficient training methods could well jeopardise our industrial future. It is An Chomhairle's task to guard against this eventuality. I think that it has made a good start and its achievements within a relatively short period of time give promise that it will achieve its goal—to ensure that industry will have a sufficient supply of workers trained to cope with all the demands that may be made upon them in the future.

Exports in 1961 attained the record level of £180.3 million representing an increase of £27.6 million (or 18.1 per cent.) over the 1960 figure of £152.7 million. Imports totalled £261.3 million, an increase of £35.1 million, or 15.5 per cent. Over the 1960 figures of £226.2 million. In the result the import excess, which was £74 million in 1960, increased by £7 million to £81 million in 1961.

Exports of industrial raw materials and manufactured goods showed an overall increase of over £3 million compared with 1960. Major gains were shown by textiles, clothing, footwear, leather, cutlery, hardware, implements, machinery, and electrical goods. While the 1961 imports exceeded the 1960 figure by £35.1 million, over half that increase was for materials for further production.

Increased finances are being put at the disposal of Córas Tráchtála to enable that body to intensify its promotional and market research work in export markets. It is gratifying to see that the efforts of Córas Tráchtála to help exporters to find and exploit export markets are being rewarded and it is also gratifying to find that increasing numbers of exporters are looking to Córas Tráchtála for advice and guidance. In conjunction with the survey of Irish industry by the Committee on Industrial Organisation, Córas Tráchtála have undertaken surveys in the six Common Market countries of the export prospects for specified Irish Commodities. This important exercise could not have been undertaken so soon but for the fact that several of the field officers engaged in the work were provided by the Department of External Affairs. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the Department of External Affairs and its missions abroad for their wholehearted cooperation with my Department and the bodies concerned with economic matters for which I am the responsible Minister. Our Diplomatic Representatives and their staffs, all too few in relation to the heavy demands which we have to make on them, deserve a special word of praise for their invaluable help so readily given in the campaign for the promotion of trade and this applies also to the Headquarters staff of the Department of External Affairs.

In the course of the past year the Fair Trade Commission held an enquiry into resale price maintenance in the supply and distribution of cookers and ranges. This was the first enquiry held under the amended Restrictive Trade Practices legislation, which enables the Commission to enquire into particular aspects of a trade without having to examine all aspects of supply and distribution. The amended legislation made it possible to complete the enquiry in a much shorter time. I have received and am considering the report of this enquiry. It should be possible to publish this report fairly soon. The Commission also held a public enquiry towards the end of last year into the distribution of hand-knitting yarns and nylon stockings and their report is in course of preparation.

During the year the Commission also made Fair Trading Rules relating to the trade in and repair of motor vehicles and parts and kept under review the position in various trades through surveys and other means. The Commission also continued to give advice and assistance to manufacturers and traders who met with difficulties relating to the supply and distribution of goods not covered by existing Orders.

The Hire-Purchase and Credit-Sale (Advertising) Order, which I made on 25th August, 1961, and which came into effect on 1st April, 1962, will remove a cause of frequent complaint in relation to goods offered for sale on hire purchase. The order prescribes that, where goods are advertised for sale on hire-purchase or credit-sale terms and any information regarding those terms is given, all details of the terms of sale, including the cash price and the total hire-purchase price, must be shown. This applies to all forms of visual advertising including shop windows, catalogues, and television and film advertisements.

The Bill to amend and consolidate the Companies Acts is now reaching final form and it is hoped to introduce it before the end of the present session. A White Paper explaining the changes which it is proposed to make will be published when the Bill is circulated to Deputies.

The review of the laws on patents, trade marks, and copyright referred to last year has progressed to the stage at which Bills are at present being drafted to amend the laws relating to copyright and to trade marks; and the principles on which the law relating to patents should be amended have been settled. These Bills will be introduced as soon as they are ready.

I move:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The most urgent problem facing Irish industry at present is that of adapting itself to meet Common Market conditions. This has been emphasised on the number of occasions on which this problem has been discussed and, in particular, in the report of the Committee on Industrial Organisation set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last July. The report featured the need for changes and indeed the dominant note of the report is the question of urgency. It goes on to cite a number of recommendations concerning the aid which is necessary and stresses the need for immediate action.

The Committee expressed the view that the changes necessary to adapt industry to meet the Common Market conditions could be effected without additional aid, but they were also of the opinion that the necessary changes would not be undertaken by a large enough proportion of Irish industrial firms in sufficient time, unless State aid was provided. Indeed, they expressed the conclusion that the necessary measures would not be put into operation because of the anticipated view, which so many firms held, that the necessary aid would be forthcoming. The terms of the report contrast rather sharply with many of the optimistic expressions which we read from time to time in the Press and elsewhere when individual industrialists or other spokesmen accept as a matter of course that the advent of the Common Market can be easily surmounted.

The Committee, which had on it representatives of industrial organisations, trade unions and Government Departments, was of the opinion that relatively few firms and industries are at present taking decisions designed to prepare them for free trade. In the very first paragraph of its report, it expresses the view that in their present state many Irish firms and industries could not survive freer competition from imports.

Having surveyed the problem, the committee went on to make a number of recommendations, some of which were referred to on previous occasions and which, from what the Minister has said and from what the Minister for Finance said in the course of his Budget speech, it is proposed to implement by Government action where necessary. It is, however, important to examine in some detail the recommendations which have been made because they go to the very root of the problem and suggest that action must be taken as quickly as possible in order to provide firms and industries with the wherewithal to withstand competition and to equip them to meet the situation which will develop.

The report set out that free trade will pose four main problems: (1) reequipment within substantially the same field of activity; (2) adaptation which is involved in a switch from one field of activity to another; (3) inducements to new enterprises to go to places where workers are being disemployed; and (4) diversifying and deepening the industrial base. The committee then examined certain methods whereby financial and other aid can be provided, and made positive recommendations.

Under these proposals, the question of further grants will be the subject of examination. I was somewhat surprised to find that although this committee was charged with the responsibility of dealing with this whole question of aid to industry, it deferred comment on the results of the investigation concerning the industrial grants legislation. I note from the Minister's speech that although this matter is the subject of review at the moment, no reference has been made to the prospect of consultation between the Minister's Department and the committee on this aspect of the matter. It does seem somewhat strange that a committee, which was expressly established for the purpose of considering the problems inherent in this whole matter, such as the question of industrial grants, should not be given an opportunity of expressing its views or, at any rate, be consulted on the question.

The other matter which was considered by the committee is the question of financial aid and assistance. It is here that the House and the country are entitled to some further information. As I understand it, one of the requirements of the Rome Treaty is that no special concessions or facilities, apart from those agreed on, for tariff reductions, and so on, would be permitted beyond a certain date. One of the factors which has contributed greatly to industrial exports here has been the tax remissions. While this matter has been referred to by the committee and was the subject of favourable comment on a number of occasions, it is not stated to what extent these concessions can be continued or at what rates. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what actual steps are being taken to enable the country to meet not only the challenge but the inescapable facts and circumstances inevitable in the EEC, to what extent these existing financial inducements, such as tax remissions on exports, will be allowed to continue, for how long and at what rate.

Any consideration of this matter involves attention to the need for some general or overall plan of action. While it has been the subject of discussion by a number of groups on different occasions, there is no evidence of a general realisation of the consequences, economic much less political, of EEC membership. A national approach to this question is essential if the progress required is to be achieved. An approach on this basis involves the Government, employers and trade unions; indeed all who make up the life of the community have a direct interest in making a united, nation-wide effort if the EEC is to be faced with any hope of success. While the ultimate fate of the application of this country to join the EEC may depend on what happens to the British application to do so, it is well that we should examine what has been done in other countries. Our proximity to Britain in a way tends to obscure from our view what general developments and attitudes are under way in Europe. This applies in the economic and social spheres as well as in cultural matters.

In this connection one of the matters which has been the subject of very considerable attention elsewhere is that of industrial relations. In no sphere of national affairs is there a greater need for a more intelligent approach. To say this is not to reflect on those concerned in these matters but to suggest that it is essential to devise means which will provide a better system for the discussion and settlement of all problems under this broad heading. There is no subject that deserves more attention than a proper method of fixing wages and conditions of work. In common with many others I welcome the efforts of the Federated Union of Employers and of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to establish a national joint employer-labour conference. This is a definite move in the right direction. On this matter there is undoubted advantage in looking elsewhere to see what has been done. To suggest that what has been done in other countries could be adopted here without modification would be absurd. These arrangements must take into account local conditions, the character of the people and the background from which they were evolved.

It is, however, worth considering what has been done in certain countries in western Europe. In particular, I have in mind Sweden and the Netherlands. The development of industrial relations in Sweden is notable for the fact that two major organisations have developed, the Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions and the Swedish Employers Federation. The development in that regard has been responsible for a great deal of harmony in Swedish industry. As I understand the position, the Government exercise a considerable influence in wage matters, in direct contract to the arrangement which operates in the Netherlands. In Sweden, wage contracts are fixed for a certain period. They are renewed at certain intervals, after careful review by a joint body consisting of the Swedish Federation of Trade Unions and the Swedish Employers Confederation. These negotiations, carried on directly, result in what is called a frame agreement covering the proposed overall wage increase and allowing for distinctions between different groups. In the course of negotiations, it may be agreed that particular industries will secure a special differential on top of the joint agreement. When the direct negotiations result in an agreement, care is taken to see that it corresponds ultimately with what is within the terms of the frame agreement.

One interesting feature of Swedish wage negotiations is that 60 per cent. of the workers operate on piece rates. Another fact is that in the years between 1951 and 1958, loss of time due to strikes was comparatively small. Indeed, the general conclusion to be reached from the arrangements in operation there would indicate that the system which has been evolved, and which involves, as I say, in the case of Sweden, direct intervention by the State, has worked quite satisfactorily.

In the case of the Netherlands, the arrangement is quite different. There are in the Netherlands a number of bodies responsible for the formation and execution of wages policy. These include a central planning bureau. Wages in the Netherlands are almost entirely free from Government influence. While the Government do intervene to a certain extent in the broad question of national policy, it is direct negotiations that are carried on. It is a matter of interest that, between 1951 and 1958, less time was lost in strikes in the Netherlands than in any other OEEC country. It was estimated that loss of time through strikes averaged ten minutes per worker per year.

I mention these two cases because I believe it is imperative we should evolve here a satisfactory system, a working arrangement which will ensure that losses and disruptions will be reduced and, if possible, avoided. I agree with the Minister that it is better, in the main, that these matters should be arranged directly between employers and trade union organisations rather than that the Government should intervene. On the other hand, it is important that both workers' organisations and employers' organisations should have it impressed upon them that this is an urgent matter. It seems to me that the person with the authority to do that is the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on behalf of either the Government or the State.

As the Minister remarked in reference to the eighth round of wage increases, that developed in a rather haphazard fashion. I noted the word "haphazard" because it applies to a considerable extent to many of the arrangements concerning these matters. I am not referring strictly now to the eighth round, but rather to the settlement of industrial questions. There appears to be a lack of united plan designed to provide either a solution or a workable arrangement. It is important for us, therefore, to consider what has been done in other countries.

Our approach to this problem is coloured to a very considerable extent by experience in Britain. Other countries—the two European countries I have mentioned—have evolved different systems, systems that have, so far as one can gather on the basis of investigations conducted by OEEC, proved satisfactory. It ought to be possible for us to evolve a satisfactory system. There are no great divergent interests involved. It always seems to me that, when industrial relations become disrupted for one reason or another, the pressure then to get a settlement very often obscures the fact that there is no proper arrangement, no arrangement which would avoid these disruptions if a more mature approach were adopted by all of those concerned.

In view of the advent of EEC membership, it is important for us to remember that the problems common to a great many countries, while differing in certain respects, are capable of solution. It ought to be possible for us also to evolve a satisfactory arrangement. I believe the Minister has a responsibility to impress on the organisations concerned the urgency of the problem. It is, I suppose, natural that organisations representing either employers or trade unions should be directly concerned with their own interests, but there is the wider interest of the public welfare and the national economy involved. These are aspects which should be borne in mind and should be adequately considered by those concerned.

We all share the hope that the conference which is planned to take place next week will bear fruit and that we shall enter into an era of industrial peace and harmony, peace and harmony vitally essential if we are to make the progress necessary to face the competition as members of EEC or the ordinary competition inevitable in trading arrangements. It is hardly necessary to say, because it is so recent, that most industries are at present being considered and that a number of new firms have come into production or will do so in the course of the coming year.

No matter what industry is being established here, the promoters are struck by the fact that they are obliged to visit a number of different bodies— not merely the Department of Industry and Commerce but the Industrial Credit Company, An Foras Tionscal, or maybe, in some cases, Córas Tráchtála. To some of these people it appears that the functions of one or other of these bodies overlap. I believe this is a matter worth considering. It is, I suppose, natural enough that some of them grew up as occasion demanded it but we have a situation now in which there does appear to be a need for co-ordination and a possible streamlining of the arrangements for having a multiplicity of bodies dealing, on many occasions or for many matters, with the same question from different angles.

One of the facts about the past year or so has been the very steep rise in the cost of living. This has been the subject of comment here during the course of debates on the Vote on Account and also on the Budget. While price control is rarely effective except when wartime controls operate because, in the main, competition is the most effective method of ensuring that the customer gets a fair deal, I think there is, however, some evidence that in recent times we have gone from one extreme to the other. Some years ago here, we had different bodies—the Prices Advisory Body, the Prices Tribunal—at different times investigating prices and, both publicly and privately, investigations were carried on.

In recent years, no body of any sort exists to consider prices. We seem to have gone from the extreme of having investigations on many occasions, maybe, when there did not appear to be much justification for them, to no inquiry at all except a Departmental one. I believe a public inquiry is a valuable institution at times even if it allows only the searchlight of the public gaze to focus on the question at issue. The particular matter I have in view at the moment is the question of motor insurance premiums. This is a subject that has been before motorists and all concerned for the past few years in a very pressing way. There have been a number of increases and on each occasion on which the matter was investigated the Minister said he was satisfied, on the figures presented to him and examined by his Department, that the increase was warranted.

As I say, I know from experience that that may be a satisfactory enough examination but where the increases continue over a period in which so many persons are affected and in which their interests are directly involved and where their livelihood, and so on, is at stake, it is worth while having a public investigation even if only to bring out before the public the facts of the matter. It may be that all the facts are fully and adequately laid before the Department and examined by the Department and by the Minister and that ultimately the decision taken is the correct one, at least on the basis of the facts.

However, it is difficult to convince the public that an impartial investigation, conducted in public and where interested parties would have an opportunity of expressing their views, would not elicit some question or some fact or some aspect of the matter which does not come to light by the mere examination of files or statistics as presented directly through a Department. I believe that that is a matter which should be the subject of an investigation. There are certain well-known cases where a public investigation has, if nothing else, reassured public opinion on the matter and reassured those who are directly affected.

The rise in the cost of living has been continuous over the past year or so and, indeed, it has been continous over a number of years, with the possible exception of a slight stabilisation for a brief period in 1958 or 1959. But, since 1957, there has been a rise of 19 points in the cost of living index. That has meant a very severe increase in the prices of certain commodities—the commodities which affect the public, the ordinary consumer. In the case of food and essential items, it has been considerable. Butter has increased by 10d. a lb. since 1957. The 2-1b. loaf has increased from 9d. to 1/3½d., an increase of 6½d. The sack of flour has increased from 4/2½d. to 8/1½d., an increase of 3/11d. Potatoes have increased from 2/0¼d. a stone to 2/8d. Clothing has increased by four per cent., from 102.7 to 107.3 Drink and tobacco have increased, up to the recent increase, by 16 per cent.

Under the recent Budget, the pint, the glass of whiskey and the packet of cigarettes have increased further. All these increases affect every individual in the community and every householder and, because of the particular effect of these increases, coupled with the increases in bus fares, train fares and other charges, there is responsibility on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see that no price increase which can be avoided is allowed. For that reason, I believe that the method of price increases should be kept under review.

I have always held the view that, in the main, competition is the most effective method and that, in the absence of wartime controls, price control is rarely effective. On the other hand, it has the advantage in terrorem, if nothing else, that some price machinery is in operation so that those who charge prices in excess of what is reasonable and fair should be penalised and should be the subject of scrutiny and investigation. The prices of essential commodities were increased very drastically for all and the substantial rise in the cost of living means for a great many in the community very heavy additional burdens.

Undoubtedly quite a number of wage and salary earners have had the benefits of income adjustments. That is satisfactory for those who have had those increases, but there are in the community a great many people living on pensions and other fixed incomes— people whose means do not change except for the worse. These are affected very severely by the rise in the cost of living and the increased prices and it is for those reasons that the most careful scrutiny and examination should be made at all times before any adjustments are made.

I was very glad to note from the Minister's speech that it is proposed to proceed with the establishment of the nitrogenous fertiliser factory in Arklow. Since this matter came before the Dáil some time ago we have welcomed it because we believe that the pyrites which are available at Arklow can be utilised in the production of fertilisers there once the factory can be efficiently worked. It is satisfactory to note that the pyrites which are available in County Wicklow will be used as raw materials.

In the course of his remarks, the Minister referred to the mineral developments which are taking place in certain parts of the country and I should like to refer to one aspect of that matter. The problem I am about to refer to probably did not arise in reference to the better known mineral deposits because the State, and, perhaps, companies operating them, had already acquired rights and the land involved was the subject of earlier workings or of an Order, but in the case of certain new workings I believe care should be taken to ensure that landowners are not unduly disturbed or that, where disturbance takes place, adequate notice is given before entry into the land.

In the case of Tynagh, there have been complaints that entry was made without adequate notice being given and in a manner which offended and, indeed, caused trouble to those involved. In these cases it ought to be possible to give sufficient notice in advance and also to ensures that only the minimum disturbance is caused. I hope the investigations being carried out there will be satisfactory. I was glad also to hear that explorations in other cases are proceeding.

The Minister referred to the fact that it is proposed to introduce this year a Bill to amend the Companies Acts. That measure is long overdue and I believe there will be general welcome for the proposal because of the need to bring company legislation up to date. One of the matters which has been the subject of favourable comment is the effort being made by our officials abroad to get trade for this country and I should like to join with the Minister in paying a tribute to them—to officers of his own Department, of the Department of External Affairs and the other Departments concerned.

On many occasions, their efforts by comparison with those of representatives of other countries have done considerable good in exploiting and making contact with people abroad. The result is that when representatives of industry left this country they were as quickly as possible put in contact with those anxious to do business with us. The extent to which trading opportunities have been facilitated by the work which these people do is not generally recognised and I certainly agree with the tribute paid to them by the Minister and should like to join in expressing the view that their efforts are commended.

Having heard the major part of the Minister's speech, and having perused the salient point of the document before me, I must say there is nothing striking in it, nothing, on the eve of our entry into the Common Market, which would give us new hope or enthusiasm about the suggestion that a revival of Irish industry was about to take place. It is essentially a conservative document which, to my mind, leaves the economy of the country in the same semi-static position it is at the moment.

