Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1964

Vol. 211 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

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

Mr. Donegan

Before Question Time I was discussing the case that presently exists at Dublin Port and I inquired whether or not anything was being done about it. I was saying it is cheaper to tranship American coal at Rotterdam and send it to Drogheda or other small ports than it is to tranship it in Dublin. This is because Rotterdam is the great port of the continent and has floating cranes. I understand that 1,000 tons of coal can be transhipped from one of the big transatlantic vessels in a matter of hours. Perhaps we have a wrong attitude to our ports. While we know we require deepwater ports such as Dublin, we should provide facilities for transhipment to the lesser ports and so keep as much employment as possible at home.

In view of the fact that the ports in my constituency are not as prosperous as I would wish them to be, there are developments which are not welcomed. Greenore was the subject of a little acrimony in relation to a factory which might have been built there a few months ago. There, a container service was established between that port and Preston, when the dockers in Dublin refused to handle containers. Following that, the B and I set up a £125,000 crane to handle containers at Drogheda. Immediately these developments took place, the men in Dublin decided they would handle containers. Are we to proceed in the development of our trade on the basis of what union members will or will not do and of what steps are taken in reply to them? Rationalisation is needed. Industries will have to be put close to these ports. The incentive methods I have instanced are absolutely necessary, so that, if we cannot direct, we can at least encourage industry in the right direction.

The Minister mentioned Mín Fhéir Teo, a company to produce grass meal on the west coast. When this company was first mooted, it was the subject of considerable acrimony. A report was issued which is still true. The total usage of grass meal in this country was about 8,000 tons. Grass meal is used for its protein and carotene content, but the major cost is not grass but oil—the cost of drying. Grass meal production on the continent and Britain has practically reached saturation point. What you seek in grass meal can be got in other things. For instance, vegetable protein can be got in soya beans and carotene can be got in synthetic form. Grass meal had its impact on the sale of these other foods because of its colour. Its sale is directed more to the person buying it than the animal eating it. The Minister informed us we are about to produce grass meal in the west. I can inform him that the people commercially producing grass meal from the lush grass of Meath and Kildare and from the airports at Collinstown, Baldonnel and Gormanston are put to the pin of their collars to exist. This project was carried on, despite the criticism of it. Now, when we reach the point of production, we find saturation point is reached.

I wonder whether there is any parallel between this and the situation in relation to Nitrigín Éireann. Let us face it. This was a brainchild of the Taoiseach over a period of two decades. Anyone who studies politics in this country knows three attempts were made to set up a nitrogen factory here. One was to be based on turf as a fuel. That was to be a type of nitrogen not acceptable to the Irish farmer. Various other factories were mooted. Eventually, the opportunity arose for the Taoiseach at Avoca. I believe that in a situation where an industry is removed from a place, you must, if you are a democratic Government, try to provide other employment at that site.

On this side of the House, we gave the nitrogen factory every support. It is only right, however, that one should say what one knows. My information is that when Nitrigín Éireann goes into production, in the first two years it will do well. In fact, it may be in a position to sell at less than European costs. At the moment there is some scarcity of nitrogen on the European market, but there are as many as four new mammoth plants under construction on the continent and in Britain. Within a few decades after the start of production in Avoca, the situation will probably be that our costs here, taking into account the size of the plant and volume of demand, will be far greater than they would if we could buy it from Europe. We are, apparently, moving into the Common Market. The whole concept was that we get the nitrogen at the economic price, plus an ordinary profit. We agree it is necessary to provide employment in places from which industry has been removed. If we were in power, we would have done the same. It is a move to the left, if you like, which must be accepted. But there is grave danger that the type of employment being provided is not the type to provide constant and enduring work.

During the year the Minister set up Taiscí Stáit Teo. This is the Government company that can give moneys direct to industries requiring capital. It has been used to provide money for the Industrial Engineering Company, the holding company for the five companies commonly known as the Dundalk Engineering Works. Right through the period following the abandoning of the old GNR works, we have given this venture every opportunity for success. In my Party I have always promulgated the line that this was a job specifically for the Minister. It was his responsibility. Our responsibility was not to impede it in any way. The Minister will agree he has had every opportunity to proceed with the provision of employment there, from where it was removed, just as happened in Avoca. It is his responsibility to replace that employment. One of the companies, Commercial Vehicles Limited, is doing extremely well and I feel it will attain the position of a real economic commercial undertaking, producing profits that will help the other companies.

However, I suggest the Minister should consider the fallacy of closing up an industrial undertaking employing a thousand workers and opening up other companies. I criticise only one feature of this operation, that is, that the Taoiseach sent down as managing director a friend of his. Whatever his excellence or his mistakes—I do not impute either lack of excellence or mistakes to him—his competence for the job was under suspicion, and since he left, there has been a considerable improvement in the morale of the employees. The Government should have sent in the first place the man they sent in the second place. Since he has arrived there, he has done herculean work. I am deliberately not using names in this matter.

I suggest to the Minister that if he introduced a Vote here to wipe out the losses incurred in the first year, he would have the support of this Party and, I suggest, the Labour Party. It is not a good foundation from a business point of view to create a situation where every year the interest on money lent or money lost is being charged up against current trading profits and producing on paper a loss which can be criticised by either side of the House or by persons in industry outside who feel they have some whipping boy to whip. The Minister would do a great service, and would have the support of most Deputies if he introduced a Vote as I suggested. Apart from anything else, it would boost morale among the employees.