We feel that apart from the State aid which the Minister is making available for the establishment of new industries, and the offers made to foreigners to come here and invest in Irish undertakings, our efforts have not achieved the success the Government anticipated and we feel it is high time the Minister realised that, where private enterprise in this country is concerned, pandering to it with aids and grants has failed so miserably that the Government should now interest themselves in the many problems involved and set up State enterprises themselves.

We commend the Minister for the success both he and his predecessors have made of such undertakings as Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, the ESB and Bord na Móna. These State and semi-State enterprises are an integral part of our economy at the present time. They have prospered despite serious handicaps and we feel the Minister should take his courage in his hands and embark upon other major State enterprises so as to provide employment opportunities for our people at home.

Speaking as a Labour Deputy, I would not like the impression to go abroad that we are against the investment of foreign money in our country. We welcome foreign investment in our country where private enterprise has failed to carry out the job. We will co-operate with the Minister in that regard, but we feel that when foreigners come in here, they should be made to realise that they owe something to the Irish people and to the Irish State. Developments of recent times have shocked the consciences of many Irishmen. We have had foreigners starting up here after receiving colossal State aid and abandoning their projects after a few short years. We have had foreigners showing complete and utter disregard for the minimum conditions of employment and fair wages which should operate in an Irish undertaking.

We feel that where public money is concerned, it should not be too much to ask the Minister that he should lay down certain conditions. He should stipulate that these people will provided decent conditions of work, will provide trade union wages and will remain in this country in operation for a specified period of time. To permit them to come in here and exploit our work people and then clear out after a short time is something that we cannot condone any longer.

The most disappointing aspect of the Minister's statement is in relation to free trade. It is a well-known fact that many of the industries of this country which have been protected and sheltered cannot survive in free trade conditions with the Continent of Europe. Many of the industries which were established over the past 35 years have been sheltered by tariffs and quota restrictions of various kinds; they have been completely and utterly protected against outside competition. We feel that when the fierce blast of free trade hits these industries, they will be unable to survive.

Would the Deputy say why?

They cannot survive against the hard-headed businessmen of Europe who are ahead of our industrialists by at least 20 years. Many of them have not even heeded the Minister's warning to put their houses in order in order to meet the competition which they are about to face from free trade in Europe. Those who have taken care to analyse the competition we will meet are satisfied, and I am sure the Minister is also satisfied, that many of our industries will be virtually annihilated, that they cannot survive and that thousands of industrial workers will be thrown out of employment.

We want to know what steps the Minister proposes to take to safeguard the livelihoods of those people. If those industries are not geared to meet free trade, they must go to the wall and the human element in them will be forced to emigrate. We think it reasonable to suggest that in this kind of situation, a redundancy fund of some sort ought to be provided to meet such a contingency. We cannot permit the safety valve of emigration to absorb the extra thousands of people who might be thrown out of work. We have a moral obligation to set up some kind of redundancy fund to keep people going and to find alternative work for them. That is why we urge on the Minister the desirability of embarking on a course of State and semi-State industries because they are the only industries that we can depend on in this country.

I notice comments in the Minister's statement concerning the recent eighth round of wage increases. It is clear that unions would not seek a wage increase for their members, unless there was pressure from their members, unless the members were feeling the impact of the increase in the cost of living. Here the Government have been directly responsible for increasing the cost of living and precipitating these demands for wage increases. Apart from the harm which the Minister and his Government did when they removed price control, we have had the cost of living deliberately increased as a result of Government action. We have seen the food subsidies withdrawn by set purpose of the Government of that time by which they set the cost of living spiralling. When price controls were taken off, everybody was able to charge what he liked and we have seen increases in the price of every commodity which the ordinary people use. The Minister can only blame himself and his Government to a large extent for the demands for wage increases which must be made if workers are to maintain the meagre standards of living to which they have been accustomed.

The Minister would like the country to feel that the industrial growth of the nation has been rapid and progressive in recent years. I should like to think that we had the viable economy to which Government spokesmen refer and that the era of prosperity which they alleged has really arrived for Irish industry. The best test I can make is to ask myself what is the position obtaining in my constituency of South Tipperary and West Waterford. Despite the boasting of Government speakers that there is a great industrial revival here at the present time and that there is tremendous interest being shown in our country by foreigners who wish to invest in Irish industry, I ask the Minister to indicate one industry of a worthwhile nature which has been established in that constituency in the past five years. I do not know of any industry established in that huge constituency in the past four or five years.

It is obvious that preferential treatment is being doled out to people who are establishing industry here. There is preferential treatment for those who go west of the Shannon into what are called the undeveloped areas, but the unemployed men of Tipperary, Carrick, Lismore and Clonmel are suffering the same hardship as unemployed men west of the Shannon and the Minister should now consider giving these State aids to all the counties of Ireland. I feel that this kind of preferential treatment will have to be abandoned altogether.

There are certain counties to which we can point conclusively and say that despite the aids and stimulants which the Minister offers, private enterprise has been unable or unwilling to establish any vestige of an industry. That applies to my constituency, at any rate. Having regard to the fact that we have lost about 6,000 of the flower of our youth in Tipperary over the past five years, 6,000 Irish boys and girls forced to emigrate from that county, and the fact that there are virtually ghost towns appearing here and there in that vast constituency, the Minister must, of necessity, interest himself in that kind of situation and see to it that some work is provided for those people.

As far as we are concerned, the most important assets of the country are not its wealth, its land or its beauty from the tourist point of view but its human beings, men and women, and so long as we do not provide them with an opportunity to work at home we are failing in our first duty as a Christian Government. Irish industry will need a tremendous stimulus if it is to absorb the 60,000 or 70,000 surplus labour on our market each year. I appeal to the Minister to have regard to this fact and the worsening of the situation we may expect with the advent of the Common Market, and to take his courage in his hands and develop still further the State and semi-State enterprise sector of our economy. There lies our greatest hope.

As one of the younger generation, I cannot understand how it is that all progressive countries are moving forward to an era of full employment, a high standard of life and general prosperity for their people while here there seems to exists some sort of dead hand of a conservative nature which has left us so downtrodden and bereft of any worthwhile progress. I cannot understand why European countries, which were virtually wiped out in the last great war and had many of their major towns and cities razed to the ground, should have made such a wonderful come-back, and won such a standard of life for their people and that we, who were fortunately spared that holocaust, should still be in the doldrums and should still be pointed out as the country of the vanishing race and referred to in a derogatory manner by the people of progressive countries. It is all right for Ministers to go abroad and swagger about the United Nations seeking to remedy the problems of the world at large but they ought to turn their eyes to their own country and remedy this sad and sorry situation where so many Irish people are denied a livelihood in their own land.

We shall not be happy until industry —in particular—gives us these opportunities. In that regard education will play a vitally important part. If we are to compete with European countries in the Free Trade Area, there must be a reorientation of the educational programme so that people will be taught the technical skills and know how that are required. I do not see any evidence of that being done, not to the extent one would wish at any rate. I ask the Minister, therefore, to ensure that in the school curricula henceforth at primary, secondary, vocational and particularly at university level the emphasis is laid on the industrial arm of this nation and the imbuing of our people with the technical skill and knowledge they must have if we are to survive.

Much capital is always made of tourism in a document of this kind but we should distinguish between the genuine foreign tourist in the real sense of the word and our own kith and kin coming back to visit their loved ones from time to time. If we remove from the heading of "tourist" the boys and girls coming home for holidays from Birmingham, London and elsewhere we shall have nothing to boast about——

Tourism does not arise on this Estimate.

Perhaps not, but it is mentioned in it. I ask the Minister, if it is at all possible, to let us know when replying what prospects there are of the creation of the national redundancy fund to which I have referred to safeguard industrial workers who may very well lose their employment in the event of our entry into the Free Trade Area.

I do not know if it is true that the Minister proposes to invite shares for our present State undertakings. I do not know if he referred to that in his speech, whether he is going to put the shares of certain State companies on the market. That is something that we, as Labour Deputies, set our faces wholly against. It would be clearly wrong to throw the shares in these important industries on the market because obviously the most progressive ones would go to private enterprise and the State would still be burdened with those that are most defective.

Ba maith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an Meastachán seo. Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith lion comhgáirdeachas a déanamh leis an Aire as an méid a dhein sé i rith na bliana agus as an méid a chuireann sé roimhe a dhéanamh. Cúis áthais dúinn é sin.

I have listened to the two preceding speakers, the latter in particular, and seldom have I heard such a tale of wailing and woe and caoin, so far as Irish industries and Irish prospects in general are concerned. One would think the nation is bankrupt with nothing but a dismal future in front of every citizen. I am glad that is not the fact, as most people in the country realise, and despite the gloom and woe that have been preached, the nation is marching forward. We have added an industrial arm to our economy which down the years has proved very satisfactory. I should not like to speak in such a vein as that which we have heard in case I might scare off some of these people thinking of starting industries from my constituency. It never helps the case if one paints such a gloomy and despondent picture. No industrialist or would-be industrialist is likely to rush into places that are described in such a gloomy fashion as we heard them described here this evening.

Surveys have been carried out of the mineral resources of the country, in some cases with a good deal of success. I could cite my own constituency where something may be done in the near future to exploit the minerals. I appreciate that when a Government spend money in investigating mineral resources, it is a precarious and dangerous occupation financially and that a great deal of money could be expended in that way that would prove to be unprofitable. However, it is encouraging that minerals are being explored and exploited and in certain areas the outlook is very promising.

I do not think there is any need for anybody to worry about the attitude of the people living adjacent to the areas where minerals are found. Most people would welcome the discovery of minerals in their area because mineral development helps the economy of the surrounding district, too.

Now that many fairly large factories have been established, it might be possible to encourage the establishment of smaller factories in villages and towns where housing and other amenities are available. A small industry that might employ 10 or even 20 people would be a decided advantage and, where feasible, could be expanded later. Such industries would help villages that are feeling the decline that is undoubtedly taking place in the rural population in many areas, a decline for which there seems to be no immediate solution. These midget factories might help in that regard. I realise that encouragement is given under the Undeveloped Areas Act to the establishment of industries in undeveloped areas and such encouragement is necessary because the natural trend is to establish an industry in the most convenient place which, in many instances, is adjacent to the capital city. However, industries could be established in rural areas, which would help to de-urbanise part of the population. That is a good policy for the Government to pursue and one that will certainly pay good dividends eventually.

The stage has now been reached when the Government could consider giving extra encouragement to private enterprise which kept small factories going long before the Undeveloped Areas Act was introduced.

I am sure that any Deputy who was fortunate enough to avail of the invitation to visit the Shannon Industrial Development Area must have been surprised at the development and progress there. Personally I was delighted at the progress that has been made there and at the forward approach and the unshakable faith shown in the ability of the Irish worker to produce goods on a competitive basis for sale on foreign markets against foreign competition.

Some people seem to think that we in Ireland are undeveloped, awkward and Stone Age minded in the matter of industrial production. They do not realise that there are many old established industries in this country the products of which are already well established on foreign markets and very much to the fore there, that can compete against the keenest foreign competition and have survived cut-throat competition down the years. That is encouraging and should dispel the fear that there seems to be in the minds of some people that if and when we enter the European Economic Community Irish-made goods would not stand up to foreign competition. That fear is grossly exaggerated. Irish industries, especially our old established industries, have nothing whatever to fear so far as foreign competition is concerned. Admittedly, there is need in some cases to make adjustments but at the same time there is no need to fear that our established industries would collapse overnight in the free for all competition of the Common Market.

The Undeveloped Areas Act has been successful in having many industries established that might not otherwise have been possible. These industries have served a very useful purpose in providing full-time employment for many people. That kind of development should be encouraged. It should be realised that the people living in the undeveloped areas are not there by choice but that their ancestors have been driven there through persecution down the centuries and to-day their descendants have grown up on uneconomic farms. The Undeveloped Areas Act is a gesture, and a good one, on the part of the Government, to help the economy of those in such areas.

With the development of afforestation, there may be more opportunities and more incentives to have factories based on timber grown in the area and in that way help those living on uneconomic holdings and the small shopkeepers in the towns and villages adjacent to the areas to survive.

Irish whiskey and spirits, Guinness and other Irish products have commanded and have obtained excellent markets abroad and I am quite confident that they can hold and expand these markets against practically any normal overseas competition. Unfortunately, we in this country are not sufficiently patriotic to praise and to laud Irish goods to foreigners who come here or to those whom we meet when we go abroad. The ordinary Irish man or woman can do a great deal to help our industries and greater progress would be achieved if more people were found to praise the successful efforts already made and give encouragement to people engaged in those industries to continue. That would be far more effective than destructive criticism which will certainly do untold harm. Everyone should take pride in building up the industrial arm in an effort to boost the economy of the country. It is the duty of every citizen to help, and to give all the encouragement possible not only to the industrialists but to the workers, who, in most of our industries, are capable of entering into competition with anyone.

I rather think that most of the time the Minister was listening to Deputy Dolan he must have been saying: "The Lord preserve me from my friends". That type of smug self-satisfaction to which we have just listened has got us into much of the industrial difficulty from which the Taoiseach and the Minister are now, belatedly, trying to extricate the country.

The Minister is well aware that, in relation to the attitude taken up by the Government towards making preparations for entry to the Common Market, we on this side of the House hold the Government, and the Minister as representing the Government in the industrial sector, responsible for a most undue delay. It is tragic—and that is the only word that can be used—that the Government did not accept the view expressed from this side of the House in 1957, after the Rome Treaty had been signed, that it was vital to start consideration of the problems which were bound to emerge, if the Six became expanded into a wider European concept.

Since last year, since the British Government announced their decision to negotiate on the question of joining the European Economic Community, the Government have endeavoured to alert the country as a whole, but the fact that they left it until then has meant that their actions have had all the appearance of near panic, and the failure of their efforts to imbue a real sense of urgency in the minds of our people is evidenced by speeches from the benches behind the Minister such as the speech we have just listened to from Deputy Dolan.

As I say, the view which we took on this matter is not a subject of conjecture. It is on the records of the House. The Rome Treaty was signed on 25th March, 1957. In the summer of that year, it became clear to some of us who endeavour to keep abreast of European thought that it was likely that that Treaty would spread out beyond the bounds of the Six original, shall I call them, founder members. Of course it was far from certain then that that would inevitably come to pass. There was considerable argument that the European Free Trade Association was likely to continue side by side with the European Economic Community, but it was absolutely certain that whichever of them ultimately became the major partner, or the survivor, there would be in the years ahead some re-organisation of the European concept, and some re-grouping of the European economic field if western Europe were to survive.

At that time, the Government and the Taoiseach himself rejected the suggestion put forward by us that there should be an immediate examination of the problems and the difficulties which were bound to arise for the country when that came to pass, if it did come to pass. I have said before, and I believe, that the Government gambled on the view that Britain would never join the European Economic Community. Facts and events have since proved that in that gamble, the Government backed a loser. The tragedy of it is that in that gamble, they took the wrong side, and the whole future of the country may well be retarded in a way that none of us dare visualise.

Until the eve of the Budget, the view we expressed on the dilatory nature of the Government's approach could have been argued, but since the eve of the Budget the correctness of our view has been evidenced by the report of a committee set up by the Government themselves. As I said, last year, the Government belatedly woke up to the implications and set up the Committee on Industrial Organisation. The Minister and I had some discussions about the actual date on which it was set up, and at that time we suggested October. We later revised it to July but a month or so either way does not make any difference, and if the Minister feels that June is the correct date, I certainly shall not quarrel with him. I know that before the actual Committee was set up officially and formally, there were informal consultations and committees were working for a month or so.

However, the Committee issued an interim report last February, an interim report which, incidentally, the Government thought well to neglect to publish for a matter of some two months. I appreciate at once that the Government could not be expected to give their decision as to whether or not they would implement its provisions for a period, until they had examined its recommendations, but it was a great error of judgment, to put it no further, for the Government to neglect to publish the report, as such, until February when, in a phrase the Minister knows only too well, time was of the essence. The sands of time have been running out for the people of this country over the past years; they have also been running out since February. If that report had been published even two months earlier, instead of being held up and published, as it was, just on the eve of the Budget when inevitably it would not get the same publicity as it would get if it had been published entirely on its own, it would have helped the country to an appreciation of the situation.

Perhaps I am wrong in attributing to the Government a wish merely to come to a decision before publishing the report. Perhaps indeed there was a baser idea. Perhaps it was that they hoped that if the report was published and lost in the welter of budgetary material, those parts of it which pass some stringent comments on the policy of Fianna Fáil would, in general, be forgotten.

In the opening of that report, in the stark phrase that cannot be too often repeated at the present time, the members of that committee—competent personnel drawn from various types and representative of different sections of industrial activity with, of course, the official governmental chairman—unanimously say and unanimously put it down as their view that in our present state many Irish firms and industries could not survive freer competition from imports. We have been saying that, of course, for some time but it has received the imprimatur of this committee and the committee have gone on to emphasise that imprimatur by describing what is necessary to deal with the matter as being a "crash programme".

If only the Minister and his colleagues, in the summer of 1957, had accepted the view put to them officially at the time from this side of the House, we would have been able to make such preparation in the interval that a crash programme would not have been what is required but an integrated, workedout, reasoned one, dealt with over a proper period and not having—and I use the word "having" quite deliberately because it must be done—to be implemented now by almost near panic measures. If there were any reason against considering and arguing the dilatory nature of the Government's approach to this problem, the report itself does away with any such reason because this committee, set up in June or July of last year, have shown in this interim report that there were various matters and things which they felt should be fully and adequately examined.

I agree that that committee in so saying were absolutely right but is it not a tragedy that it is only now, when we are on the eve of the commencement of the period of deceleration of tariffs, we have to start the examination of those matters? Is it not patent that if the examination of those matters had been under way, if this committee itself had been set up when we asked that it be set up in July, 1957, not merely would there be things worth examining now but the examination itself would probably have been completed. Not only that, but, in addition to the completion of the examination, the remedial measures would have gone very far forward. As I say, the committee in their report make it clear again and again that they found there are certain aspects which require to be considered and they cannot, because there is a limit to what can be done in the time, offer an opinion on those things until that examination is complete. Yet at the same time that committee make a comment, and a correct comment, that Irish industry would be very vulnerable if still in the throes of re-equipment or any other form of adjustment at the time the provisions of the Treaty of Rome come to be fully implemented.

The Committee on Industrial Organisation have exposed many of the weaknesses in relation to the industrial side of our life and have shown them, I think I can truthfully say, without fear or favour. But it is a fact that notwithstanding that, notwithstanding the exposure contained in their report, notwithstanding the fact that on many occasions the Taoiseach and, indeed, the Minister for Industry and Commerce endeavoured to get the public mind directed along the right road, they have failed to do so and failed quite inevitably because of the lateness of their approach. We all know that one of the penalties we pay for a democracy is that it takes very much longer in a democracy for leaders to get their views translated into action. It is a penalty which is well worth paying for the privilege of living in and under a democracy but it is a fact that real leaders who understand the democratic regime and thought should take into account and should, therefore, start long before it would otherwise be necessary to start, if one merely had to give a directive and have the directive carried out.

As I say, the failure of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to get that message across has been abundantly proved here in this House this evening by the speech we heard from Deputy Dolan, though, of course, perhaps one should make the excuse that he considers it merely his duty on every occasion to get up and shout behind whatever, Minister it may be "Up Fianna Fáil" and by so doing thinks he is helping his Minister. In fact, on this occasion he is hindering him very considerably. The fact that the words of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have not been heeded is also shown in a speech made in Galway and reported in the Sunday Press of last Sunday, 13th May. I think it was at a session of the conference organised by the Management Institute. The speaker made it clear that, in his experience, some firms and some industries had not yet appreciated the difficulties which we were likely to encounter, if and when the terms of the Treaty of Rome applied to this country. If there are firms and industries who are in that position— and I am sorry to say I, too, believe there are—then the blame for their lack of appreciation must to a large extent lie on the backs of the Government for their failure adequately to prepare in time and to show to the country as a whole the implications and the likely outcome of our adherence to the Community.

It is sometimes noticeable in governmental remarks recently that the tone in relation to the Common Market has altered very considerably indeed. I am not now merely talking about what was said in pre-election times—perhaps one can excuse things said in those times in so far as they merely seek to put a rosy hue on some governmental utterances—but considerably since then the emphasis was placed by the Government on the opportunities that would be available if we took advantage of that challenge. Now I notice a different tone underlying all the speeches of Ministers. I think the suggestion now is that it is not going to be a pleasant exercise at all, if and when our country adheres to the Treaty of Rome.

The change of tone is, I think, indicative of the fact that Ministers only now are beginning to realise that they had their heads in the clouds and that the factual reports being put up to them by bodies such as the Committee on Industrial Organisation have made them come down to reality again and to see that the tragedy is that they were not in a position of having their feet on the ground long before, as they would have been if they had accepted the views expressed by us in the summer of 1957, some three or four months after the Treaty was signed.

Nobody who examines the position in relation to our industry, and even in relation to our agriculture, can except to find that in the Common Market conditions, we shall have an easy life. On the contrary, particularly in the first and early years, we are going to find we shall be battling with great difficulty; that we shall be finding it extremely hard to keep competitive pace; that some industries will not be able to continue the employment they are giving at present; that in relation to those forward-looking industries, where the management has been big enough to see what was coming, we shall have a wider market; but in relation to the great majority of our industrial output and organisation at present, the task and the way ahead under Common Market conditions will be very sticky going, unless urgent measures are taken, and will be very sticky going, simply and solely because the Government kept their heads in the clouds and did not come down to deal with this matter four years ago, as they were asked to do.

Some people might say when one realise and appreciates it is going to be so difficult during these years ahead, why does not one put forward the other point and stay out of the Common Market altogether? Bad as may be the prognostications for the immediate future within the Community, no one can visualise how unpleasant they would be if Britain joined and we stayed out. The effect of a mass tariff on our exports as a whole, and not merely on those to the British market, would be such that we would find overnight out standard of living slashed by about 30 per cent. Therefore, we have no option except to ensure that if and when we do adhere to the European Economic Community, we take every precaution open to us, and take it as soon as we possibly can.

The Minister referred to the report of the Committee on Industrial Organisation, but he did not give us any indication whatever of what was being done since the February report. He did not give us any indication of what was being done in relation to the various matters which that Committee suggested were worthy of examination, nor did he advert in any way to the fact that this is only an interim report and that the House and the country would have liked very much to know what the Committee have done and are doing since that time to examine further the implications that are involved. We must remember in considering this problem that it is quite apparent that the deceleration of our tariffs must be complete by 1969-70. The original viewpoint expressed by the Taoiseach that perhaps we might have a period very much longer than that—20 years, I think, was mentioned at one time— is not now a practical proposition. We now have a period of only ten years to consider what must be done not merely to put into operation, but to put into effective operation, the results of our consideration.

The Committee in their report, referring to the urgency of a crash programme, did make certain initial suggestions, suggestions which have been accepted in so far as their budgetary implementation is necessary by the Minister for Finance. But there are other matters to which they referred and other recommendations which they made, and as far as I am aware, there has been no official indication since this Committee's report was published of the detailed manner in which those recommendations are to be put into effect.

Surely from February until now it should have been possible for a Government who knew their job to work out, for example, the details of the interest-free loans that are suggested? Surely it should have been possible for a Government who knew their job to have been able to publish, approximately a month after the Minister for Finance announced his acceptance of the principle of giving a loan with a certain interest-free period in it, that such a scheme was available to industrialists anxious to take advantage of it? Yet three months after the report was in the Minister's hands, and one month after the Minister for Finance had publicly announced his acceptance—and I am certain he told the Minister for Industry and Commerce long before the Budget that he intended to accept that recommendation—industry still does not know what will be done in that respect, does not know anything except that the principle of waiver of interest for a period has been accepted by the Government.

I wish to ask the Minister to answer this one question: is industry not entitled to say that the delay that has been shown by the Minister and the Government in that one respect is hardly such as to prove to industry that the Government really believe that the matter is as urgent as the Committee correctly suggested? There has been far too much burying one's head in the sand about the problems of the future, far too much wishful thinking. We must get over that and the main way in which we can get over that is by a fuller and wider publication by the Government of their views and of the facts. If the country as a whole were taken into the confidence of the Government far more than it is at present, then there would be a far greater and a far more ready acceptance of the necessity to meet the problems that are upon us.

I do not want to criticise the Minister himself for something that is perhaps the responsibility of the Taoiseach —I think the Taoiseach has admitted that he has taken on the Common Market negotiations—but it is clear that in these negotiations the Minister for Industry and Commerce is his principal aide-de-camp. One of the things that should be done and should be done quickly is that an up-to-date White Paper on the implications of our membership of the Community should be issued continually by the Taoiseach so that anyone who wants to ascertain the facts will be in a position to ascertain them in an authoritative way.

I do not want to embarrass those who are negotiating by a whole series of hypothetical questions as to what the effect of the Community will be on us, if and when we join. However, I do want the people as a whole to know all the facts, and the best way in which they can be told the facts is through the issue of authoritative White Papers from time to time. The alternative is to try to get the information for the country—not for ourselves—by a series of probing questions week after week, addressed to the Taoiseach or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That is not the right way; that is not the way that is in the best interests of those who will find their livelihood involved in what may occur. A far better way is, as I have suggested, the issue by the Government of a White Paper containing up-to-date information, even though it may mean some additional work.

I take it that the phrase which the Minister has used in page 5 of his speech, in relation to the fact that it has not been found possible to keep up to the schedule of all the negotiations, refers to an inability by the Commission of the Community and not an inability on our side. I think that is clear from the wording of the Minister's speech but it is desirable that in his concluding remarks he should put that absolutely beyond question.

On page 10, the Minister deals with industrial activity and points to a small increase in employment potential in the year ahead because of the projects that are already before his Department. Any small increase is welcome and I do not want to say too much in gibe to the Minister about the fact that it is a very small increase and a long way off the 100,000 jobs that were originally promised by the Minister and to which in the city of Cork election, great prominence was given at that time, in both election material and speeches.

So well we might. Conditions were very bad in Cork in 1956 but not now.

Fianna Fáil promised 100,000 jobs.

There were 100,000 on the unemployed register.

In promising the 100,000 jobs, Deputy Jack Lynch, as he then was, did not stand up in the Mall or Patrick Street in Cork and tell the people that, when he was offering them those 100,000 jobs within five years, 20,000 a year, it was in Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and London he was offering the jobs, and that is where they had to go to get them.

That is not the picture in Cork today and the Deputy well knows it.

That is the picture —100,000 jobs, and that is where they had to go to get them. It is a very different picture from what the Minister has indicated in his speech, a small trickle.

Apart from that, I am interested from another angle, from the point of view of the possibilities of industrial activity during the coming year. I think it is pretty generally accepted that the pattern for industry this year will be a pattern of increase in the home sales market and of decrease in the export market. That, of course, carries with it difficulties on two sides. Any increase in industrial activity almost inevitably brings with it an increase in the imports of raw materials. If the increase in industrial activity is followed by an increase in exports, then there will be no difficulty in paying for those raw materials; but, if the pattern is that there is an increase in the home sales and a decrease in exports, then the effects will be rather doubtful.

I am, I think, correct in saying that the latest information available in relation to the first quarter of 1962 indicates that about 50 per cent. of industry was on the same basis of export as it was in the same quarter in 1961. Of the remaining 50 per cent., exports are down in the ratio of two to one; of the remaining 50 per cent., about one-third can show higher exports in 1962 over 1961; and two-thirds show that their exports are down in that period. At the beginning of the first quarter of 1962, the order book was lower in industry by about the same proportion of two to one compared with the cases where it was higher. Very roughly, two-fifths of industry had their order book following the same pattern as last year; about two-fifths had their order book less than last year; and about onefifth had it higher than last year.

Since that picture at the beginning of 1962, there has been some change in the climate, but, by and large, the picture that was shown for the first quarter of 1962 was a picture of decreased export activity, perhaps increased home sales activity, but overall certainly not the analysis and the picture of the dynamic change the Minister would wish us to believe. Coming to the second quarter of 1962, we find an even worse picture in relation to exports. We find that particularly in the food, drink and tobacco grouping—I think foodstuffs, drink and tobacco in 1961 counted for no less than £62,000,000 of our exports— 62 per cent., or almost two-thirds of industry show that they are lower in exports in 1962 than they were in 1961. In that same group, and naturally what follows from one will follow from the other, in two-fifths of the industry employment is lower than last year; in half of it, it is approximately the same; only in one-tenth of it is there any increase in employment.

Over manufacturing industry as a whole, the number of industries that consider the number employed excessive is greater than the number of industries that consider the number employed to be inadequate. In the food, drink and tobacco category to which I have referred about one-third feel that the number employed is excessive; and there is no place where the feeling is that the numbers employed are inadequate.

I compared before the figures for exports in relation to the first quarter of the year. Let us compare the two quarters combined—the first half of 1962 and the first half of 1961. Taking an analysis of manufacturing industry as a whole, we find that about one-quarter expects to have its exports higher in the first six months of this year as compared with last year. Half—that is to say, two to one—expect to have their exports lower in the first half of this year than they were in the first half of last year. If one travels to the food, drink and tobacco sector, no less than two-thirds of that industry expect to have less exports in the first half of 1962 than they had in the first half of 1961. Only a bare one-tenth think they will be able to beat last year's figures.

In the light of that opinion, the most authoritative opinion there is at present on the picture, it is rather hard to see how the Minister can be as optimistic as he was in his opening statement. I hope that the Minister is right and that the economists, viewing and assessing the position of the country as a whole, will be proved wrong; but, until they are proved wrong, we must appreciate that the increase anticipated in home sales, coupled with the decline anticipated in exports, inevitably must mean that the industrial policy pursued by the Minister is not having the effect we would wish on the general economic activity of the country. Perhaps we shall get in the future some substantial benefit out of a change in the terms of trade.

The January figures did appear to show that the terms of trade were commencing to move again in our favour. December and January were the first two months which showed the alteration of the trend that had been there before. If that improvement is merely a momentary one, then the results of the industrial analysis to which I have referred point to a situation which should be kept under constant review.

I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce today at Question Time why output per worker in Ireland showed a diminishing rate of increase. The answer I got from the Minister was, perhaps, most enlightening as to his inadequacy. His answer to me was:

I do not know where the Deputy got his information that output per worker showed a diminishing rate of increase in 1961 as compared with 1960.

Surely a Minister for Industry and Commerce who is abreast of his job, who is on top of his job, would have found time to examine the figures for this country, by which he is paid as Minister, compared with those of other countries in Europe? Surely the Minister for Industry and Commerce would have, somewhere in that large building in Kildare Street, just as we have in the Library, a copy of the Economic Survey of Europe in1961?

Surely the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if he wished to ensure that he would get for our people the benefit of the best information and the best comparison, should have considered and should have thought it worth his while to read this survey, the Economic Survey of Europe, that was published officially? Surely a Minister for Industry and Commerce who was a breast of his job would not have picked, as he picked, merely certain facts and figures out of the OECD Report on Ireland that suited the case that he was making? Would he not have gone to the fuller survey that covered and compared Austria, Finland, France, Western Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands. Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom?

Perhaps, the Minister for Transport and Power, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce returns, would suggest to Deputy J. Lynch, Minister for Industry and Commerce, that he should get the Economic Survey of Europe in 1961; that he take part I, that he open it at Chapter I, turn to page 27 and find in Table 11 the statistics upon which I based the Question to him today. He will find that the output per worker for Ireland showed in 1961—and I admit at once, of course, that it is a provisional figure —a two per cent. less rate of increase than the preceding year.

Possibly the international experts who came here were all wrong; possibly their figures are all wrong. However, I know that the figures they produce in their draft are always sent to the country concerned for verification, when it is still in the proof stage and before it gets into the published volume. As I say, those figures show a diminishing trend of increase by two per cent. They also show a diminishing trend of weekly earnings in industry of a similar two per cent. I find that extraordinarily hard to understand in view of the eighth round increase and in view of the personal experience that all of us have.

The remainder of the figures there, and even those figures, show by comparison with the other countries in Europe which I have mentioned a reasonably satisfactory picture. However, I put down this Question today and I want to know now why it is that when we are seeing day by day and are being told that there is a substantial amount of re-equipping, re-tooling, going on, when we are being told there is an increase in productivity, the Economic Survey of Europe tells us that in the Republic of Ireland the rate of output per worker did not show in 1961 as great an increase as in the preceding year. I am not able to answer that. I do not know. All I do say is that until such time as we can get an answer, that must be a point that inevitably causes some disquiet to those of us who are trying to consider the facts and the figures in relation to these matters.

The Minister also in his speech made reference to wages and salaries and, in particular, I think, made a reference to the conference which will be held between the two sides of industry, employees and employers, later this month. Let me say quite categorically that we for our part sincerely hope that that conference will evolve something in the nature of a new policy for the country as a whole. I agree entirely with the view expressed by the Minister. It has been our published policy for years that it is far better that that should be worked out by the two sides of industry. We have always made it clear that if the two sides of industry, employers and employees, work out something in the nature of a national agreement it would give us the very greatest pleasure to implement it by any legislation they may deem necessary to ensure its smoother and effective working.

However, the beginnings of that must come from those concerned in industry, no matter on which side they may be. It is only by tackling the problems as they are being tackled this month that we can hope to have a policy covering wages and salaries such as exists in Scandinavia, in Holland and in other countries. We cannot under any circumstances merely take from any of those countries a policy perhaps suited to Sweden or Holland and assume at once that it will be suitable here. As I have said, that is not at all likely to happen, but it is certain that if we are to be able to count on ordered development in the future, a policy of some sort suited peculiarly to the Irish climate must be evolved or else we will have stops and starts and will not maintain any free flow of progress in the economy as a whole.

For that reason, we in Fine Gael, without any reservation whatsoever, wish and hope that the conference which is being held at the moment will be a success and that it will be possible, arising from the decisions taken there, to have better understanding in industrial relations in the future—a better understanding of costs, productivity and of an incomes policy, as apart from a wage policy—in so far as they inevitably must affect the development of the country as a whole and without which we cannot hope to look to any ordered future.

Rarely, if ever, have I listened to such tales of woe as have been recounted here by the advocates for Fine Gael and Labour. According to them, not only are we being ruined but we are already ruined. I think we should therefore take a look at some of their allegations. According to them, there is practically nobody in employment nowadays. If I use my own constituency as an example, I think I can disprove this elaborate theory and shall, at the same time, allow other Deputies to speak for themselves.

In my constituency in 1956, it was impossible for any man to earn £1 in any enterprise sponsored by the State or any semi-State body. In 1956, there was nothing but unemployment there. There was nowhere anybody could go and get work. It is a pity the former Minister for Finance should leave at this stage because I was about to tell him he did not give a penny to any local authority in Ireland to provide employment in that hard year. As against the allegations of the Deputies who have spoken, the position now is that we have in my constituency several local enterprises like the grassmeal company, an experimental station, the very comprehensive Moy drainage scheme and afforestation. I want to be fair and honest and I say that is the position now as against what it was in 1956. I think it is obvious there is a considerable change for the better.

Deputies come in here and say they welcome foreign industrialists. The way in which they have welcomed them is by holding our people up to ridicule—by saying our working potential is going down and that we cannot compete with the workers of other countries. If we are to believe them our labour force is the worst in the world. I would point out to them that our workers have travelled throughout the world and have been very well received everywhere. They are definitely the best in the world. If there is anything wrong, it is with the leaders of many of our trade unions and of the Labour Party who come here to throw so many stones.

Speaking about industry, I am sorry to say there is still a great lack of effort in the industrialisation of the West. There is still a great necessity for the establishment of industries in an area in which we have a good deal of the required raw materials available. We have, for instance, the finest fishing grounds in Europe. If properly developed, we have bogs which could bring great wealth into the area. The Government should take steps to investigate the possibility of much larger sales abroad of peat products, particularly briquettes.

This should be done particularly in Britain where I believe there should be a ready market because of the number of our people who live there. Our sales of peat products could be helped considerably by our ability to sell at economic prices, because I feel sure all our peat products could be produced at competitive costs. As well, there is room in the West for development of our forestry potential and, as I said earlier, of our fisheries.

I believe steps are being taken to correct a great many of the deficiencies now noticeable in these matters. In this respect, I should mention the fertiliser factory being established at Arklow. I have an idea that factory was promised to Ballina in County Mayo. Perhaps it was one of the many factories promised to us in that town: I certainly am not confusing it with the biscuit factory. I should be obliged if the Minister would clear up that point when he is replying to the debate.

I do not think we need worry very much about competition for our products in any open market. We have got workers able to produce goods which can compete with those of any country in the world, no matter what we say about it. The biggest advantage we have, as far as I can see it, is that we can easily dispose of our goods abroad because of the fact that so many of our people live in other countries. They come back to us occasionally and tell us how much they think about us. Surely if they think as highly of us as they say, they should buy the goods we send them and which we can produce so competitively.

But if we could make these goods readily available, there would be no great trouble in having them sold. I am told that one cannot get a pound of Irish butter in Britain or any of the other things we expect should be readily available. Instead of sending out ambassadors, I think we would be much better employed in sending out some people who would deal with our trade relations in these countries and carry out advertising campaigns to bring our goods to the notice of our own people in these countries not to mention the natives. Surely there must be a tremendous potential for Irish goods in Great Britain and the United States? No matter what market we join, I fail to see how our exports can be reduced. If they are reduced, it will be our own fault.