I know the Minister has had difficulties in relation to two or three companies which I shall not name. I submit that if there have been failures, they have been due to the Minister's and his Party's failure to involve the Irish people in industrial expansion. It is easy to say we have had industries from abroad. In them, however, we have only a minority, from the point of view of Irish involvement— Irish involvement in most cases is only in name, not in capital. In Irish professional and business circles at the moment, good profits are being earned. You will find, if you are in contact with middleclass elements in most towns, people investing in the stock market largely in British stocks and shares, not in Irish stocks and shares. We have not had enough Irish promotions to attract available Irish capital and there is accordingly an outflow of good Irish capital. In other words, not only is Irish capital not coming in to buy land or to promote new industry but it is going out for investment in British securities.

The Minister must therefore think seriously of more involvement of Irish capital in Irish investments. The greatest wealth we have is, of course, our employees. I know one industry whose managing director said to me: "We are producing our goods more cheaply in Louth than in Stockport". I asked him why, and he replied: "It is a simple matter. You stand at 6 p.m. outside the factory gate and you look at the boys and girls coming out. Not only is their physical standard high but so is their obvious mental standard so much better than among our employees in Stockport." When I asked him why that was so, he compared the conditions of living, pointing out that the employees in Stockport had been for generations living in overcrowded conditions.

Therefore, we have this wonderful labour potential. That is really what matters most. All we need is more involvement of Irish business people, as distinct from Irish industrialists, in the promotion of business here. Our failure has been not to encourage greater Irish involvement in industry here. That has resulted in an increase in industrial employment which is not keeping pace—and which will not in the coming decade, according to Government forecasts—with loss of employment in the agricultural field. As well as getting this increased Irish involvement in industry, therefore, the Minister must also get the realisation abroad that we have here what no other nation in the world has—the excellent quality of our labour potential. While increases in our industrial employment are satisfactory to some, it is nothing like what we are capable of achieving.

Dr. Browne

It surprised me that when listening to Deputy Corry giving well-justified praise to what appeared to be the prize in his industrial firmament—Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann— Deputy Donegan did not point out it was a Cumann na nGaedheal Government who established Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. Admittedly, it has been greatly helped by subsequent Governments.

I intervene in this debate because it is quite clear that we are moving into a most interesting phase of political development in this country. As a leftist of fairly long standing, I feel it would be a good thing to consider the possibility of the devolution of industrial control here. It is obvious that the struggle between labour and capital is an unending struggle which can be solved only under socialism. It is a struggle that must be carried out in a society such as ours in a more sophisticated way than in the younger countries.

We moved to the left in 1913, and in 1914, and there was another attempt in 1916. It was abortive at that time but the struggle was then more simple and more clearcut. The slogans on the barricades at that time were socialist ones but now the path towards socialism is more complicated than ever before. That has been caused by the extreme astuteness of the other side, the capitalist side. It has always seemed to me that if those on the socialist side did as much profound thinking as those on the capitalist side have done, we might be much further on. As far as the world is concerned, socialism is the predominant philosophy in most countries and we in this country are in a minority in the world.

This has become a more sophisticated problem because of the remarkable adaptability of the capitalist industrialist over the years. The most powerful weapon which he has with which to slow down the evolution of the socialist society is the creation of the idea of benevolent capitalism, and the realisation that the wide-scale and fatuous advertising campaigns which they conduct can be recovered from the consumer. The most recent realisation of the capitalists is that they can concede wage increases with a token struggle and that the cost of those wage increases can be recovered fully and often more than fully by price increases. All these moves effectively cloud the reality that there is a struggle between the worker and the employer, the struggle for the product of the worker's labour.

The wonderful thing about all this is that here we are at last considering how it is possible to site industry, how it is possible to force industrialists to put industries in the backward areas, to consider how we can make industrialists solve our emigration problem. I believe there are possibilities that a capitalist society can make some progress in this regard but only by the establishment of punitive taxation on the capitalist businessman on the Swedish lines. That requires the existence of a socialist Government which will not be frightened to tax industry. They have been able to tax industry heavily and the fears of previous Ministers here over the years that taxation would frighten industry out of the country have not been realised in the Scandinavian countries or in Western Germany.

These incentives Deputy Donegan speaks about, these remissions of taxation, are not essential for the development of industry. If they are going to develop industry in this country, they will do it irrespective of whether they get tax concessions or not. If there are certain industries which can stand up against outside competition and make profits for them, they will start them and that, in my opinion, is a very good development. We have tended to invite foreign businessmen to come here. That is bad from the point of view that we should have been able to do this industrialisation ourselves.

I have never known a Minister for Finance to say that he could not find capital whenever he wanted it. Their loans are subscribed and oversubscribed. We know there is no shortage of labour. We know there is no serious shortage of skilled technicians amongst our own people. We have the skill, the capital and the labour, and I have never understood why we have gone all over the world, to Japan, America, Britain, France and Sweden, to import industrialists here to establish industries and to do work which we know quite well we are able to do ourselves.

The Minister knows that it was the Taoiseach's attitude, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the productive type of investment was the prerogative of private enterprise but that when it came to the public utility type of industry, the State was allowed to take up where private enterprise would not take the risk even where a productive enterprise, such as Bord na Móna or Aer Lingus, was concerned. The fact that we have been able to create these fine industries, that they are staffed by men and women from our own universities and vocational schools, that the labour is the best in the world and that our products are as good as the best in the world has led me to the position that I cannot understand why Ministers have not said that this is as convincing an argument as they want to show that there is no branch of industry which we could not develop efficiently here using the land, labour and capital available to us.

Deputy Corry has referred to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. That is an industry based on rural Ireland and it has the tremendous advantage of having Lieutenant-General Costello, who is a strong believer in the expansion of activity in rural Ireland, who believes that we should hold the young people in rural Ireland and give them an opportunity of doing work at a reasonably satisfactory wage. There is no good in complaining now but it seems to me that that is an industry that should have been started 40 years ago, that it should have been the first industry started in this country and it would be now a very much more flourishing and valuable thing to us than it is at the moment.

That is all under the bridge and there is no good moaning about it but it strikes me as being likely to be the most significant development of the past 40 years—this development of Comhlucht Siúicre—because the CIO reports have shown that the trend towards the establishment of the other type of industry has not been satisfactory. The Minister tends to take the view that we have examined them; we found that virtually without exception —there are a couple of exceptions, the woollen industry and so on—they have shown themselves to have very serious failings indeed; that they are inefficiently run and badly equipped; that they have not reinvested in modernised machinery and in one way or the other have not really created a sound industrial infrastructure upon which one could create a socially just order in our society.

I did not need the CIO reports to tell me that, because it was quite obvious from the fact that we have had to allow virtually one million people to leave the country in the past 40 years because private enterprise industry did not provide them with work; the jobs were not there. The jobs were there for a handful of people, a lot of them young girls. It seems to me that private enterprise capitalism did not feel any imposition on itself to create work. It saw people going and did nothing to expand job opportunities during the past 30 or 40 years.

I have said before, and I say again, that that seems to me perfectly reasonable for private enterprise capitalism because it is not its intention to create prosperity. Its intention is to create prosperity for the individual shareholders in the firm, the management of the firm or the owners, if it is a family firm. That is its sole, narrow, sectional interest. It is not concerned with the fact that there are 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 youngsters leaving Ireland. It does not matter to private enterprise capitalism so long as there are enough men to work their machines in order to produce for that small unit in our society.

That has been the position over the past 40 years. They have not created enough national wealth to give us the money to pay for unlimited scholarships for youngsters to go to the university, to go to secondary schools or to build enough schools. We hear complaints from each Minister that he has not enough money. If one asked the Minister for Health about something, he says he has not got the money; where is the money to come from?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have tried to understand the Deputy but he does not seem to be coming close to the Estimate. I do not know what he is advocating.

Dr. Browne

My main point is that over the years the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been to rely on private enterprise capitalism for the creation of industry, and that that has been a mistake.

An Ceann Comhairle

I assumed that was the point, but, then, if he has to do otherwise, must he not introduce legislation? He could not do it by administrative act. I am not anxious to interrupt the Deputy at all but he seems to be travelling very wide of the Estimate before the House—the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce—which is naturally restrictive in its scope.

Dr. Browne

I accept your ruling. In regard to the CIO reports, we have it clearly put before the Minister that industry here is practically universally inefficient. We have repeatedly heard from the Taoiseach that the test of the efficiency of an industry, the test of whether he would take an industry into public ownership or ask for State intervention in relation to an industry, was if it was doing a good job and, if it was not doing a good job, then his case was that he would intervene and would do the job that industry is not doing. I should like to ask the Minister why is it that, having found in the most categorical way from these CIO reports that the private enterprise upon which the Estimate has been relying over recent years, is not doing a good job or a satisfactory job, he has taken no steps to see that there will be some form of State intervention? I believe, as I said, that there is no good in people talking about going to the left and planning and programming and all the other slogans that are now being bandied around in the political world here. I do not think anybody can seriously make any fundamental changes in the pattern of industry here until he accepts that there must be a very much greater measure of control on behalf of the workers and by the workers in industry.

The Minister's position now is that 17,000 of the recent grants for the commencement of industries in this country have been grants to foreigners and approximately five or six of the grants have been grants for industries exclusively started by Irish people. Surely the Minister must be seriously concerned by that fact? Surely he must appreciate that these people are not a bit interested in the welfare of Ireland, the welfare of our community; that they are not a bit concerned to try to establish an economy here where we will be able to give the various Ministers the money they need to create a socially just order in this society? Many of these people are people who have left communities in their own countries in which they have not got anything like a prosperous order. We are getting a number of them from Britain. Clearly, these people are refugees from the spectre of Wilson taking over later on in the year. The main position is that our Government would sooner see these people coming in here than take over themselves, than take a greater interest themselves in the control of industry or the establishment of further industries on the lines of the Comhlucht Siúicre industry.