It is rather noticeable that the greatest experts on the Common Market are the men who have least to sell in it. I am not satisfied that solicitors or doctors produce anything which is readily saleable in the Common Market. Still, they appear to be the most perturbed about it and they have made most profound statements on the matter. As far as I know, most of the people who have made those profound statements are people who could not produce a head of cabbage for their own tables. Most of the people who tell us that we cannot produce anything to sell in the Common Market could not compete in the black market themselves. If we are not able to compete in the Common Market the fault lies solely with ourselves. We have the workers and we have the ability and if our people can go into foreign countries and hold their own there and produce the goods of those countries competently and efficiently then there is little if any excuse for us not being able to do the same at home. I feel that instead of being unduly pessimistic we should be optimistic and that with the huge potential market which will be available our position will be substantially improved.

However, if our workers are to pursue the policy of going on strike every time they feel like it, our position will not be so good. However, for speakers of any Party to come into this House and allege that the people of this country are not able to compete with the people of other countries is a fallacy. In the interests of the future welfare of this country the people who have been pursuing that policy should desist from it.

I have read the Minister's speech and I have heard the Minister proudly make an interjection about the wonderful position in the city of Cork and the surrounding areas industrially. Like the previous speaker, the best thing that I could do to serve my constituents is to speak about my constituency, as far as industry and commerce are concerned. The Minister has said, in page 10 of his speech, that there are 36 new industrial undertakings or extensions of existing firms coming to notice in the year ended 31st March, 1961. He proudly said that. That means nothing to me or to any constituent of mine. There was no new industry established in Waterford in 1961.

It may be said that the people were not off the mark to promote industries but I have knowledge of industries that were promoted by Waterford people and that were snatched from us and taken away to Western areas. The people's ideas were taken from them and used in other places. In so far as these industries are concerned I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce a Parliamentary Question regarding industries set up in Waterford. It appears in Volume 185, Column 1325 of 15th December, 1960:

Mr. T. Lynch asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the name of an industrial undertaking referred to in a reply of 17th November, which had been extended or commenced in Waterford City and County.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan) (For the Minister for Industry and Commerce): The industrial undertaking which has been extended in the period concerned is Marchant Quinn, Ltd. of Tramore.

Mr. T. Lynch: We had that all the time.

That is a kind of sharp practice. The Minister had made a remark that there was one new industrial undertaking in the County of Waterford. This was a very good small factory in Tramore that had a very small addition put on to it.

I have an idea that a lot of these new undertakings are elastic undertakings and that they are very small. I would like to see the list of them and I will ask the Minister for that list if he will give it to me. I asked the Minister a Parliamentary Question on the 3rd April this year which appears in Column 1107, Volume 194:

Mr. T. Lynch asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether there are any proposals before his Department to establish new industries in (a) Waterford City and (b) Waterford County, and the number of such proposals in each case.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch): I am aware of three industrial proposals in relation to Waterford City and one in relation to Waterford County.

On 10th April in Volume 194, column 1519, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce:

If he will give the names of the three industrial proposals in regard to Waterford City and the proposals in regard to Waterford County, mentioned in the reply of 3rd April, 1962.

Mr. J. Lynch: Industrial proposals must be treated as confidential and, accordingly, I cannot give the information asked for by the Deputy.

Mr. T. Lynch: Does the Minister forget that he gave me this information when I asked him for it this time twelve months ago.

Mr. J. Lynch: The Deputy made a similar suggestion last week which was untrue.

Mr. T. Lynch: It was not untrue. What the Minister said is untrue.

My statement was not untrue. I read out the information which the Minister gave me at Column 1325, Volume 185. That is not nice.

I have some notes here of a speech which I made in this House nearly five years ago about Waterford city and its record of industries. When this wonderful drive began 20 or 30 years ago, Waterford promoters put up a project for a cement industry there and they had the proposition investigated using their own money. They secured options on land. They raised practically all the money there and an English company was to come in, but suddenly an announcement was made that a cement factory was opened in Drogheda with a company from the Continent promoting it. I often think that the Waterford promoters were not clever enough because Fianna Fáil were so prejudiced against John Bull that they would have brought in the Russians rather than an English firm. That was one of the reasons and the other was it might have happened because Drogheda is in Deputy Aiken's constituency, the Deputy who is now Minister for External Affairs.

That was one case. We had an old-established industry in Waterford, McDonnell's margarine factory. It has been there for generations, but some years ago an oil cake factory opened in Drogheda. They secured the concession for refining edible oils. I was farming at the time and the main thing they did was to put oil cake out of reach of many farmers. They could not buy it. They set up in Drogheda and before we knew where we were McDonnell's margarine factory, in the interests of efficiency, had to move to Drogheda. That was the second industry to go from Waterford.

HMV Radio and Gramophones and Electrical and Musical Industries were in Waterford and doing well there but they transferred from Waterford to Dublin. So it went on. The Minister may say that Waterford did all right; they have Waterford Glass. As I said before and will continue to say, no Minister had anything to do with Waterford Glass coming to Waterford. The industry came because of the reputation built up in its great old glass factory. That is a splendid industry and I shall say more about it in dealing with the Common Market.

The setting up of industries seems to be clouded in mystery. Some say the Minister can direct an industry into an area. It has been noted, when Ministers go to open a factory, that it has been said, over the high wassailing that accompanies these functions, that it was thanks to the Minister that the industry came there. Innocent people like myself, therefore, will go to the Minister and say: "You directed or promoted a factory in such-and-such a place: I have a proposition. Could this factory be set up in Waterford?" You are then told the Minister has nothing to do with the siting of factories. I wish the Minister would make a statement on that point and put us right.

I heard a Fianna Fáil Deputy today stating that we run down Irish whiskey; that we have a great market for it and that nobody would put us out of that market. Unfortunately, we have not a great market for Irish whiskey. Every barrel of whiskey we sell abroad means so much barley to be grown at home and contracts for barley growers from distillers. There is room for expansion in that market. We exported 122,000 proof gallons of whiskey to the value of £257,000 last year. From memory I believe the Scots are selling £40,000,000 of whisky in America alone. It is about time the Minister said something to the Irish distillers about this. There is a feeling abroad that the Irish distillers do not want to extend their market and are not trying to do so. That is something the Minister should take up because, apart from the industry itself, it is an industry that is based on the land and one that could and should be expanded. I shall repeat something I said here before. I went into a famous London publichouse, the Duke of Wellington, and asked for a small Irish Gold Label and I was told that enormous publichouse did not sell any Irish whiskey. I was told also that nobody came there to sell it.

That brings me to the Common Market about which everybody knows something, especially the people at chamber of Commerce dinners. Starryeyed they say that we shall have to educate our workers; that we shall have to improve this output and that output. I think the great problem we are facing in going into the Common Market is to get salesmen to sell our products there. We have great products to sell but we must have salesmen who can sell them. We are scarce in technicians in Ireland and terribly scarce in salesmen. We must ask ourselves who will make the contacts abroad? Who will go abroad? What training have these young men? What training have many of the salesmen attached to Irish industries for the past 30 years in a protected market when they are going into a competitive market?

The British Government decided to apply for membership of the Common Market about last June and then we woke up and said we would apply. People talk about joining the Common Market in the same way as they would talk about joining a football club. There is a great chance that Britain might decide not to go in. Obviously, then, we would not go in. Then we ask ourselves what will happen if Britain is accepted and we are not? In what position are we in those circumstances?

I should like to ask the Minister if it is intended to make any trade agreements or deals with Iron Curtain countries? We buy hundreds of thousands of tons of stuff from those countries and they buy practically nothing from us. How are these deals negotiated? I was very glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture say here to-day in connection with the deal to sell 5,000 tons of sugar to the United States that as a quid pro quo we would take 50,000 tons of feeding stuffs over and above the average from them. That is the right type of deal. If we buy goods from other countries and if we have surplus of sugar or anything else we should try to make a deal with them to take our surplus.

I would draw the Minister's attention to the case of Western Germany, which I consider one of the great sinners in this respect. They have a good market here for their produce and they buy very little from us. Only last year they made a miserable deal in respect of cattle with the Minister for Agriculture and they ran out on the Minister for Agriculture. I am not saying that in any criticism of the Minister for Agriculture. What can a man or what can a country do if another country runs our on its deal? We should talk more firmly to these people. We buy £10,000,000 worth from them and they buy only £2,000,000 worth from us.

There was a flourish of trumpets announcing the establishment of a fertiliser factory at Wicklow. That is great news for Wicklow. Many constituents of mine who live by agriculture have prompted me to ask in this House, if this factory is established, will it mean that they will have to pay more for nitrogenous fertiliser? I ask that question seriously. I want the Minister to make a statement here about that matter because I have seen too many cases where factories were set up to manufacture raw materials used by the farmer and which were described as wonderful and marvellous whereas the only marvellous thing was that the farmer had to pay more for his requirements.

The Minister is aware of the question of compensation for lands that has arisen at Galway. The farmers say they are the owners of the land but they are told by another Department that they are not the owners of the land inasmuch as a notice is given to the "occupiers" of the land, as much as to say: "You are there at our will and we can kick you out any time we like". The people who own that land realise that the State reserves the minerals that are under the land. What I am concerned with is the recent discovery of minerals in Galway. I hope development will be successful and will come up to the figure mentioned, about £300,000. I sincerely hope the estimates are accurate. Prospectors moved in on a man's farm and, of course, had to bring in enormous plant and machinery.

Is there litigation pending in this case?

I could not tell you, Sir.

I think there is.

I think you should allow me to mention—and it has nothing to do with the litigation—the conduct of the two Irish directors who came down and told this man that they would give him £100 an acre for the land and, if he did not take it, they would take it from him.

The Minister is not responsible.

The Minister should protect his own people.

The Deputy is referring to what two directors said. I think the matter is the subject of pending litigation and should not be discussed.

With respect, I think this should need neither legislation nor litigation, that it should be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see that Irish people are compensated for their land.

The Deputy may think that all right but there is legislation there and the parties concerned are taking it into court, as far as I know.

It is shameful if it is going to the court. The Minister has the whip hand. He owns the minerals. I shall depend on the Minister. I know the Minister will not see his countrymen done down in this matter.

I shall now return to the subject of the siting of industries and the habit the Government have of flourishing trumpets and giving figures. I have here bundles of newspaper cuttings under various headings such as "Fertiliser plant may employ thousands in Waterford"; "Plans for new Factory"—that is from the Irish Press—“A £1,000,000 fertiliser project,”“Big plans for Waterford City”. The Minister should do something to stop this kind of thing. Newspapers announce Government proposals which they say will employ so many people. I have a cutting here in regard to the horse meat factory in Limerick. The headlines imply that it would employ 500 people. When there is any proposal to establish a fertiliser plant or any other project an official announcement should be made by the Department of Industry and Commerce that the plant will be established, the place where it is to be established, the type of production and the estimated employment content within six months or twelve months. Newspaper reports to the effect that a proposed new factory will employ 500, 2,000 and 3,000 drive unfortunate people mad, looking forward to jobs and worrying as to whether Johnny will be left school in time to get a job in the new factory.

I wish the Minister luck in the Common Market negotiations. I think we will not have a great deal to do with the terms on which we go in. The Minister should not lean too much towards those industries. He should not sell out agriculture for industry, and there is that danger in going into the Common Market. He should give a fair crack of the whip to both industry and agriculture. I think the Minister for Agriculture and his officials should be present at these negotiations.

That would be a matter for the Minister for Agriculture.

It would be a matter, I think, for the Minister for Industry and Commerce because he is carrying on the negotiations. With respect, I think he should bring the Minister for Agriculture with him.

So far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned, the matter relates to the Department of the Minister for Agriculture.

I think the Minister will cotton on to what I have in mind. I now come to the good side of the matter. In my constituency we have Waterford glass, and its promotion is a headline for many of the industries in Ireland, if not for them all. There are 700 Waterford people making a product that can be sent to the ends of the earth and sold, even against a tariff. We have another industry in Waterford. ACEC make electrical transformers which are sent to the ends of the earth—Africa, India and countries here, there and everywhere— in competition with the whole world. We have a foundry in Waterford. We have Clover Meats and Dennys, two great meat factories, and we have smaller ones such as Bowes and Collins, sending meat to many countries, and they could send it into the Common Market countries, if they had an opportunity.

I have no fear for those types of people. They are the people who know how to promote and sell their products. The Minister should ask his officials to review the list of Irish industrialists and pick out the industrialists who have not been selling abroad. He should call those people in and ask them what they are doing, what they intend to do, what help they need and what help they expect from the Minister's Department. I know the Minister is starting five years too late but he must do this now. He must help many of these industries some of which have been talked about as hot-house industries but which have given employment for a long number of years. The Minister must see to it that the promoters of these industries are encouraged to make, and even told that they must make, themselves more efficient. We do not want their workers to be handed their wages on a Friday evening and told that the factory is about to be closed down. We need not reach that stage if we organise those industries.

People are very optimistic about agriculture. I am optimistic about agriculture because I am sure that our products are splendid products, and I know that the people selling them will be able to sell them, but there are other forms of agricultural produce. I hope the Minister will take care to ensure that we will not be subjected to dumping from the Continent of, say, sugar or wheat, if there happens to be a surplus. Great care should be taken in that regard.

I do not think that the preferences given to certain parts of the country, and the preferential treatment which is given to industrialists who go there, are fair so far as my side of the country is concerned. I want the Minister to remember that in the year ending March, 1961, 4,000 people from Wexford, Kilkenny and Waterford bought single tickets for Great Britain at Waterford railway station.

I should like to comment on the Minister's statement. It was a factual statement and most of the matters contained in it are matters on which we must all agree. I feel the Minister was, perhaps, a little sparing in his references to some important matters. He could have gone into more detail about some of the things which are really important, and could possibly have left out one or two of the things which were laboured in the statement, but taking it all in all, the statement set down the facts as the Minister saw them. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House do not see all the facts as the Minister sees them and I should like to comment briefly on one or two of the things on which we might not be in complete agreement.

Reference was made briefly in the Minister's statement to mining and Deputy T. Lynch also dealt with it. I think the approach to mining in this country is wrong. Some people seem to think that all you have to do is to get a spade and get someone who says he is a miner and there are Klondykes all over the place immediately you start digging, and that there should be fantastic sums of money for everyone who looks in at the operation.

I have as much respect for the rights of the farmers as anyone on the Fine Gael benches, the Fianna Fáil benches or anyone else, but I think there has been an awful lot of mischievous propaganda about what is happening at Tynagh. If my information is correct, and I think it is pretty good, it appears that the big row which was said to be brewing there existed only in the imagination of the people who sent the reports to the papers. I was speaking yesterday to the President of the responsible mining company and he said that there is no row. There may be a difference of opinion but surely if there is a difference of opinion, the Department has ways of settling these matters. Therefore, there is no reason why such publicity should be given to something which just is not true.

Again, it is not true to talk of hordes of people trampling on someone's land and causing a lot of damage. We had these people in Meath a few years ago prospecting old mines. They were also in Monaghan and subsequently in a number of other counties. They were interested in finding out if there was anything in the old mines. Local people were employed and they were well paid, and the farmers whose land was entered on were compensated well. We have no reason to believe that anything different is likely to happen in Tynagh or anywhere else. It is entirely wrong for the impression to be given that these people are a group of monsters from Mars trying to destroy the farming community and do irreparable harm. The farmers should be allowed to talk for themselves and should not be quoted as having said something which in most cases they did not say at all.

I wish the mining people the best of luck. If minerals can be found here, they are definitely likely to put the country on the map and I wish luck to the people who are investing large sums of money. It is not generally known—the Minister is the person in the best position to know—the amount of money which has been spent by the mining people since 1955 to date. It is true to say that apart entirely from what the State has contributed, millions of dollars have been spent by the people who came to look for minerals, whether they found them or not. The question has been raised as to whether or not, where the State is investing money, there should be a director to look after the State's interests. I believe there should be so that the interests of the State will be looked after. Where private individuals are spending their money, the less interference with them the better.

Reference was also made to the siting of new factories. I am one of the people, as the Minister is aware, who is a very severe critic of those who claim that there are unlimited numbers of factories opening and giving tremendous employment. I cannot see them and I travel around the country as much as anybody else. I see certain factories, and I am delighted to see them, but they are not giving the great employment we are told they are giving. When queries are raised about the numbers we have been given, we are told that the figures are for the numbers that will be employed, if everything goes all right in five or ten years' time. The biggest complaint we have about new industries is that there seems to have been an arrangement made for them to go into the undeveloped areas and then the undeveloped area has been extended. In my constituency, we are in the position that the border counties of Monaghan and Cavan are now in the undeveloped counties. More luck to them, if they can get industries, but there is little chance of a reasonable industry being started in Meath with the help of State capital if people can go four or five miles further on to Monaghan or Cavan and get State capital. They cannot get it in Meath. The industrial employment position is very much worse in Meath than in the neighbouring areas.

People in this House have got up as recently as to-day to say there was no such thing as unemployment and that if people wanted employment, they could get it. If any of those people think that that is so, I shall be only too glad to give them to-morrow copies of letters I have received giving the names of numbers of people in various areas throughout Meath who are still unemployed and have been unemployed for a long time, waiting for an odd day from the county council or from some farmer. It is entirely wrong that we should be singing "Come Back to Erin" to our emigrants, while the people at home cannot get jobs. I am not blaming the Minister—he is doing his best—but the facts must be faced. We must say what is true and not what we would like to be true.

Reference was also made in the Minister's statement to the shorter working week. It is true that a very big advance has been made on that front and we are delighted to find that the five-day working week is the accepted norm. What we do not like is the fact that the State itself, in rural areas, is dragging its feet and trying to stay behind. They are the people who are not prepared to accept that the five-day week has come to stay. The Minister and his Department may not be dealing directly with this but I should be glad if he could do something about it.

Reference was also made to the last round of wage increases and to the difficulty that may arise if this haphazard—I think that was the word that was used—system of settling wage disputes is not straightened out. The employer-trade union conference which is to take place in the near future was also mentioned. I want to say here and now that if the Government or any other people think that that conference is for the purpose of establishing a wages standstill, they should think again because on the trade union side there is no intention of accepting a wages standstill. The matter has to be discussed but we are not going to accept the responsibility of being the people who say there should be a wages standstill because we do not believe that even now the general body of workers are getting a living wage; far too many of them are at the very bottom.

While agriculture is entirely irrelevant to this debate, I think I shall be within the rules of order if I state that the biggest industry is agriculture and the employees in agriculture are the people who are getting the lowest wages and will continue to get them, even with the increase of six shillings which they are to get from 4th of June. If Industry and Commerce are serious about the negotiations about the Common Market, they will have to be serious about that.