The Minister's position in this is particularly difficult. I believe it will create for him one insuperable problem which might bring down his Government ultimately because of his failure to control prices and his realisation, apparently, that he cannot control prices. He gave me a list of prices. There are approximately 250 items in the list and of the 250, there were six items in which there was a reduction in price. All the rest went up. They were meat, milk, household flour, potatoes, sugar. Those commodities have gone up by five per cent or over. Other groceries are up by 4.8 per cent. Obviously these items in the cost of living figure are of the greatest importance to the housewife.

There are other items which have gone up by extraordinary amounts. They do not seriously concern me but I should imagine that politically they are very important: beer and ale by nearly six per cent; stout by 6.7 per cent and cigarettes by 6.7 per cent. I am not bemoaning those increases in price but it is significant that in relation to stout, and so on, one of the directors of the firm which manufactures most of it in this country said recently their profits this year would be greater than ever. I am not surprised when they appear to be able to charge whatever they like for their products.

I should like to know from the Minister if he has any intention at any stage of controlling prices. As far as the public are concerned, they now believe that the last round of wage increases, the ninth round, has been completely eaten up by the recent price increases and they see these price increases going on at a time when the Minister says he does not propose to take any action, except in respect of one item, sugar, manufactured by a State company, the Sugar Company, because he thinks price rises are reasonable.

How does the Minister intend to control prices? Has he any plan? Has he any figure at which he will say they may not rise any higher? At that stage does he intend to step in and, if he does, what action does he propose to take? Can he give the public any assurance that there is a limit to the amount by which he will allow industrialists and other business people to increase their prices before he will step in? It seems to me the greatest weakness of the Government's position is that the Government have to stand by and watch this development.

I was referred recently by the Minister to the OECD journal on prices and profits. I read it very carefully and I cannot believe that the Minister or the Government put that forward seriously as a policy statement which is likely to have any influence on the continued rise of prices. The emphasis throughout the whole article was on the control of salaries and wages but no serious consideration has been given here, or in virtually any of the countries that contributed to the article, to taking action at any time, no matter what increase in prices goes on.

Does the Minister not appreciate that the trade union movement must act if it believes that the price rises have absorbed, and more than absorbed, the ninth round of wage increases and will then be in the position of being forced to press for a tenth round increase? It is possible the Minister is acting in the belief that since there is a serious discrepancy between the wage and salary rates being paid here and those paid in Britain and in many other central European countries, we can allow quite a considerable increase in wages to occur yet before we find ourselves priced out of the European markets. That may be at the back of the Minister's policies but should any demands be made by the trade union movement and the workers, I hope the Government will not oppose increases in so far as they must accept responsibility for permitting price rises to go on, at a time when all the company reports continue to emphasise the fact that, no matter what money they spend on their various schemes of insurance, advertising, price rises or whatever they spend their money on, profits and dividends not only stay firm but continue to rise. The Minister cannot continue to tolerate that position. Certainly he cannot expect the worker to continue to tolerate that position where he is asked to restrict his consumption or to restrict his income at a time when unrestricted profits and unrestricted dividends are being paid to people who make little or no serious contribution to the national economy.

I should like to know from the Minister why there is so much apparent indecision or hesitation about this suggestion we have heard that we should have some form of association with the Common Market. Some of us have believed all along that full membership of the Common Market was never a necessity and was, in fact, undesirable from our point of view, that associate membership was something which had such a flexible protocol that one could negotiate for the best of being associated with the European Economic Community and, at the same time, not have many of its commitments. It looks again that some kind of loose association should be arranged between ourselves and the EEC, and I wonder whether any agreement has been reached between the Government and the recent French visitor that France would support us if we wanted to establish some sort of trade treaty with these people. If there is such an understanding, when are we likely to hear about it and what will it involve? Will it involve a continued reduction in tariffs or an alteration in tariffs and what commitments will it involve for us in relation to our trade with Britain?

The Taoiseach still seems to feel that the suggestion that we would not become full members is some imputation against himself, a suggestion that we do not have a completely viable, sturdy and independent economy. Any child in arms could tell him we do not have that, even if we did not have the CIO reports to confirm the fact that we have failed here over the past 40 years and that our industries are, on the whole, very insubstantial things, particularly compared with the great and powerful industries of central Europe. It surprises me that a man of the realism of the Taoiseach would not face that reality at this stage and look for some sort of association with EEC, so that we could, if essential, retain our trading position with Britain and at the same time, have some trading position with EEC. I should be glad if the Minister would clarify, as far as possible, the present position in that regard because it is a matter of the greatest importance to the country.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

In spite of the confidence and optimism which the Minister tried to convey in his opening speech, I think it is well to recognise that there are a number of serious drawbacks in the official policy towards industrial development. First, I believe there are far too many bodies dealing with industrial development and the promotion of industry. We have the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Industrial Development Authority, An Foras Tionscal and the Industrial Credit Company. Then we have the Department of Transport and Power looking after the Shannon Industrial Estate and we have the Department of Agriculture really in charge of the bacon and creamery industries. This diversification of responsibility for industrial development is very bad. There is definite evidence to show that at times it can prove frustrating and even discouraging to an industrial promoter.

There is very little justification for this diversification, particularly when we remember that in the past few years, some of the functions formerly under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce have been given to the newly-created Ministry of Transport and Power. All aspects of industrial development should be under the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce. There should be greater co-ordination between the various bodies and perhaps an amalgamation of some of their functions. With this division of responsibility in different State bodies, there is bound to be overlapping and duplication and, worst of all, a certain conflict can arise.