The Apprenticeship Board has been referred to. It is a good idea and about time that arrangements were made for the entrance of apprentices into certain trades, indeed into all trades. The Minister should ensure that people will no longer be kept out from a trade because they lacked the money to pay their way. It is true that a certain standard of education will be required in those entering an apprenticeship. I would ask that when that is being considered, some attempt be made, or the Minister in his wisdom might be able to get some system whereby the boy who is a natural— we get such people in practically every county, people with absolutely no education but who become excellent apprentices or tradesmen—is not kept out merely because he has not been able to pass some type of examination before entering his apprenticeship.

I should like to refer briefly to something which happened during the year and which possibly could not be avoided. Every effort, however, should be made to ensure it does not happen again. While at present quite a lot of money is being offered to foreign industrialists to come in here, I think that sufficient emphasis is not being placed on old established industries and the amount of employment they give. If from time to time some of those industries fall on evil times, the State should step in immediately and do everything possible to ensure that such firms are kept going until such time as whatever ill has befallen them has passed. I know of one or two instances where it appeared as if no one worried very much, except the people who lost their jobs. The State could help considerably in those matters.

Another matter referred to in the Minister's statement is tourism. This is one of the things about which we could talk for a whole week and still not have covered all the points which could be made.

Perhaps on another Estimate.

Yes, but it is referred to in the Minister's statement.

Only to the extent that it is no longer within the ambit of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

It is referred to.

Only to that extent.

It is referred to, but if you rule it out of order, Sir, it is out of order and therefore I shall not labour the point. If we are to deal seriously with the problem of the Common Market, the Minister should have devoted a lot more space in his statement to the Common Market than he did. He referred only very briefly to it. Perhaps he had reasons for that and possibly we will hear more about it when he is replying. I was very glad to see a few days ago the Taoiseach making a statement to the effect that what he had said earlier about everything being grand when we enter the Common Market was not exactly true. He said that, in fact, there were grave difficulties. We all know there are. We know that the Government will do everything they can to get the best bargain possible. They can be assured of full assistance from all sides of the House. But it would be wrong of us to leave the matter at that and decide it is entirely one for the Government and that nobody is entitled to any information about it. The Government have to realise that the House are entitled to full information about the position before we enter the Common Market or if we enter the Common Market. The Taoiseach said the word was "if" not "when"— that Britain might not go into the Common Market. It is not a question of Britain not being taken in, but that she would not go in; and if she does not go in, we will not go in either.

I notice in an evening paper— I do not know whether it is correct— that the Minister for External Affairs within the past couple of hours has been talking about a very much wider market. When we have not finally made up our minds about whether we will enter the Common Market or not and when we have not been accepted, I think it is a bit premature for the Minister for External Affairs to start talking about this country being associated with a number of other groups, including the Americans. I would be very interested to hear the Minister for External Affairs make one comment in this House on the Common Market. During the past few months he has made no comment but has remained the strong, silent man.

He is our greatest external asset—he is always abroad.

Of course, he has a certain amount of work to do abroad. I want to refer to the question of souvenirs. We still have souvenirs here made in Japan. There is room for a sizeable industry making decent Irish souvenirs. It is wrong that those people should be allowed send in this sort of trash, which is sold simply because it represents an Irish cottage or a shillelagh. There are a number of small factories making various types of souvenirs at present and trying to sell them. Some effort should be made to prevent the other sort of souvenir coming in and thus help the Irish article. I am afraid some of the Irish souvenirs are being put out of the market because of their fantastic prices. Some of these people, when they find they can sell the souvenirs, seem to think they have something like the Tynagh silver strike and that they can make millions in a short time.

Finally, as I said, the Minister's statement seemed to be a reasonable one. While we could not agree with everything it contained, we believe he was making a genuine effort to put the facts as he saw them.

The pattern of this debate so far has been that Government speakers told us we were morbid, that we felt our industrial structure was bad and that we were banshces crying in the wind. Taking the best political events into account, that could only be the pattern. I am sick and tired of hearing in my own constituency and in other places of the great work Fianna Fáil said they did for the development of Irish industry since 1930. Of course, that was a period when it was obvious Irish industry would develop anyway. They were there to do it, and more luck to them that they did. But now it is hard for them to accept the fact that Irish industry was built on tariff protection and on supply services to our own people and that now, if we enter the Common Market, we have to face a situation where we will have goods coming from Western Germany, Italy, France and the other countries and we will have to compete in our own market for the purchasing power of our own people.

Even though I am all for "Buy Irish" weeks and all the rest, I believe they will help only a little. Now, even in Dublin, we will have to sell against the West German industrialists, the person who makes cheese in France, the people making agricultural and industrial products all over Europe. So far as taste is concerned sometimes they make their product better than we do; even though in many other cases we are definitely better than they are. We have got to accept that situation. Deputy Sweetman in his speech made it clear, not from an expression of opinion but by quotation from authoritative sources, that that is the situation.

We, on this side of the House, do not face that situation in any defeatist attitude. We face it in the knowledge that the way is arduous—it is a question of per ardua ad astra—and we have got to do our best, take exceptional steps and make drastic changes —a “crash” policy as advocated by the Committee on Industrial Organisation—in order that our whole industrial structure will not fall, that our industrial workers will not be disemployed and that, in fact, we will gain from the Common Market in the long run rather than lose.

Let us face it. Most of our industries are supply industries behind tariff walls. That is no criticism of them. That is how they were nurtured and built. But it is of no profit here this evening for us to say to the Government of the day or any other Government that we should have had a decreasing level of tariffs before we did or that we should have had export incentives before they were introduced by Deputy Sweetman. Such statements are of no value to us because we have to face the situation as it is. Political argument from either side of the House—calling the other fellow a fool or a bad politician because he did not do things over the years—is of no value. In the same way it is of no value for the people opposite to say we are banshees crying in the wind. We were not; we are facing realities. Since we had been out of office from 1930 to 1948, we were better able to face realities. We have no record of building an industrial structure behind tariff walls. In my opinion, that was a good way to do it; but, perhaps, there should have been earlier a decreasing level of protection and export incentives. I do not criticise the Government in that regard. I merely want them to face the problems of today and do what is necessary about them.

I propose to take first things first and, so far as Irish industry is concerned, the first thing is the Irish worker. The industrial wage level is not too high for our entry into the Common Market. The wage level in other countries, with the exception of Southern Italy and a few undeveloped areas, is higher. Since there will be free movement of people as well as of moneys and goods, our people will not tolerate a lower wage structure. Therefore, just as one can take the boat to Liverpool for very little, it will be just as easy in future to take a boat to any country in Europe and get a job at a higher wage level than obtains here. Our workers have great potentialities, even though many of them have not had the opportunity of training in particular trades. I do not believe that the wage rate is too high for entry into the Common Market and from that point of view we are well fitted.

The haphazard nature of the recent eighth round wage increase, as the Minister described it, is something that should be discussed and was discussed by the Minister. It is regrettable that this eighth round resulted from negotiations with the ESB which is a Government concern and which was the subject of legislation here. There was no line, in my view, that responsible national politicans representing all walks of life in the country could take except that taken by the Government. I believe the Minister is right when he suggests that there should be a better method than the one used in regard to the eighth round. Electricity is a national essential, and in this instance, it led the way for that increase. Over the years and with the advent of the Common Market better methods will come about. Like Deputy Tully, I feel that free negotiation between employer and employee is the way to do it and the more Ministers and politicians keep out of it the better.

I wish to refer to page 8 of the Minister's speech where he says:

I am confident that our manufacturers will take the necessary action to equip themselves to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be presented to them.

New opportunities will be presented, no doubt, but much larger production will be involved for a much larger consumer market. That means cheaper production and demands for more plant, far more expansive selling and all that goes with it, and a much greater organisation. The average existing factory in this country, with very few exceptions, is not in a position to spend perhaps 100 per cent. of its present capital value on expansion, on developing its production and on meeting the challenge which in some cases—I deliberately use the word "some"—it will have to meet.

There must, therefore, be extraordinary approaches to the provision of capital. This can be done, I presume, through the Industrial Credit Company, the commercial banks and certain other sources. I have some knowledge of these matters and I know that the general approach to the provision of capital in these ways is largely conservative. It must be conservative. If a bank or other lending institution is of opinion that a company is worth, say, £50,000, the normal lending level of that institution to that company is perhaps 50 per cent. of that figure. When I give the value of any company as being at that figure it would, of course, be a relatively small value as it would include debtors and would be on the basis of an equitable debenture. At the same time, that sort of company would perhaps need to make an expenditure at the level of another £50,000 to place itself in a competitive position.

In regard to the Committee on Industrial Organisation, Deputy Sweetman was right in drawing attention to the lateness of the production by the Government of its interim report and in suggesting that the Government should have instituted such a committee long ago. Right through this interim report, there is a statement many times that all the emphasis has been on the institution of new industries and that very little attention has been paid to the maintenance and expansion of old industries.

Let me quote from paragraph 8, page 5, of the report relating to grants:

These grants are available for the development of existing enterprises but development appears to have been interpreted outside the undeveloped areas as equivalent to the setting up of new industries.

I am quite convinced that there are many industries of which perhaps even the directors have not as yet assessed what we shall have to meet if we enter the Common Market, where as much money afforded to them as would be afforded to a new enterprise, measured against the slide rule of capital value and employment potential, would provide far more employment than the provision of the same sum for a new industry which, if such sum is not provided if we do enter the Common Market, will go to the wall and provide no employment at all.

Therefore, my first criticism—and the Minister will realise that it is not meant to be political criticism or an attempt to be difficult—is that the Minister's speech did not lay any emphasis on the preservation of existing industries which will find themselves in danger in Common Market conditions, to which also the Minister gave very little time in his speech. The Minister is confident that manufacturers will take the necessary action. A little more than confidence is required. As this debate proceeds on its way, it may help to enliven the Minister's mind and make him realise that he will have to look after existing industries and depart from the present policies.

I would refer to page 10 of the Minister's speech where he says:

Excluding projects in which the capital involved was less than £10,000 in each case 36 new industrial undertakings or expansions of existing firms came to notice as having commenced production in the year ended 31st December, 1961.

The one thing that hits me in that paragraph is the figure of £10,000. Has the Minister any idea when he puts in that figure of £10,000, how much it takes to employ one industrial worker today, when you take the amount that is in the debtor's ledger, the amount of stock that is there, the capital investment on machinery, the repayment of debt, if there is any, and the selling organisation?

When one looks at the figure of £10,000 in relation to this, one decides that it is either a political statement, puerile in the extreme, with the figure reduced to £10,000 for the purpose of producing a greater number of industries, or it is just that the Minister and his Department do not know. I am quite certain that the average amount required to put one industrial worker into employment in this country is £5,000. That may seem extraordinary to some, as it is not so very long since I heard people here quoting £1,000.

Industries are included here— should we call them industries?—in which two workers represent the total number employed. Lest anybody think I am overstating or exaggerating, let me quote an instance that the presence of Deputy Tully has brought to my mind. The Minister for Transport and Power proceeded to a beautiful little place on the Boyne, called Harbourville, and there he opened a new factory. In the course of doing so, he made a quite beautiful speech. The factory was a shed in which peat moss was to be put into clamps and then sent off on a boat. It provided employment for six people.

I am not as sure of the figures as Deputy Tully is. The factory is at his back door and I am sure he knows everything about it. There was not a farmer within five miles but gave a stentorian horse laugh at the idea of the Minister for Transport and Power coming down and opening an establishment—thank God for the effort, and I am delighted the factory is there—employing four people.

Would the Deputy read on on that same page?

Certainly I shall. I shall make my contribution, as the Minister did, uninterrupted, I hope.

Would the Deputy read it before he goes too far astray?

At the moment I want to discuss ballpoint pens. A famous industry was included in the list in reply to a Parliamentary Question, an industry for the assembling of ballpoint pens. While Deputy Tully was speaking, I was watching him; I am sure he dissembled and assembled his ballpoint pen ten times. What has been said, therefore, is quite true. There is, in fact, no vast expansion. There is no feeling of resurgence. But we are prepared to face the situation. We are not banshees, wailing and moaning, and doing nothing else.

There is the odd factory. That has to happen. We are on the side of the Continent of Europe. People in Western Germany are living under the shadow of the Iron Curtain. The coffers in Western Germany are bulging. Is it not quite obvious that not only will they come in here and buy stretches of the beaches in Mayo but that they will avail, at the same time, of our excellent labour force, a labour force unequalled in any part of Europe? I speak from experience. I do not want to interrupt the trend of my discourse, but I can give instances of industrialists who came in here and who were so satisfied with the labour available here that they commented most favourably upon it to me and to others.

The Minister asked me to read on. He is too good a friend of mine to get my goat.

It would be a pity not to read on.

The Minister's phraseology here is quite good. He talks of a total capital investment of £10,000,000 expected to give employment ultimately to 3,400 workers. Everybody who has ever had an application for a grant has made it on the basis that he was going to employ 50 people immediately and that, in five years' time, the 50 would have swollen to 500.

Divide six-and-a-half by 36.

The Minister will not cod me. I have been involved in far too many of these enterprises.

I think the Deputy is codding himself.

I am not codding myself and I will not be codded by the Minister, either. I should like now to refer to the Minister's reference to industrial consultants and his comment on the low level of finance being availed of under the grant scheme. I may be some sort of an old conservative. I may be out of touch, as the Minister suggests, and what I am going to say now will be most unpopular. I think industrial consultants are just fashionable at the moment. Ten years ago, somebody somewhere thought the whole thing up. These consultants have their uses. If someone wants to get rid of elderly people in a firm, the easiest way is to get the industrial consultants in. They produce a figure for a department quite impossible from the point of view of production, and the poor old man gets up and goes.

I am convinced there are very few Irish businessmen in the top flight who could not do all that is necessary themselves, and do it better than any industrial consultant. I know there are times when one cannot see the wood for the trees. One is so close, so dug in, so involved with everybody tugging at one's sleeve, that one cannot get down to seeing the actual trees. At the same time, I am convinced that industrial consultants will not be half as fashionable ten years hence as they are at the moment.

I am not criticising them, but there are a great many people who have spent £5,000, £6,000 and £7,000— they do very small jobs for £1,000— who are sorry they ever used them, who will never use them again, and whose counterparts will not use them in the future. At the moment, everybody who is a judge of industry and a prognosticator in relation to the Common Market becomes an industrial consultant. If I live to the end of this speech, I may become one myself, but I do not think anyone would consult and pay me.

The figure for grants by An Foras Tionscal is undoubtedly increased. I do not know where Departments get such figures at the end of vast sums as £120. I see a figure of £2,672,120 here. That leads me to believe that somewhere somebody did some arithmetic. That is most pleasurable. I take it the Minister expects to spend this sum, though there are little footnotes which show that he does not have to spend it, if it does not come in the particular financial year. I hope he expects to spend it. I hope there are projects on the stocks which will have that sum allotted to them. The Minister refers to that on page 14.

Immediately the question arises in one's mind as to whether or not there should be a difference between the undeveloped areas and the developed areas. I have a certain view in this. If we go into the Common Market, this problem will settle itself because there will undoubtedly be, unless the Minister succeeds in emulating Harry Wragg, the head waiter, and winning the race in a sudden burst at the finish, disemployment in our existing industries. These are based mainly on the east coast. Any disemployment would horrify me, but all the indications are that there may be such disemployment. If there is, we shall have two exaggerated demands for grants: one from areas where people have become disemployed, and the second from areas where people have no employment. By and large, this problem of the undeveloped areas may solve itself, but I should like to discuss it from the point of view of some knowledge I possess of individual cases.

There was a wonderful case of an industry that could have been established in Drogheda, but, in order to get the major grant, it had to be established at Athlone. It was an industry manufacturing an industrial fuel. The price of such a product in relation to weight is cheap; 10/- per ton is a lot of money; £1 per ton is appalling. The cost of moving the raw material— which was, in fact, slack of a low quality, initially—to Athlone, of processing it there and of bringing it back to what was obviously its major source of sale, Dublin, just put the thing out.

There is a situation where flexibility should have existed. The meanest observer would see there was no commonsense in a situation in which something had to be transported from a port—Dublin or Drogheda; the site selected was Drogheda, in the first instance—to Athlone and then brought back to Dublin. That is the way the Undeveloped Areas Act works badly. I have seen where it works well.

I come from the east coast and I might be expected to yell like hell against the provisions of the Undeveloped Areas Act. I can see the difficulty of a Government and their responsibilities to the nation in that regard. The utterly stupid interpretation—which probably was bound by legislation so that people were not in a position to give that grant nearer than Athlone—leads one to believe and leads individual businessmen to be very irritable in their belief that the Undeveloped Areas Act, as it now exists, is very often a hindrance rather than a help.

It is rather like this £10,000 industrial project which I should love to see one day through a magnifying glass. The Minister is a good friend of mine. Therefore, I can say to him that he must be a notorious man for detail. He talks about the industrial development programme. He says that two additional field representatives were appointed by the Industrial Development Authority in 1961, one permanently resident in the United States—a nice big place for one man— and the second, a travelling representative in Europe who for the present is concentrating his efforts mainly in Germany; in the future, apparently, he will go to France, Italy and all over the place—just one little man extra in Europe.

I can tell the Minister that, to my knowledge, a firm in Liverpool who manufacture feeding stuffs have employed 30 new representatives and that every one of these representatives was recruited from the Republic of Ireland, with the obvious intention that, if the Common Market comes, they will immediately constitute by transfer a sales force for that firm in Ireland. How would the Minister make his comparison between what one firm in Liverpool is doing and what he, a Minister of State, with the year 1964 laid down by his own Committee on Industrial Organisation as the absolute deadline when we have to be ready——

These men are not commercial travellers.

I did not interrupt the Minister but his interruption is interesting. It is true to say that field representatives are not commercial travellers. I would describe them as liaison officers who would do their best to find the markets and who would relay the information to companies here. The Minister is only a Minister of State. He does not make things—he has to go back to the industrialists who do. The difference between a commercial traveller and a field representative, therefore, is not as great as the Minister seems to think.

I have knowledge of the operations of Córas Tráchtála. I have the highest regard for these people. These people are very close to commercial travellers. The Minister need not try to contradict me because I know. They think as much of the product they are trying to sell for an industrialist here as if it were their own and their own company. I am quite certain that the field representative mentioned in the Minister's speech is quite akin to the same sort of person—and I would expect him to be.

I think that the fellow who will concentrate his efforts mainly on Germany at present and who apparently will take a wider field in future will be a busy man. The fellow in the United States, if he constitutes our extra effort this year as far as the Industrial Development Authority is concerned, will be a very much busier man. The whole report of the activities of this section of our industrial effort contained in the Minister's statement on page 18 does not give me much hope that we are having what is required of us by the Minister's committee, that is, a "crash" policy. I think the only crash either of those two gentlemen would have would be in a motor car, which God forbid.

The Committee on Industrial Organisation recommend rationalisation and suggest that perhaps the Industrial Credit Company might take an equity of companies and have representation on their boards. Deputy Tully seems to agree with them that the State, when investing money, should take a seat on the board of the company—that the State, investing money, should have a closer link than it has at the moment. I do not think that it is a correct line because it starts to divorce the thing from private enterprise and companies start to begin to be amenable not to State general policy but deliberate individual Government's wishes.

It might be bringing the matter to extremes to say that that would immediately happen but I would prefer to see the capital provided by the Industrial Credit Company or by other State agencies provided in such a way as commercial banks provide it as far as an equitable debenture is concerned but without the right of membership on a board. That is a personal view. It is a disagreement with that of the committee. If you have these personal views and you are discussing a matter such as this, it is right to indicate them, even though such views do not always redound to one's benefit.

On Page 13, the Committee suggest loans on which capital repayments do not commence for some years. That, in my view, is most important. At Paragraph 25 of the Committee's report we read:

There remains one form of aid which is not generally available to manufacturing industry in Ireland, namely, grant of loans on which commencement of interest payments and capital repayments is deferred for a period of years.

At Paragraph 11 on Page 7, we read:

When should additional State aid be introduced? Action is urgent for at least three reasons. First, it was stated, in connection with Ireland's application for admission to E.E.C., that, subject to any limited exceptions which might be agreed to, this country would not seek to retain tariffs beyond December, 1969. Second, the time which will elapse between the decision by a firm or industry to undertake re-equipment on a significant scale (for example) and the date at which the new equipment is in full use is, in general, not likely to be shorter than 2½ to 3 years. Market surveys may have to be undertaken and production, etc. consultants employed (involving a period of possibly 12 months), decisions taken and new equipment ordered. Delivery delays on the new equipment could be a year or more. Even after new equipment has been installed, or a new form of organisation adopted, a further 6-12 months may elapse before the full impact on competitiveness is felt.

I would point to the practice of the Agricultural Credit Corporation in relation to loans because, in a minor way, that is exactly what they have done. Their giving of loans is on the basis of half-yearly sinking fund repayments interest payments only on the first two gale days. That gives the farmer who bought cattle, machinery or other necessaries to run his holding, a period of 12 months in which to start to get the benefits from his capital investment.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to give to industry loans on which the principal part of the repayment does not fall due for a period of at least three years. I feel the Minister might indicate in his reply whether or not he will consider amending legislation if necessary in relation to the Industrial Credit Corporation to make this possible. The Committee on Industrial Organisation believe the tax concessions on exports are adequate. Everything has its right price and this is a balanced view, I suppose, of representatives of trade unions, industrialists and others.

It is interesting that the first tax concessions on exports were given during the crisis period of the last inter-Party Government and that these have been expanded by the present Government. It is interesting also to know that they are adequate now. I do not think the Minister should take everything in the report as gospel without examining it further, but the position as I see it is that it is a good thing we have reached the stage where at least that much has been done. Lest anybody should think we on this side of the House are being too morbid about this, I shall quote paragraph 5 on page 4 of the report:

The problems that can be classified under the heading of preventive adaptation are posed by small size of firms, short production runs, under-utilisation of productive capacity, lack of vertical integration, inadequate mechanisation, relatively high wage costs per unit of output, poor design of Irish goods, lack of marketing organisation abroad, cutthroat competition between Irish firms in foreign markets, and transition to more specialised production. These causes of uncompetitiveness may be removed, or made to operate with less strength, in one or other of three ways.

Then it goes on to mention the ways: by installing modern equipment, by individual firms and perhaps whole industries specialising on a narrower range of varieties of the product, and by an increase in the scale on which certain activities are carried on, whether by co-operation or amalgamation. Considering that part of the report, I do not think we are being too morbid. The list of factors which they believe will cause unemployment when we get into the Common Market is a problem which we must face.

I should like to mention Tynagh. The Minister had this to say:

As Deputies are aware, I recently made an Order compulsorily acquiring the minerals underlying a number of townlands in the Tynagh area which were not already in State ownership, so as to ensure the orderly development of mining operations there if mining should prove worthwhile.

Deputy Tully gave a very clear insight into the problem when he said there was no row in Tynagh—that there was a difference of opinion and that, if there was, the Department of Industry and Commerce have a way of dealing with it. That is his view as against the Minister's statement. Some other Deputy said these farmers were paid £100 an acre. There you have an answer covering the whole problem, in my belief. They were paid £100 an acre and the Minister compulsorily acquired the land——

Not the land.

Not the land, but of course entry into the land must be valued. You cannot mine without entry to the land.

I compulsorily acquired the minerals.

The Minister can never forget that he is a most successful barrister. He need not bother coming that one on me. If he acquired the mineral rights, what happens to the land?

I do not want to interrupt, but the Deputy is talking through his hat.

The position is that if you acquire the mineral rights, you must have entry to the lands and consequently the lands are no longer the sole property of the farmers concerned. They were paid £100 an acre when the potential was worth many thousands.

Minerals are taken from under the land.

I have made the point that they cannot come from underneath without going in from the top. These farmers have had their lands compulsorily acquired at £100 an acre. I should like to feel that the farmers of Ireland are still masters on their own holdings and I do not think the Minister is entitled to reach such conclusions as apparently he has done in this case.

The system of quotas which restricted us from exporting to European countries also restricted our desire to investigate those markets and I think we must now make an effort to inquire into the potential of markets all over Europe. I do not think half enough is being done in that direction, if we are to succeed at all in maintaining industrial employment. Undoubtedly, it is necessary for us to sell far more abroad. Deputies have given figures to prove that this year we have been selling less abroad and nobody has contradicted those figures. Probably they are correct. If that is so, apart from the problems of our probable entry into the Common Market, I would stress also the imminence of another balance of payments difficulty. If the French and the Germans and the Italians sell here, we must also sell in their countries and if we do not, there will be less work for our people.

Even if those quotas are increased —and in respect of agriculture, one was increased the other day by £20,000, a quite inconsiderable sum— we still need the investigations I suggested. The Government will have to do considerably more, therefore, to investigate the potential of European markets.

I should like to refer to another aspect of the matter and that is the accent on specialisation in the interim report of the Committee on Industrial Organisation. Specialisation is very important and a big factory that puts out the same product can, through efficiency and specialisation, wipe out smaller factories. There is another aspect that should be emphasised and that is that we are all individualists at heart. Our wives do not like to have the same design on their frocks and, while we may not say so, if one has the same suit of clothes as another man one would come in the next day in a different one. I have heard it said by industrialists that Ireland has some opportunity, not in specialisation, but in individualism. Small units here can produce things that are different, particularly in the clothing industry. There may be something there for us. That matter should be fully investigated. It might be that with a little attention to design particularly we could find a market for goods we produce here which we will no longer use when the Common Market comes because of the fact that our own people may buy the mass produced articles from abroad.

That is the exact opposite to the idea of this Committee. It may not be, in perspective, nearly as important but it may be a fact that with greater attention to design we can get a market for our small factories for many items because these items are different. That entails a fantastic attention to selling, not in 1964, but now.

The Minister has not mentioned a matter which is obviously of great importance and that is the relation of industry to agriculture. We have not done anything like what we should have done in our marketing, in our packaging or in the preparation for sale of our agricultural goods. I believe that Irish industry, in personnel, in capital, and in approach, has something to give to agriculture here and has something to get from it, a raw material that in my view cannot be met up with by any other country.

Reference to the Dundalk Engineering Works is probably bordering on disorder. It is not in the Vote this year and last year's Vote is out of date but I feel that there are some hard luck cases which, by reason of the date involved, have not got their compensation. The Minister might look at these with a generous eye.

I should like to speak of the activities of Córas Tráchtála, which, in my view, are most commendable. I had contact with and experience of them and I found that they are largely young men who are devoting themselves to selling Irish goods abroad. My experience of Córas Tráchtála is that once anyone goes in to them with a product they bring all their enthusiasm and energy to bear on it and use all their contacts with the result that the industrialist cannot keep up with them. I have nothing but the height of praise for the people in Córas Tráchtála and I think that an immediate extension of their activities is what we need. My anxiety also is that, unfortunately, we are not moving far enough and fast enough to sell the products which we must sell when the goods of European countries are being sold here in Ireland.

It is a pity that Deputy Sweetman did not remain in the House to hear Deputy Donegan. I would suggest to both that they read the speeches of each other with the suggestion that if we are to be in a Common Market they should get into a common policy as far as what they say in this House is concerned. Deputy Sweetman started off his speech by accusing the Government of not taking the advice given to them by the Opposition in March, 1957. That Opposition cleared out after serving three of the five years they were elected to serve and they cleared out for the sole reason that they had not a bob left to pay anyone. Then these people are going to give free advice to the Government as to how they should carry on.

That reminds me of an old lad who had just made up his mind to struggle on until the family had grown up when they shoved him into a corner and gave him a few bob on Sunday for a few pints and gave him a bit of tobacco. That old man would never dream of coming out of that corner and giving advice to the person who had taken over as to how the place should be run. I thought that Deputy Sweetman had the dickens of a neck to come back and give advice to the Government which had to clear up the mess he left after him when he cleared out in March, 1957.

Deputy Donegan's approach to this matter is entirely different from the pessimistic and defeatist attitude of Deputy Sweetman. Deputy Sweetman's line was that very few of our industries could survive in the Common Market —they had no hope of surviving. I have discussed this as far as possible with industrialists in my constituency and I have not found that they are one bit afraid of competition in the Common Market. Take the shipbuilding industry which is going ahead by leaps and bounds and which has practically doubled its employment in a few months: they are not afraid of competition anywhere and the proof of that is that they are increasing their employment while Belfast shipbuilding firms are idle.

A different country.

And different methods. As a matter of fact, there are advertisements in the paper today seeking more young men for training at Haulbowline. I do not think they will cost the £5,000 per man that Deputy Dillon told us it would cost to put a man into employment.

The steel industry at Haulbowline that the then Deputy Morrissey was sent down in 1948 to close down as an uneconomic unit, thanks to the luck —and I call it luck—that we came back into office in 1957, has prepared by modernisation to meet any competition in the world. They are not afraid of competition and they have very largely increased their employment. From what I gather I do not think these industrialists need fear the Common Market competition and if there are further markets open to them I am sure they will be able to take advantage of them. From my knowledge of the leaders of our textile industry in East Cork I can say practically the same. They are not afraid of competition either.

This bogey of unemployment in the Common Market is all pure nonsense. I am very proud to say that considering that some years ago we had a derelict town in Cobh, a poorish town in Midleton and another derelict town in Youghal which was dead for nine months of the year. It opened only for unfortunate people who went there to get a sea breeze for a few months in the summer. Today there is not one idle person in Youghal; there is full employment. People are flocking into Cobh from outside areas for employment. The same is the case in Midleton and right along. When I heard Deputy Lynch from Waterford moaning about the industry position there I wonder what Deputy Lynch is doing? I find if a Deputy makes up his mind to get industries for his constituency he will get them. I have spent the last three weeks pushing another industry into my constituency. That will give further employment.

Is there any room for it?

We will make room for them. There is plenty of room at any time. Our people are not like Roscommon people: they get married and they do not wait until they are 57. They have families and we always have people growing up to put into industries. That is the difference between Deputy McQuillan and myself.

If they are anything like the Deputy's tribe it is time something was done about it.

They are all right. They know their job. There are, however, a few industries to which the Minister might give consideration. There is a bit of spoonfeeding going on. One of those is the sugar crumb industry. The Minister should have a good look at that. I do not believe in subsidisation from the two ends. If we are giving—as we are—a supply of cheap sugar for an industry, the dairy farmers should not be asked to supply cheap milk also. I give that to the Minister for what it is worth. Surely their competitors in Britain must pay more for milk than is paid here.

The general tenor of Deputy Sweetman's speech was a moan, blaming the Minister for not appreciating the dangers of the situation. I know that our industrial firms have been consulted on several occasions and are meeting the Department of Industry and Commerce pretty regularly. As a representative of one agricultural organisation, I have already attended some 12 meetings in the Department of Agriculture going into the agricultural side of the matter. Our Department is very much alive to the situation and we have had no occasion to press that end of the business.

Regarding some remarks made by Deputy Donegan about British industry and the room for expansion and the assistance given by the State, I think there is something very definitely wrong with the Industrial Development Authority. I think they are biassed against Irish industry and industrialists. I say that from knowledge of negotiations I had with them. One man started an industry in the town of Charleville. He sent his people out to discover what the position was and why he could not sell his products. He found that certain things were wanted. He put matters in train and then applied to the IDA for assistance but could not get it. In many cases, extra employment is badly needed. I shall see that they get it. There is the idea that you must have a foreign name in order to get a grant or loan.

Deputy Tully and Deputy Donegan discussed the question of entry on land for minerals. I had a little experience of that in East Cork. A genius there at one time was looking for silicate clay. He went on to the land of a widow who had 20 acres and, on the basis that he had bought the mineral rights, started digging. His idea was to take in a lorry, dig a hole, fill the lorry with so much clay and take it away for testing, leaving the hole unfilled. The matter could have ended in a lawsuit but the lady took a short cut; she took a billhook and cleared him out. I was approached to see if there was any hope of settling the matter. The person in question asked me how much the county councils paid per acre of land. I told him the proper thing to do was to buy a few acres of land, to rail it off and that then he could dig all the holes he liked without annoying the woman. I was appointed as arbitrator to decide the value of the land. Having taken everything into consideration my valuation was £500 an acre. I thought that would quieten him. Having agreed to my appointment as arbitrator, he had to pay. I do not think he was very thankful. I suggest that cure to the people in Galway.

I suggest that when the Minister is sending representatives abroad for the purpose of getting essential information for our industries, instead of sending civil servants he should send representatives of the industries concerned. If that is done, our chances of securing foreign markets will be improved. I hold that view very strongly. If the Minister wants an example, I can cite the sugar industry. They do not use representatives from Civil Service Departments in their efforts to find markets for their product. They find their own markets. Lieut.- General Costello has assured me that he could find a market for ten times the quantity he is producing at present. If that is the case I do not see why other industrialists cannot do the same.

I am sure LieutGeneral Costello would acknowledge the assistance he got from officials.

He can thank Fidel Castro.

I have never known him to do otherwise than thank the officials for the assistance he got. God helps those who help themselves and Lieut-General Costello has never been averse from helping himself. General Costello has done as much as any living man in this country to provide not only an export market but home markets for his products and provide employment here. He started the processed food industry on a very small scale. He started in Galway last year on the basis of 300 acres of potatoes. This year he has placed contracts for 1,100 acres of potatoes in Galway. He started in Cork, Carlow and Thurles to process fruit, vegetables and peas. To-day he has industries based on those crops in the three factories and is now branching out and there will be a fourth factory in East Cork next year giving employment initially to a staff of 50 which will increase to about 300.

That is a very big development. Thank God, we had a man who had the intelligence and the initiative to secure markets abroad for the produce of these factories. As I said on the Budget, if we are to hold our population on the land it is essential to have crops that will give a gross return of £100 to £200 a statute acre and the factories to process the crops and the markets in which to sell the product. If a firm like the Sugar Company can secure markets and arrange the whole process from the growing of the crops, I have very little sympathy for the industrialist who cannot sell his product.

The kind of industry required in this country is industry based on the produce of the small farm. I think of the seaboard stretching from Ballymacoda to Ballycotton, where the small farmers find themselves, through no fault of their own, in a very bad position. The time when a small farmer could make money on wheat and barley is gone. These two crops have been taken over by the ranching fraternity. Therefore, an absolute change in our agricultural outlook is required. It is vitally essential to look after the interests of the small farmer.

I hear a great deal of talk about the Common Market. The Common Market is the biggest blessing that ever came, if only for one thing, that is, that the levy which those foolish people allowed to be put on our sugar exports to John Bull will go. We will go in as an equal member and the levy will go, whether John Bull likes it or not. I do not see how he can prevent our butter from going into Britain, too. Those are the blessings I see in the Common Market. He will no longer be able to put a £20 or £25 a ton levy on Irish sugar in order to provide a guaranteed price for Commonwealth sugar. He will no longer be able to say that he will take only so much butter and get the rest from New Zealand, if our people carrying out the negotiations for entry to the Common Market do their job. If they do not, we will find the way of dealing with them, too.

The figures in the White Paper show that the average price for agricultural produce in the Common Market is 33-1/3rd per cent. higher than it is here. I do not believe that a civil servant is the right man to make a bargain or carry out a discussion. After all, he is a family man and he wants cheap grub. We will have to find another line for these negotiations. We will have to get down to bedrock and see that the last ounce that can be got for our people by these negotiations is got, in alliance with countries anxious to prevent Britain from getting all the concessions she talks about getting for imports. After all, there are eight countries and if we have five on our side, we are all right. That should be our line of approach to the Common Market.

If we fail to hold the average price that is paid for agricultural produce in the Common Market today, our rural areas will continue to become depopulated. If the ordinary worker wants to sell his labour, he is entitled to sell it in the highest market. A young man of 20 years of age can get £11 or £12 a week starting in the Rushbrooke Dockyard, but if he goes to work on a farm, the maximum he can be paid is £6. There will be nobody left on the land except the blind, the lame and the halt in a very short period. We have to look at it from that point of view. We must get a price for our agricultural produce that will enable us to compete with the industrial arm which is taking the labour.

I do not know how Deputy Lynch will manage the five-day week which he talked about. I was on a deputation to the Minister for Justice the week before last in regard to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. Members of the trade union said that they wanted trade union hours. I suggested that they should go the whole hog, get a five-day week and close on Saturdays and Sundays. I do not know how they liked my suggestion but they were not as fond of it as I hoped they would be.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the job he has done. Anyone who travels through my constituency, or through the country at large, and sees the changes that have come about during the past few years cannot do otherwise. I can be as critical as the next person, but, at the same time, I see hundreds of men pouring into work in places where only a few years ago there was no one but a caretaker. In Irish Steel Limited, we are in the happy position of seeing 1,300 or 1,400 men getting into the launch and going to work. In the old days of Cumann na nGaedheal, before they changed their name, there was nothing there but an auction every three months of old machinery.

There are more than 1,500 men working in the Rushbrooke Dockyard and in the dead town of Youghal, about which my friend the former Deputy Gorman used to talk, there is not an idle person. I see all these things. The first thing needed is confidence but in the old days there was not confidence but terror. There was not a civil servant who got his pay cheque at the end of the month who was not in fear and trembling that the bank would not honour it. That was the condition of affairs those people left behind them but it is now changed. There is an absolutely changed atmosphere.

The previous speaker's comments remind me of a hornet without a sting. I am quite sure that a number of the brass hats of the Fianna Fáil Party will have no trouble with their consciences in assigning him to some place like Burnhouse at this stage.