We had a good example of this recently in County Limerick where, over the past two years, an effort was made to secure a milk-processing industry, and after 18 months or two years of effort, which included sending a representative to the continent and a visit to Newcastle West by a number of continental industrialists, finally, when a definite proposal was formulated, it was shot down.

I have before me a report of a meeting which was summoned at Newcastle West after the news had been received that the proposal had been turned down. I quote from the Limerick Leader of Saturday, April 18th:

Mr. Ed. O'Connell, representing Newcastle West Development Association, said that for the past 15 months the Association had spent a lot of time and had even sent representatives to Germany with a view to the establishment of a milk powder factory in the town.

Mr. E. O'Dwyer, Secretary of the Newcastle West Development Association, said the Association would have been saved a lot of time, effort and expense if they had been told of the position——

that is the point——

when they started their campaign for the milk powder factory 15 months ago or so. There should be more inter-communication between the semi-State bodies and local voluntary organisations.

Mr. Kelly who attended that meeting —I think he represented the IAOS— said it was rather surprising that the Industrial Development Authority did not consult An Bord Bainne or the IAOS in connection with a project of this kind.

That would seem to bear out the point I have been making, that there is far too much hopping from one authority to another and that much time and effort could have been spared if the proper advice had been given at the beginning.

The second weakness that is very much apparent in our approach to industrial development is the absence of any rational planning or even coordinated effort for the development and expansion of food-processing industries. When we take into account the many natural advantages which this country has for the production of high quality food products, when we remember our close proximity to the greatest food importing nation in the world and when we also consider the success of the Irish Sugar Company and An Bord Bainne in the north of England in recent times, it is an extraordinary state of affairs to find that the Minister for Industry and Commerce introducing his annual Estimate makes —if I remember correctly—hardly any reference to this aspect of industrialisation. The only logical conclusion I can draw from this is that now that agriculture seems to have been relegated to a secondary position so far as the Second Programme for Economic Expansion is concerned, the promotion of industries based on agriculture is not considered even worthy of the attention of the Minister.

Personally, I feel very strongly about this because I have seen the fruits of this policy in my constituency. It is a constituency which has been traditionally associated with food-processing and the products of these industries have enjoyed an international reputation. At one time we had five bacon factories in Limerick city, while we now have only three, and in view of the recommendations in the report of the survey team which examined the bacon industry, we shall be lucky if we are left with one. Side by side with that, we had creamery industries and we now have recommendations that this business be closed down.

I think I referred last year on this Estimate to the necessity for coordinated effort and rational planning in the promotion of industries based on agricultural raw material. Absence of such co-ordination is very difficult to understand and I sincerely hope the Minister will make some effort before it is too late to apply some type of rational planning to the whole business.

I am also interested in the question of the location and size of industries. It seems to be accepted by the Government that it is only a waste of time to try to establish small industries in rural towns and villages. Recently, I took the trouble to do a good deal of research on this aspect of industrialisation. I was amazed to find that even in the most highly developed industrialised countries, the small industries in the rural areas still play an important role. I wonder if the Government have examined fully the possibilities of small-scale industries in the rural towns. As I have already said, other highly industrialised countries are not overlooking this important factor.

In Great Britain, for example, there are a number of official or semi-official bodies especially concerned with the promotion of small rural industries. There is the Rural Industries Equipment Loan Fund, the Rural Craftsmen Workshops Loan Fund who grant assistance to small industries. There is the Rural Industries Bureau for England and Wales which provide advisory service. In Scotland, there is the Scottish Country Industries Development Trust. Even in Northern Ireland, there is the Rural Industries Development Committee of the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services. It is interesting to note also that in the United Kingdom, in 1959, out of 55,000 industrial undertakings, 15,000 were employing only between 11 and 24 workers, 23,000 were employing between 25 and 99 and only 1,144 were employing over 1,000 workers.

In the USA, 1951, 731,500 undertakings were employing 1,000 workers or less, and there were only 4,300 employing 500 or more. In the Netherlands, between 1950 and 1956, over 100 medium-sized undertakings were set up in developed areas. In France, the national regional and development planning approach there does not overlook this important factor of the small industries. I believe the Government here have thrown in the towel and have given up all idea of trying to promote and encourage small industries. The results, particularly for rural Ireland, have been tragic.

There is an interesting study on this question of the small industries for the rural community in the Journal of the Institute of Public Administration, volume 2, No. 4. It is a study carried out by Reverend Jeremiah Newman of Maynooth College in which he goes into detail regarding this question and the possibility of establishing small industries in our rural areas. I quote from that Journal, page 17, where Professor Newman is reviewing various studies into this aspect of industrialisation. He says:

We would like to draw attention here to an important study by M. Marcel Laloire and published in October, 1961, in the International Labour Review. Its title is “Small-Scale Industry in the Modern Economy” and it is an attempt to answer the oft-asked question whether such industry can survive and perform a useful function in the world today and if so what its place should be in the economic plans of the developing countries? The answer given is of great significance for Ireland. It is that, far from being moribund, small-scale industry is a dynamic force with a valuable role to play in the modern economy.