I shall take up where he left off on the question of the shipping industry and the shipbuilding industry in Cork. When Deputy Corry was talking about the wonderful expansion in the shipbuilding industry in Cork, he drew a comparison with Belfast, and when I interjected to say that Belfast was in a different country, he agreed. I think that agreement that Belfast is in a different country is typical of the mentality of the Fianna Fáil Party to-day. If they were serious about the question of a proper shipbuilding industry, no decision would have been taken by the Government without taking into consideration the fact that Belfast is the home of shipbuilding in this country. Fianna Fáil have forgotten that. They have forgotten the fact that Belfast exists and I can think of nothing more non-sensical from the Government, seeing that we now face the Common Market, that we should set up in this small island in competition with what is already in operation.

We have heard a lot about planning and we find that this Government in spite of themselves have been forced to accept a plan, an imposed form of planning. Yet when that form of planning is imposed on the Government we find that in the shipbuilding industry they do not show anything resembling commonsense with regard to rationalisation or with regard even to the effects that an approach to Belfast would possibly have on the problem of Partition. We have now a shipping industry and we have a number of ships. Quite a number of those ships have rarely seen an Irish port. In my opinion our shipping service could be described as a taxi service, conveying commerce from different parts of the earth to various ports all over, but not to us, while at home we are completely dependent on a shipping fleet over which we have no control. Tomorrow morning we could not export one shipload of material to Britain, were it not for the fact that we depend on the good graces of those who own and control ports, equipment, dockyards and all the other things that go into the question of exports in Britain.

Over the years no effort whatever was made by the Government to provide our own means of transport for our exports. It is a disgraceful situation. It is one that calls for very strong criticism but I am afraid criticising the situation at this stage is of little or no benefit to the community. At the same time it should be clearly exposed to the public that we are not in the position, if we had the exports available to us tomorrow morning, to transport them to other countries which might feel like buying them. We are dependent on foreign shipping to carry our goods and that is in spite of the fact that Fianna Fáil have been in office for over 20 years during the past 35 years.

There are a number of countries like Ghana, Nigeria and other newly emerging nations which have over the past few years shown a certain interest in Ireland. Quite a number of prominent individuals in these countries have queried the situation that while they are anxious to do trade with Ireland they have received simply no co-operation from this end. It is a well-known fact that many of the leading doctors and professional men of these countries received their education here in Dublin. There is a tremendous fund of goodwill in these countries towards Ireland, but in spite of that fact we have made no attempt to open up trade with these countries.

I admit that some inefficient organisations like Córas Tráchtála and others have sent people to Ghana and other places and I am aware of the fact that one of the items that it was sought to export to Africa was prefabricated concrete slabs and also that money was spent sending an individual to one of these countries to try to persuade the building industry there to take the pre-stressed concrete building slabs made here. When we see that type of "carry on" it is time some action was taken against whatever State body was responsible for sponsoring such a move. These countries need our milk. They need meat and vegetables and they can get those things in a processed form from Ireland if we are anxious to supply them, but we are not anxious to do trade with these countries.

What is our position? We have heard it admitted by the Taoiseach that whatever Britain does in connection with the Common Market we must do the same thing. After 30 years of pretence that this was an independent nation the Taoiseach in this House had to tell the truth and point out that as far as our exports were concerned, and as far as our industrial and economic circumstances were concerned, we were dependent on Britain to buy the majority of our exports whether they were industrial or agricultural. Therefore, we had no option, we had no bargaining position. We were not in a position to argue or discuss with members of the EEC as to what was the most desirable system whereby Ireland could be associated with those countries. We could do nothing about it. We have to accept the fact that we were dependent on Britain for our exports and that if Britain joined the Common Market we must do the same. This must sound like hindsight but it must be said. The very fact that we are so dependent on Britain to-day is due mainly to the neglect of the Government over the years to provide alternative markets for our products. No attempt whatever was made over the years to sell our agricultural products or our limited industrial products in alternative markets. The result is to-day that Ireland is facing a greater agony than it did 45 years ago. The decision has been made I know by the Government that we go head, neck and heels into the Common Market.

The Department of Industry and Commerce is being discussed, not the Government.

I want to relate my remarks to the Department of Industry and Commerce in that decision by the Government to go into the Common Market. The Department of Industry and Commerce is one of the most important Departments of State. The decision to join under whatever conditions are imposed upon us means that as far as many of our industries are concerned we will not be able to compete with the existing industries in the European Economic Community.

At this stage, one would expect the Government to be frank with the people and to say quite clearly that the Common Market will be no bed of roses so far as our industries are concerned. Instead, we have either the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Transport and Power tripping over each other at Chamber of Commerce dinners suggesting that, with a little pep, Irish industry would be in a position to compete with its opposite numbers in the Common Market. That campaign is completely dishonest. The idea is to lull people into a sense of security, lead them into the Common Market in a stupor and, having achieved that, there is no backing out.

I wonder is there any possibility, even at this stage, of having the facts regarding our industrial potential and our prospects in the Common Market explained to the people? It would appear that the daily press are completely on the side of those who want to bring this country into the Common Market. In Britain, the two sides of the story, so far as industry is concerned, are made known to the public by the various papers; but here in Ireland we have the two major Parties, plus the Press outside, trying to impress on the Irish people that the Common Market will be a wonderful thing so far as our industrial potential is concerned.

Undoubtedly, over the past few years, we have made available most attractive propositions to industrialists from the Common Market and other countries to come here, open factories and start processing. We have done that as a panic measure. My belief is that the results of that decision will not be really clear until eight or nine years from now. It is not that I do not want to see these industries a success. The fact is that I believe we are open to exploitation by foreigners who are given ten years in which to make their money, who get 50 per cent, of the cost of setting up the industry, and who, at the end of the ten years, can pack their bags and leave. No control is exercised over them. They have the Irish taxpayers' money in their pockets, and the Irish-man is left twiddling his thumbs waiting for work.

How can that policy affect us, if we become members of the Common Market? We must be quite clear that one of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome is the free flow of money and men between the member States. If it is believed by anyone here that, once we become a member of the Common Market, industrialists in France, Germany, Holland and other countries will be prepared to come here, a rude awakening is ahead of him. It is a much simpler proposition for the big cartels in those countries to attract to the key centres in Europe the labour available in places like Ireland, Southern Italy, Spain and the other undeveloped countries.

I can see the day when the West of Ireland can be completely denuded of its population, when the people in the West can be sent, like the slaves of Southern Italy, to work in factories in Germany and France, if Ireland becomes a member of the Common Market. This is something that cannot be allowed to happen without the public themselves having a say in it. There is no good suggesting this House will decide by vote or otherwise whether our industries will be allowed to vanish or whether the Department of Industry and Commerce will become a mere appendage to a European economic body. The decision will have to be made by the Irish people, not by this House.

It is necessary to show the conflicting statements that have been made by the various Ministers for Industry and Commerce over the years and particularly the statements made by the Taoiseach, who was, if you like, the architect of the protected enterprise here. In the past five years, the Taoiseach has been making the case that we were an undeveloped nation, a poor nation, and that we would look for the same terms to join the European Free Trade Area as Greece, Portugal, and Iceland—that we expected to get the same treatment as they, as undeveloped nations, expected to get. It was accepted by foreign Governments and by this House that Ireland was entitled to special treatment as an undeveloped country. But now what do we find? In so far as our industry and agriculture are concerned, the argument is being made with a brass face by our Civil Service at the direction of the Government that Ireland is seeking full membership of the European Economic Community, on the basis that we are as well developed as the six countries now composing the Common Market.

Do we think the people in those countries are absolute fools, that they are going to accept a somersault on the part of the Irish Governments, where one day we are an undeveloped country begging for special treatment and the next day we push out our chests, and say "We are as good as you are" and that we are entitled to join the Common Market on equal terms with the existing members? It is not a wise thing for anybody in politics to make a prophecy but I shall risk it. What I am going to say I have been saying for the past two years. I do not think Ireland will be accepted as a full member of the European Economic Community. I believe we shall be sent home like small boys and that we shall be told: "The best you can get is associate membership." That should be good enough for this country at the present stage of development.

The more I think of the missed opportunities to develop our resources, the more I believe the Ceann Comhairle would tell me to leave the House if I used the language I should like to use to express my feelings on this matter. We have today an industrial estate down at Shannon Airport. In the past few weeks, we had the sorry spectacle of the majority of the members of this House and the Seanad trotting down to Limerick at the expense of this industrial estate to look at the wonderful progress being made there. There were nothing but big dinners, pomp and ceremony, in order to show them what progress was being made there.

Who was paying for this? It would appear that the money spent on that gimmick was coming out of the pockets of the Japanese industrial group, of the Germans, the Dutch, the British and the other companies which are in operation. The simple fact is that those companies are working on Irish capital. It is Irish money that has made that industrial project possible at all. The Deputies and Senators were going down there at the expense of the taxpayer to look at something which can only be described as a hothouse plant. Can anybody in his senses suggest that it is healthy for a Government to give grants in this industrial estate in Limerick to Japanese to assemble transistor sets, to pay girls to get bits of twine and thread, a bit of solder and assemble transistor sets the parts of which have been completely produced in Japan, when not one penny can be made available in the West of Ireland for a first-class project that can process the raw material from the soil of Ireland? Is there not something seriously wrong in this country when we can tolerate that mentality? There is a factory in Limerick assembling pianos. Goodness knows how much State money has gone into that outfit. Then we are told this is the new Ireland. This is the Ireland that is making progress, while the people of the true Ireland, where the small farmers are, are packing their bags to go to work in England.

I do not know how long this will last. I suppose people in every country get what they deserve. However, I cannot understand the mentality of the leaders in this country; I am referring now both to the lay leaders and the church leaders who over the years are spending millions of pounds on erecting new churches. If they have any sense or any clue to realities, they should know by now there will be nobody in the churches in the next 25 to 30 years, if the present exodus is allowed to continue. There is little use in suggesting that a horde of Germans or Dutch or Japanese will fill them. It is a sorry state of affairs when the one churchman in this country, Dr. Lucey, who does have his ear to the ground and who is in a position to criticise what is happening, is sneered at by the politicians and we are told: "Do not mind him. He is a crackpot."

Deputies may not agree with me when I say we are giving priority to assembly industries over the type of industry that could give immense benefit to the farmer and the workers of the country as a whole. Take our distilling industry. Last year, the Scottish distillers sold over £45,000,000 worth of whisky in America. Last year, in spite of the allegedly energetic publicity campaign conducted on a co-operative basis by the distillers and Córas Tráchtála, the consumption of Irish whiskey in America was down. Why? It was quite apparent we are not offering to the Americans what they want. I do not want to mention names but we have insisted on having as representatives of the whiskey trade persons who are completely incompetent and who should not have been allowed next door to a bottle of whiskey because they were much more efficient at getting rid of it themselves than at selling it.

It is a well-known fact that the aim in America was to sell to the snob market an exclusive product. A group of advertising agents in America were invited to draft a programme of advertising. In this House last year. I raised the question of the type of advertising that appeared in American magazines, journals and so forth, and the Minister at the time said I was wrong to criticise the advertising campaign. It is now being established that this advertising campaign has been a waste of time. That campaign was aimed at the millionaire society, a very limited group in America: let Irish whiskey be sold only to the higher society.

It seems to be accepted that there is a tremendous number of people of Irish origin in America. Would it not appear to be common sense that we would aim any programme of selling at these people? Apart altogether from the fact that the programme and the advertising campaign have misfired, it is beyond contradiction that the type of whiskey produced here, potstill whiskey, is not a suitable whiskey for the American market. Was any attempt made to change it? Did the Government step in and say it was time to bring planning into operation in that industry? Did the Government say there should be co-operation between distillers, that they should pool their resources, produce a blended whiskey, and that the State itself would act as selling agent? When it comes to a vital industry like that, the argument of the Department of Industry and Commerce is: "This is private enterprise. We cannot interfere."

I need not tell the House what a tremendous advantage it would be if we were in a position to export £10,000,000 worth of whiskey. It would be worth far more than our entire cattle trade, which is mostly on the hoof. When one considers the benefits in employment in so many spheres, one realises the tremendous benefit it would be to the community as a whole. I really think, in view of its importance, that the State had a duty to step in and force the distilling industry into one group—force the industry, if you like, to nationalise. That seems to be a dirty word in this House, but the fact is these people got £80,000 a year of the Irish taxpayers' money from this House to enable them to sell their product in America, without any control being exercised over the expenditure of that money.

If the Government felt it right to give that £80,000, then the Government should have had the right to step in and say: "We think you are producing the wrong type of product. We are requesting you now to have an investigation, to bring your scientists and your chemists together to enable you to produce a commodity that will attract, or suit, the American palate." That was not done. Years have been wasted and fortunes have been made by speculators at the expense of the Irish public. The farmer could have been getting a guaranteed market for his barley; the worker in the distilling industry could have been assured of constant employment; our shipping and insurance, and the other ancillary industrial potentials of the distilling industry, could have been in a position to create further wealth. All that was ignored and no attempt was made to get down to the fundamental reasons for the lack of success and the neglect.

With regard to agricultural policy, we have had in the past few years a belated attempt to get into intensive agricultural production, with particular reference to horticulture. The Sugar Company has played a leading part. But the quick-freeze processing of horticultural produce is not confined to Ireland. Similar plants are in operation in Europe. It is no good trying to hoodwink the Irish public that we are first in the field, and that we have a clear field. That is far from reality. So far as openings in Europe for a new process like the quick-freeze process are concerned, they are absolutely limited in the Common Market. It would appear, however, that the Irish people are clutching at every straw that is held out. The farmer who produces beef believes there will be great scope for the consumption of his beef in the Common Market. The farmer who goes in for horticulture believes that there will be a market for his type of produce in Europe. Each section of the community is getting the treatment in turn. In particular, the farmers are being led along the line of believing that their particular kind of production will find a market in Europe, if, and when, Ireland joins the Common Market.

It may be true to say, as Deputy Corry said, that the idea of the Common Market is a blessing. It may be a blessing in disguise. For the first time in 40 years, it may bring us to a sense of realities. We will have to face facts. Governments will have to face facts. Irrespective of whether or not we join, we can never go back to where we were 18 months or two years ago. That, in itself, will blow a much-needed breath of fresh air into Irish life, political and economic.

We have at the moment no difference in this House on industrial policy, so far as the two major Parties are concerned. So far as the Minister and his opposite number in Fine Gael are concerned, one could switch them over and there would be no difference whatever in policy. When one has that situation, it is time to stop trying to fool the public. We cannot afford a shadow group on the Opposition benches with no difference in outlook or policy from that of the particular group in power. Whatever fate befalls the Government in relation to the issue of the Common Market, the same fate should, in justice, await the major political Party in Opposition. The major Opposition Party has backed the Government all down the line on their application to join the Common Market. The leading spokesmen in the Fine Gael Party have defended the Government, and even sought to save the Government from embarrassing questions on the issue of the Common Market.

What is the issue in the industrial field between the major political Parties at this stage? There is none, except that Deputy Dillon, Deputy Cosgrave, and a few more, believe, or say they believe, that they would make better negotiators than Fianna Fáil. It is time they got rid of that kind of approach and decided that neither group is in a position to make an impact on these European countries, so far as bargaining is concerned. It is no use looking for political capital on an issue like this. The sooner these two Parties get together in one organisation—I do not care what they call it, or how they describe it—the sooner the people will have an opportunity to decide whether they want a mature outlook on politics, or whether they want the State to take more control, whether they should have a Socialist Government, or a Conservative Government. It is only then the public will have their choice. Such a choice is not available now because both the major political Parties are conservative. Their only difference in the past 35 years was the Civil War. Goodness knows, with all that is facing the country now, I think the Civil War is well dead and buried.

On the issue of employment and the future security of our industries, as far as I can personally judge, the Government are not prepared to be frank. Reading the Treaty of Rome and following discussions that are taking place between the British team and the opposite team that represent the member countries of EEC, it would appear that, as far as we in Ireland are concerned, information is not being given to our Government or, if it is being given to our Government, they are not letting it out. If the information is being made available to our Government they, in turn, are not passing it on to the public.

In Britain, it is quite clear that, in the House of Commons, in the course of discussions and by question and answer, a great deal of information is made available week after week to the members of Parliament on the hazards that await Britain in negotiations that are taking place. I do not want in any sense to criticise the rulings of the Chair, but in my reading of Hansard over the past three or four months, it is quite apparent that there is far more scope in the British House of Commons for the members of Parliament to extract from their Ministers information that should be made available from the Government than there is here. It is far easier to do so there, in the so-called Mother of Parliaments, than it is in our alleged democracy here.

Every attempt that can possibly be made is made here to prevent a discussion on the major issues that face Ireland. Every attempt is made to stifle discussion. Every attempt is made to thwart awkward questions. Every effort is made to prevent the flow of information from the Government, down along the line. I think that is wrong. I think that when the public hear the full facts it will come like a cold shower and it will come as a terrible shock. If it does, it is not my job to sympathise with the Government.

I represent a rural area which has been completely neglected as far as industrial development is concerned. Anybody who gives any thought to Government statements, who makes any study of Ministerial announcements, has no confidence whatever that the leadership available to us at the moment is trustworthy to bring this country through the rough years that face it in the next five to ten years.

It could not honestly be said that it is easy to have confidence in a group of men who, from 1932 onwards, acted as if there were no other nation in the world, who suggested that they could whip John Bull, that they could twist his tail and do all sorts of things. It is not easy to have confidence in a Party, particularly a Party such as Fianna Fáil, that cut itself off from contact with Europe and, indeed, to a great extent with Britain. Fianna Fáil have been a Government that looked inwards instead of outwards over the past 30 years. They have been a Government who built up a protected industrial hot-house plant here. Those same men somersault overnight and say: "We are Europeans. We believe in free trade. We believe in opening our ports to let in foreign industrial goods. We believe in competition of that nature. We were always Europeans." When they say that, after making such a mess of it for 30 years, it is no wonder that there is such a feeling of uneasiness in the country at present.

The tragedy is that at present there does not seem to be any way out. This present Government are not prepared, as far as I can see, to go to the country and say to the people: "These are the facts. This is what awaits us. These are the conditions. This will be the position in regard to our present industries. So many thousands of people will lose employment in A, B, C, D, E, F, G industries. Do you want to join or not?" That opportunity will not be allowed in so far as the Taoiseach is concerned. He has stated that when the final bargaining has taken place with the EEC countries, when the final negotiations are over and when the position is clear, the Dáil will decide it. That is something which I think is completely unrealistic.

It is not fair to the Irish people to suggest that Dáil Éireann, composed, as it will be, of a Government Party which will be under strong discipline, can, through a slim majority, slip this country into a commitment from which we cannot extract ourselves. There is only one fair way in which to face the matter and that is to give the Irish people an opportunity through a referendum to decide whether or not we shall be launched on this particular sea. I say that on the basis of Ireland's application being accepted for a full membership but, one way or the other—whether associate membership is offered or whether, which I do not believe myself, full membership is available—I think the Irish public must be consulted.

If full membership is offered, and we are allowed in, then that is a step that cannot be discussed on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce. If we were being allowed in, not on the basis that we could compete on industrial matters or that we were up to the same standards of development as the countries that compose the Common Market, it would be quite clear at that stage that there was a sell-out and that our admission would be purely on the basis of politics, on the basis of defence, on the basis that this country would be a unit of the countries which at present are members of NATO.

The Minister in the course of his statement said that he was reviewing the industrial grants policy. He mentioned that he may quite soon introduce legislation arising out of that review. That policy has urgently needed review for many years. We hear far too much parochial wrangling in this House from Deputies who get up and protest that this town or that town has not got an industry or that some place else has got an industry to which it is not entitled. There is a very definite limit to the extent to which one must go and should hold out artificial inducements to industry to locate itself here or there, in one place rather than in another.

It is a remarkable fact that while Irish people are very quick to emigrate from this country to seek employment they would appear to be much slower to move from one part of their own country to another in order to find work. Irish labour, in other words, is much less mobile than is industrial labour in other countries. Anyone who has had even cursory acquaintance with economic science will have heard of what the economists describe as the economies of large-scale production. Industry, to be efficient, must be carried out on a large scale. I feel very strongly—it is purely a personal view —that, by and large, the major economic problems of small-scale agriculture cannot be solved by providing a small factory employing 40 or 50 people in a country town and another small factory 30 miles away in an adjoining town.

There are many examples throughout the world of the fact that the most successful industries are those carried on on a large scale, usually grouped together, because in that way they are enabled to cut their costs by sharing the ancillary services. Therefore, an industrial tradition can be built up which it is difficult to create in small country towns. The difficulties arising out of high transport costs for industries located in remote parts of the country are, of course, very considerable. These are problems which cannot be surmounted by making free capital available to persons entering industry in an under-capitalised position.

The report of the Irish Industrial Organisation recently published spoke of broadening the industrial base of the country, but that cannot be done, in my opinion, on the basis of small factories in the light assembly trade. I have said before that if we saved up whatever funds we have available for industrial grants and went to some of the industrial giants of Europe and America—ICI for one—and gave them whatever assistance we could afford without any strings attached, we would be doing a far more effective job than we are doing in doling out £50,000 here and £100,000 there.

When the Minister comes to make the review he has promised, I sincerely hope he will consider the position of what remains of the Control of Manufactures Act which is far too anachronistic in our present position. The Minister has expressed his satisfaction —which I share—at the growing amount of our industrial exports. I believe there is one very effective stimulus to exports which could be provided and which is not at present available, as far as I know, that is, the provision of a scheme of export credit insurance. There is in this Estimate a total provision of £10 for such a scheme and I should be most interested to hear from the Minister why only that sum is provided. My information on the subject could perhaps be a little out of date: perhaps in recent months a more comprehensive credit scheme has been brought into operation than was available when I was appraised of the position some time ago. As far as I know, however, no such comprehensive scheme has been made available to those who engaged in the export trade.

I know the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, are concerned about the position of the container traffic trade. There have been satisfactory developments in the past year in that matter. Certain of the difficulties have been resolved, though not fully, and consequently we are still not operating a drive-on, drive-off container service. There is a road lorry service operating from London to Dublin, through the north of Ireland and those in the Labour movement who are impeding development of this trade are, from the long-term point of view, not doing a good day's work.

Again in reference to our export trade, I think it timely to issue a note of warning against undue optimism. I believe some of our exports have been facilitated in recent years by reason of the fact that our exporting industries have had protection in the home market in which they have been able to secure a better price for their produce than that at which they are exporting it. It is very easy to export at cut prices when you are able to recover your full overheads and profits on the home market. It is very easy to enter the export business at a no-profit rate. This position will have to be watched carefully, now that we are about to enter the Common Market.

A number of Deputies have spoken about the policy of encouraging the development of foreign industries. We should welcome to this country anybody who is prepared to invest money here and employ people who would otherwise have to emigrate. I do not wish to become political here tonight and for that reason, I shall not labour the point that the policy of Fianna Fáil has changed radically in this matter. I welcome that change. I have previously expressed the opinion that I should like to see our stake in foreign industry protected by the appointment of an Irish director in any industry to which we have given substantial grants.

The Industrial Credit Corporation, when they take up these ordinary shares, usually appoint a director so the precedent is there. Many of us would feel easier in our minds if we knew that in these foreign controlled industries there was a local representative to hold a watching brief for the Irish taxpayer. It is a fact that in Germany, from which some of our new industrialists have come, by law the employees, through their organised bodies, have the right to appoint a director. To my mind it is one of the attractions which bring German industrialists to this country that there is freedom from that stipulation which applies in their own country. When the Minister gets around to bringing in his new Companies Bill it is a matter which he might very usefully have a look at instead of having his eye all the time on British precedents.

I would urge the Minister, when dealing with these foreign newcomers to this country, that he should, as far as he can, try to persuade some of them to operate profit sharing schemes. It is a sad reflection on Irish Industry as a whole that we have no profit sharing schemes or schemes of employee share ownership. I suppose it is too much to hope that the trade union movement would advocate such schemes. The initiative will have to come from the Government. Subject to reasonable limitation the employees in any industry have a moral right to a share in the ownership of that industry the same as any speculator on the stock exchange who chooses to invest £100 or £200 in it. A man who has devoted his life's work to the service of an industry has a very considerable investment in that industry.

It should also be made clear to foreigners coming into this country that we do not want any industrial tycoons or expense account spivs, that we do not necessarily want to reproduce the industrial structures of highly industrialised countries like Britain or Germany, that we are a simple people who expect our industrialists to live modestly and to set an example to their workers. There is a hint of certain undesirable developments in this regard.

The Minister has found it necessary to deplore the failure of Irish industrialists to avail of the very excellent technical assistance schemes made available by his Department. I do not share the views of a previous speaker on these benches tonight in regard to management consultants. I have personal knowledge of two or three cases in which such consultants achieved fantastic results for Irish firms. I am sure the Minister and his advisers know full well that these technical assistance schemes, where operated, have been very fruitful. I believe that the many industrialists who have failed to avail of these schemes are those who are unprepared for our entry into the Common Market.

I am aware that some Irish industrialists are setting a splendid headline in preparing themselves and in consulting with each other, something which industrialists are usually loath to do, but it is a fact that there are many industrialists that are doing sweet damn all in preparing for the Common Market. The Minister is in a very serious position in this respect because he has, and this House has, an obligation to the workers in these industries and the Minister may have to ask himself what will he do to protect the position of workers whose employers are failing to prepare themselves for entry into the Common Market. I do not know what steps the Minister and his advisers have open to them to deal with this problem but in view of the short time available these problems will have to be looked into.

The Minister has given a brief review of employer worker relationship and he has mentioned certain developments. I am sure we all welcome the fact that there will be a national employer-labour conference at the end of this month to review worker-employer relationships and to find what can best be done to place things on a sounder footing.

I am very interested in the Minister's choice of words in his introductory remarks. At page 27 of his speech, he said that the Government would prefer that a method of dealing with the problem should be worked out by the worker and the employer interests cooperating together than that it should have to be dictated by the State. I do not like the Minister's use of the word "dictated". I am apprehensive that the Minister might try to throw his weight about with the trade union movement. Some of us have very unpleasant recollections of what we call the antitrade union Bill of the present Government some 15 or 16 years ago and we have equally unpleasant recollections of the Wages Standstill Order enforced at a time when there was little or no control over profits. I hope the Minister is not thinking on those lines, or on the lines of a pay pause because we have had a very recent example of the folly of those who would try to dictate to Irish workers. Therefore, I wish the Minister had used a more apt term but, perhaps, I am unnecessarily suspicious of his choice of words.

I had hoped the Minister would refer to a problem that has been touched on in the public Press in the past year and one which comes within his purview. I had hoped he would tell us something about the principle which motivated him in his review of various State companies in which he, with other Ministers in other Departments, hold shares. Recently, some people have been asking how we are to make these companies accountable to public opinion and to Parliament. There is need for a review of their working, a need that is not being met by the activities of our Public Accounts Committee.

We heard during the year, at the annual banquet of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, that the Minister for Finance is thinking in terms of selling shares in some of the State companies and when pressed in the House on the matter by several members, including myself, to give some further information, he was very reluctant to do so. Personally, I hope that no shares in any of the State companies will be put on the public market. I believe the only ones that could be sold are those in companies that are making profits. It is quite illusory to suggest that the public will invest in CIE or any other State companies incurring losses. If we could pass the buck to the public in respect of all the State companies it might or might not be a good thing but as long as the State has to meet the losses in some of them I fail to see why we should adopt a doctrinaire view of the fact that others are making profits. Somebody has suddenly discovered, apparently, that we have too many State companies and advocate a very doctrinaire attitude and want to get rid of them quickly. Many of these companies have served the country well and most of them have served a purpose which was never met by private enterprise. Therefore, I should be very loath to see any stock exchange speculators getting shares in them or getting an interest in let us say, the Irish Sugar Company. That is a company which sets a headline for Irish industry as a whole by reason of its progressive policy, its management and the fact that so much of the profits are ploughed back into further development for which we can be very thankful. If a company such as that finds itself in the hands of a board of directors whose primary purpose is to pay dividends it would never develop on the lines which have been so useful in the past.

The question of State companies could, perhaps, be dealt with in the forthcoming Companies Bill of which the Minister has given some advance notice in his introductory speech. We cannot anticipate the debate on that Bill but I think I am entitled to say that some State companies established under the 1908 Companies Act are in a position which was never envisaged by that Act. Certain safeguards could very well be needed in order to inform the public of their operations and, indeed, to protect the position of the Minister and Parliament, safeguards which are not provided in the 1908 Act. I know the Bill which the Minister has promised has been a long time in preparation and it is based on a report——

I am afraid the Deputy is getting out of order in discussing future legislation.

I shall not proceed with that point except to say that I hope the Minister will not adopt an outdated approach to this necessary reform when he comes to make it in the coming weeks.

The Minister has told us something of what is going on about mineral development and Deputies from constituencies more closely connected with this matter than mine have had their say about it. The Minister has said that he is granting licences or franchise to new companies in this connection. I suggest to him that where those are public companies it would be very desirable to see that they comply with the requirements of the stock exchange and that the position which arose recently in connection with Tynagh Company should not be repeated. The stock exchange requirements are very reasonable and are there to protect the public. It might be a good thing if before granting licences the Minister made certain stipulations.

I want to refer before concluding to a problem in the city of Dublin, a problem which will cease to be a problem in six or seven weeks' time when the new potato crop is harvested. In the meantime, the price of potatoes, which are a staple diet for my constituents, continues to increase and is a matter of concern to house-wives and, in particular, to pensioners and such persons. In Dublin, potatoes are retailing at 4/8d. a stone, which is about twice the price they were six weeks ago and far more than they usually are at this time of the year. I understand there is a scarcity of potatoes in England and that they are being exported. I suppose as long as they remain at 4/8d. a stone, we cannot complain very much but even that is too high. If they go to 5/8d. or 6/8d. in three or four weeks' time, the Minister must step in and impose price control.

I am afraid I have no power under the Prices Act.

I am very sorry the Minister has shed whatever power existed previously.

No; I never got control over primary agricultural produce.

Thanks be to God.

I knew that would strike home somewhere.

There is one further small point. The Minister and the Minister for Finance, from time to time, have had perforce to take an interest in the operations of certain insurance companies in this country. There is a position which has developed in regard to British companies operating here which the Minister should look into. According to my information, some time ago the Labour Court recommended the establishment of a joint negotiation committee for the insurance companies and their employees. That recommendation has not effectively been implemented, which involves considerable hardship to insurance clerks and such persons who would appreciate the Minister's investigation of the matter to see why the Labour Court recommendation has not been implemented and to see if there are any interests which are obstructing the work of the Labour Court in that connection.

Mr. Browne

I listened with interest to Deputy Corry's contribution to this debate. May I say, without casting any reflection on the Minister or the Deputy, that there were times during Deputy Corry's speech when I wondered who was Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Deputy gave an interesting account of the many industries that have been established in Youghal, Cobh, and so on. As a representative of a constituency that has not fared well in the matter of industrial development, I could not but envy his happy position in East Cork.

The achievements in regard to industrial expansion have been referred to in this debate and the Government have claimed all the credit they are entitled to. Unfortunately, I do not see much signs of industrial expansion in the constituency I have the honour to represent. I do not want to be critical of the Minister. There were Ministers from the Parties on this side of the House who also neglected my constituency in the matter of industrial expansion. I have studied the activities of various Ministers for Industry and Commerce because, being a businessman, I am interested in commercial and industrial development.

I do not know the Minister personally but he has impressed me at all times as being a man who is energetic and keenly interested in his job and, although quite capable of defending the Party line, his management of his Department is without political bias. I should not like him to get the impression that I attribute to his fault the lack of industries in my constituency. I hope my remarks will encourage him to interest himself in the industrial development of that area.

I was surprised that reference was not made in the Minister's speech to the report of the inter-Departmental Committee. It is now generally conceded that the west of Ireland is in a serious position, that the holdings are uneconomic and, therefore, their employment content small, which means that we must rely on industrial development for a solution of our unemployment problem.

The Minister should reconsider the operation of the Undeveloped Areas Act. Prior to the Budget, I brought to the notice of the Minister for Finance that the Act was not of great benefit in my constituency. The money spent in the form of grants for industry comes from the taxpayer. My constituents have paid their share of the grants provided for industries in other parts of the country. The Minister may make the case that he has no responsibility for the location of factories. I was glad to hear the Minister defending his officials. He suggested to a Deputy from his own Party during the course of this debate that the Deputy would agree that the officials were helpful. All Deputies appreciate that officials are helpful.

My constituency has not benefited from the Undeveloped Areas Act, while Dublin, Cork, Waterford and other urban areas have got more than their share of new industries. If it is possible to have an industry established in an area, other industries follow automatically. Deputy Corry left no doubt in our minds about that. He made it quite clear that it was difficult to accommodate further industries in his constituency. If he has any trouble in that direction, I should be glad to help in having one established in my constituency. Would it not be wise from the point of view of having even distribution of industries to give a large grant for the first industry to be established in any area and to reduce the grant according as further industries are started in the area and in that way avoid the congestion that is developing in Dublin, Galway and other large cities? If we are, therefore, to stem emigration, to my mind, if we have not an agricultural economy to provide sufficient employment, we must provide industrial employment, as I said at the outset.

I want to make particular reference to the town of Ballina, which has a population of between 7,000 and 8,000. There is no industry whatsoever in that town. We have a seaport and a quay, and we have a railway service and all the other facilities. We have the labour to provide workers in a factory and yet successive Governments—and again I do not blame the Minister and his Government—since the establishment of the State, have been trying to establish a factory there but one has never materialised. My colleague made reference to the fact that it has been rumoured in our constituency that a manure factory which was to be established in north Mayo has since been established elsewhere for some reason. I do not make any allegations because I do not know the reason. My approach on that matter is very broadminded. There is no use in crying over spilt milk. It has been established elsewhere and that is that.

I would ask the Minister, when he is approached by outside industrialists to indicate suitable locations. I know that he cannot dictate where a factory should be erected, but he could make a recommendation. In Ballina, we have all the facilities and the Minister and his Department should keep in mind the very grave need for an industry in that town. Other Deputies may perhaps says that that is a rather selfish approach but I feel it is my duty to speak for my constituency, and I believe it my duty to tell the Minister of the grave need there is for an industry in that constituency.

I hope that when he is closing the debate the Minister will at least give me an idea as to how I might go about procuring such an industry. Indeed, I had intended taking my holidays elsewhere but after listening to Deputy Corry's enunciations as to how to get factories established, I feel that I should pay a visit to his constituency during the summer. He said so much about industrial expansion in his constituency that I wondered if the recent expedition to the Shannon industries was to the right place——

Did the Deputy say "expedition"?

Mr. Browne

There may have been an exposition on the way home.

There is no grantaided industry in east Cork, strangely enough.

Mr. Browne

There must be wonderful local enterprise.

They have Deputy Corry.

That is enough, I suppose.

Mr. Browne

I should not like the Minister to get the impression that I am criticising Deputy Corry.

I mention the matter merely for the record.

Mr. Browne

Deputy Corry told us quite a lot about how easy it was to establish factories in dead towns and he said that if any Deputy had not got a factory in his constituency, it was his own fault. We have not got an industry in my constituency but for the records of the House, I want to say that that is not my fault.

I appeal to the Minister for a more even distribution. Perhaps he would consider my remarks in connection with the Undeveloped Areas Act and decide whether or not it would be wise to give a larger grant to the first industry and give subsequent grants on a reducing scale. That may not be practical and I merely mention it. I read that in Clare six industries were to be established. That would involve six grants to which the taxpayers of north Mayo contributed and yet there is not one grant for my constituency. I want to put it on record that the Minister and the Department will be hearing further from me in that connection and I shall spare no effort to have something done, because our biggest export is emigration.

Unlike the constituency of Roscommon, the people in my constituency get married young and have families and unfortunately when they grow up, they have to be exported. I have no objection to anyone emigrating, if he wants to, but it is a tragedy when people are forced to emigrate. I should prefer to see an Irishman working for an Englishman in an Irish factory than to see an Irishman working for an Englishman in a factory in England. The emigration from my constituency is appalling. In the five years prior to the last census return, 10,000 people emigrated from Mayo. That is shocking, but there is only one way to keep people at home. It costs money to rear a boy or girl to 17, 18 or 19 years of age and then they emigrate, eventually settle down in a foreign country and are lost to this country.

I have no objection to foreign industrialists coming in here. I have no objection to the Government giving aid to foreign industrialists setting up factories here. If we have not got the resources at home, there is nothing wrong in giving encouragement and financial assisance to foreign industrialists to set up factories here. I appeal to the Minister to consider the neglected places like Ballina and the other towns in my constituency. I assure the Minister that I shall encourage local enthusiasm for any possible local industry. It is my duty as a representative of the people of Mayo to encourage them to make their own local effort and to co-operate with the Minister and his Department. I appeal to the Minister to co-operate with me and to give us, if at all possible, the wherewithal for the necessary industries.

As has already been said in this House this evening, the most important consideration in this year's Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce should be to ensure that everything possible is done to prepare industries for the competition which will be inevitable if we are accepted as a member of the European Economic Community. It is only fair to say that the Committee on Industrial Organisation are doing a very creditable job. They have indicated in their interim report that it is necessary to prepare industries and to re-adjust them to the new circumstances of the Common Market. It is to the credit of the Government that they have accepted—I think, completely—the recommendations in that Committee's interim report. That should be a consolation to the Committee and an encouragement to them to continue their good work and see it through to a satisfactory conclusion.

The problems in regard to industrial relations are also being faced in a very sensible manner. I personally am very optimistic as to the capacity of the joint organisation of employers and labour to bring about a satisfactory solution to their problems.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 16th May, 1962.