As Professor Newman points out, his overall conclusion is that:

from the economic as well as the social point of view, the establishment of small undertakings is often more valuable than the over-hasty establishment of huge industrial complexes, which no doubt look more impressive but draw off the labour force from rural areas and give rise to serious unbalance.

Of course, this question of small industries for rural areas is very much tied up with what I was speaking of earlier, that is, the development of food-processing industries. I am convinced that if there were a proper approach and a rational plan to this processing of agricultural raw material, it would be possible to have small-scale processing plants in many of our rural towns and villages. I hope that some serious consideration will be given to this aspect of industrialisation.

There is one other point I should like to refer to, that is, the function, the role and the possibilities of local development associations. There has been a remarkable growth in the number of local development associations which have been established here over the past few years. Many of these associations have done very valuable work in the matter of promoting and attracting industries to particular areas but there is a colossal wastage of effort. Considerable amounts of money have been spent and in many cases the money spent by those associations has yielded very little return.

I believe there should be much closer liaison between the official State body, the Industrial Development Authority, and the Local Development Association. Indeed, I cannot refer to this particular question without recalling the late Senator Moloney who, to my knowledge, made several efforts in recent times to bring about this closer liaison between the IDA and the Local Development Association. The only way I can see that this could be done is that these associations should work more closely together. They could pool their resources and obtain the specialised advice which might be necessary.

Mr. Treacy

It is to the Minister's Department that the main bulk of our people look with hope and enthusiasm for the strengthening of our economy and the provision of full employment, adequate wage standards, and equilibrium in our balance of payments. We look to the Department of Industry and Commerce for the establishment of new industries. The assistance, guidance and advice of the Minister's Department are fundamental to the growth of our economy, if we are to reduce the incidence of unemployment and stem the haemorrhage of emigration. It is again to this vitally important Department that we look to to remedy the social disadvantages of our society.

If one is to judge by the history of events since the inception of this State, the facts are that the action taken by the various Ministers for Industry and Commerce has been totally inadequate to bring about the happy situation we have in mind. The reliance on private enterprise, in the main, to absorb our unemployed has been an abject failure. Despite the advocacy of the Labour Party, the various Departments have shown a reluctance and a hostility to intervene directly and establish the industries themselves.

Much play has been made about the First Programme for Economic Expansion. The Government give us to believe that this Programme from 1958 to 1963 was a great success and an achievement. We have now launched the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, which will end in 1970. The target set in the First Programme was the attainment of 100,000 jobs. A degree of near full employment for our people and an era of prosperity was forecast on the termination of that five-year plan. In the White Paper issued at the end of that period, the Government chose to pick out certain attainments but to ignore the overall fact that, in respect of the creation of anything like full employment, this First Programme was a failure.

The Second Programme now forecasts the attainment of a growth rate which will mean an increase of 78,000 jobs by 1970. This represents an increase of approximately 8,000 a year. If one analyses that figure, one finds it is less than half the number of jobs required to give anything like full employment. From the Labour point of view, it is extremely disquieting that, even if all goes well with this Second Programme, by 1970, we shall have an unemployment rate of three and a half per cent and an emigration rate of 10,000 persons per year.

It has been an integral part of Labour policy and philosophy that the State should intervene directly in the affairs of the nation, that there should be positive planning at Government level to absorb our unemployed, to give a rising standard of living and to end the state of affairs in which we have been regarded as a vanishing race. That intelligent, organised planning of our society is laid down in the constitution of our Party going back to 1912. Therefore, it is nothing new for us to advocate that, where private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do the job, there is a moral duty on the State to create the circumstances, establish the industries and put human beings to work. As far as we are concerned, our most cherished asset is not the land, the capital, the machinery, the credit system of our country, or even its beauty, but its human beings. The Government who fail to absorb these persons into society are failing in their first duty. It is the height of criminal folly that the resources of our country and the rich harvest abounding our shores should be so underdeveloped and underutilised and that the talents of so many of our people should not have been tapped and put to useful and productive work.

It is a source of some gratification to us in the Labour Party that what we have been advocating down the years is now meeting with a response in other spheres and that intelligent, organised planning of our society is no longer regarded here as a dirty word. More and more political Parties are vying with one another as to which will go farthest to the left in order that this principle be adhered to.

Our main complaint with the Second Programme for Economic Expansion is that it is nothing more than a programme. It is merely an indication or a forecast; it is not a plan. No concrete steps have as yet been taken to ensure by Government action that the targets set out will be achieved and that the plan in its entirety will become a reality. The Government are relying mainly on advocacy. They feel the most they can do is to advocate and entice. They are afraid to intervene directly in order to make the plan a success. We reject this attitude of helplessness on the part of the Government. We feel there is a duty on them to ensure that the plan is attained. If I am regarded as carping or critical in respect of this Programme, it is only because I want to be constructive. I want the Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure it is perfected and pursued to its final implementation. At the termination of the plan in 1970, I do not want to see the nation again confronted with 170,000 emigrants as happened during the First Programme from 1958 to 1963. I do not want to see the nation faced with a standing unemployment figure of between 60,000 and 80,000.

That is the kind of planless planning we deplore. Therefore, we in the Labour Party advocate the setting up of a national board to see that this Second Programme is implemented. We advocate that the targets set out in the Programme be raised, if need be, to ensure that the plan will be successfully terminated. We advocate that the national planning board should consist of economic experts removed from interference of any kind from the Government and we suggest that there should be a second tier comprising all the facets in our society—industry, agriculture, the trade unions, and, of course, the Minister and his Department.

It is only by such positive measures that we will be able to transform this Programme—this indicative forecast, to use economic jargon — into a positive plan. In this Programme, we submit that the four per cent improvement envisaged will not even bridge the present gap between the standard of living here and that of the people of Britain and continental countries. A revealing table in the Second Programme forecasts that the gross national product per head of the population by 1970 will be £360. The same table reveals that the gross national product per head in Great Britain in 1961, three years ago, was £510. It will be seen clearly, therefore, that though our relative standard will have improved considerably we will have done nothing to make up the leeway between the standard of life of our people and that of the people of Great Britain or the EEC countries by 1970.

I have said that the present target in this respect should be raised, realising that there are certain difficulties involved, that radical changes in policy may be necessary. We are prepared to see these radical changes take place if this plan is properly to be implemented. When the First Programme was announced, the Labour and trade union movements pointed out the feasibility at that time of increasing the forecast growth rate of two per cent to a higher figure of something like four to five per cent. We were told by the Government then that we were unrealistic in hoping that the anticipated growth rate could be improved on.

As a matter of fact, the growth rate achieved in the period 1958 to 1963 was something like 4½ per cent. Again at the expense of being told we are unrealistic, we suggest that the present anticipated growth rate of four per cent be increased. We believe that by proper management of the affairs of the nation and the utilisation of the land, capital resources and highly-talented and adaptable labour force available, we can achieve a higher rate than four per cent.

I should like the Minister to indicate what machinery, if any, he has established or what arrangements he has made to ensure that the targets and objectives of the Second Programme will be realised. If it is the attitude of the Government that they can only assist, guide and persuade, then, in my opinion, this Second Programme will come to nothing. We will still have to contend in 1970 with a comparatively low standard of living; we will still have to contend with a high degree of unemployment; and we will still have the spectre of emigration.

Therefore, we in the Labour Party make no apology for seeking an extension of the public enterprise sector —that it be pursued with all vigour. We are proud of the attainments of the various Governments in respect of many of the State or semi-State enterprises. Today, much valuable, secure and remunerative employment is provided for thousands of men and women by such bodies as the ESB, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Bord na Móna, Irish Shipping and CIE. In this respect I extend to the Minister my personal congratulations for any hand, act or part he may have played in the establishment or extension of these industries. On them is conferred the badge of permanency, unlike the private enterprise sector in respect of which we have heard such alarming statements in the House as to the amount of public money expended by way of grants and loans to persons whose character and intentions were not of the highest calibre.

There have been allegations that substantial amounts of the taxpayers' money are being dissipated. I do not lend my voice to that type of allegation, but if it is true, I suggest we should have the facts. I should not like anybody to infer I would say anything to undermine any Irish industry giving good employment: rather would I support and applaud that industry and do all in my power to shelter and protect it, if only for the sake of those at present depending on it for their livelihood.

I think it fair to point out that during the past 40 years private enterprise has failed miserably to do its job. During that period, we have lost a million of our race through emigration. During the five years of the First Programme, the figure was 170,000 people. Employment in this country today is lower than it was a few years ago. If the Minister does not intervene directly to establish these industries, there is no hope for our people in a private enterprise economy. Without doing the things which the Labour Party say should be done to perfect the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, the Government are merely hoping for a solution of our emigration problem without taking the necessary steps to attain it.

Many Deputies have adverted to the CIO reports and to likely redundancy in certain industries investigated by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. The revelations of these fact-finding committees were a source of deep anxiety to the industries involved in the investigations. References are made in the CIO reports to the boot and shoe industry and there is also the report of the Footwear Adaptation Council recently set up. As one who entered into this industry at a very tender age and who derived his livelihood from it for a long number of years, I have a natural interest in its welfare. Up to now, it has been sheltered by way of quota protection. It was a protected industry all down through the years and it now produces 97 per cent of the home requirements. The Minister and his Party may take a large measure of credit for the development of many of these factories in the late thirties. They helped in no small way to develop this industry and they did that by way of providing adequate protection against outside competition of an unfair character.

That industry has grown in strength and prestige and it now employs 5,822 people in safe and remunerative employment. There are 27 factories associated with the Footwear Adaptation Council and the production in this important industry now amounts to 7,000,000 pairs of footwear last year. The value of that production was £8,682,000. The industry was able to export 1,000,000 pairs of shoes last year at a value of £2 million. It can never be said that this industry abused the protection afforded to it. Rather did it avail of every opportunity given to it to strengthen itself. That is amply manifested by the high quality of the footwear produced, by the style and by the prices. Profits in the industry were not unfair and certainly not abnormally high.

My concern is that this industry is now facing a transition period which will determine whether it is to go forward or recede. When the possibility of entering the EEC was a live issue some two years ago, many industries in which quota protection was in operation were advised that it would have to be dismantled and replaced by a tariff system. The boot and shoe industry, being directly involved, agreed with the Department of Industry and Commerce that they had no option but to forgo the quota system of protection and revert to a tariff system instead.

This advice of the Department was the best possible at the time because of the real possibility of our entry into the Common Market. The chances of our entry to that Community have receded rather than improved, owing to the rebuff given by General de Gaulle to the British application. No one now knows the true position. We have had M. Couve de Murville visiting us here recently and there is now talk of some loose association with the Community rather than full or associate membership. With the likely change of Government in Britain and with the upsurge of Labour support there, there is a real possibility that Mr. Harold Wilson will lead the new Government of that country and it is widely held that there is no great anxiety on the part of an English Labour Government to enter the Community. Again Ireland's chances will have greatly diminished.

In these circumstances, when there is no known prospect of our entering the Community, when we do not even have the advantage of association with the Common Market, it surprises me that the Minister or his Government should proceed to dismantle the protection of Irish industry, that they should continue to substitute tariffs for quotas, without being able to give us an assurance of reciprocal contracts with the EEC. In these circumstances, it is the desire of the whole boot and shoe industry, the manufacturers, the trade unions and the adaptation council that the Minister should see that there will be no quick change from quota to tariff. There is no doubt or ambiguity in the minds of the people in direct control of this industry that any quick change from a quota to a tariff system will have disastrous results, will cause dislocation of the industry and mass unemployment among operatives.

The inherent fear is that no matter what tariff is fixed, there will of necessity be an amount of dumping. This small market of ours will be used as a dumping ground for the producers of cheap and shoddy footwear all over Europe and the measure which was passed in this House last week, the Control of Imports (Amendment) Bill 1964, is, regrettably, inadequate to cope with the kind of dumping envisaged by this industry. The kind of dumping which has been taken care of in that Bill is dumping from low-cost production countries, from faraway places, perhaps, like Japan, but we are concerned about dumping from countries closer to home, from the vast industrial towns of Britain, where one factory can produce twice as many boots and shoes as are manufactured by the whole boot and shoe industry in this country in one year.

I know the Minister, being responsible for nurturing and developing this industry over the years, will see to it that the result of the matter that now rests with the Industrial Development Authority in respect of arranging the tariffs on this commodity and the outcome of the negotiations between the British Ministry of Trade and the IDA will be such as to provide adequate measures of protection for the industry, especially as the industry has progressed so far. It has been the first industry in this country to establish a joint board of conciliation and arbitration and has set a headline for all industries by reason of the harmony and good relations that such a board can achieve and has achieved. At the behest of the Minister, it has been the first industry to establish an adaptation council and that adaptation council has reported and every Deputy has been furnished with a copy of the report.

That adaptation council has made tremendous strides, despite the gloomy report of the CIO which indicated that the boot and shoe industry might expect by reason of the technological changes which the CIO personnel recommended to lose at least 1,000 operatives; that the new techniques and devices and technological changes recommended would bring about a reduction of 1,000 operatives without our entering the Common Market and that if and when we did enter, another 1,000 operatives would be lost through redundancy, having regard to the stiffer competition we will have to contend with. That would represent 2,000 operatives out of a total labour force of 5,822. That was the forecast, which was not merely gloomy, but was going to scourge out of existence one-third of the labour force in the industry.

Despite these reports, that adaptation council had progressed with all speed and energy to readapting itself, to re-energising itself, adopting the most modern techniques and methods known to the industry in the world, and is rapidly gaining new strength for the kind of rigorous competition envisaged in freer trade circumstances.

There is a lot of work yet to be done, as the Minister and his Department well know, and it would be a great tragedy if at the end of this year, by reason of the matter now before the IDA, the transition from quota to tariff, anything was done to hinder or retard the great work of this adaptation council, speaking for and acting for the whole boot and shoe industry.

It is my ardent appeal to the Minister today to have regard to the appeals made to him and the concrete and cogent reasons given to him by the representatives of the adaptation council by the boot and shoe manufacturers and the officers of the Irish Shoe and Leather Workers Union, who are gravely perturbed that the policy now being pursued is an erroneous policy and will bring about disastrous results in this industry if it is not arrested by the direct intervention of the Minister himself.

I have been thinking over the history of events in this industry. I know what redundancy and unemployment mean. I know what a reduction in the quota or relaxation of protection can mean to the industry, particularly to the men and women who are dependent on it for their livelihood. We have a vivid recollection that when the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Taoiseach, for some reason best known to himself relaxed control of this industry in 1947, some two million pairs of shoes were dumped in this country. The dislocation of the industry here was appalling, as the Dáil debates of that period, which I took care to read, reveal; unemployment was rife in every town where a boot and shoe factory existed. I and my colleagues walked the streets of Clonmel for many months before it was possible to achieve again anything like full production.

We have sad memories of the importation of some two million pairs of footwear in that year and the tragic events which followed. Many of the people who were dismissed as redundant at that time were never again re-employed and many industries that went to the wall were never reopened. I earnestly beseech the Minister, therefore, to see to it that we do not have a recurrence of what took place in 1947 for the purpose of teaching the manufacturers a lesson at the termination of the second Great War in respect of the shoddy materials used during that period. The attitude was that the consumer was entitled to a good quality commodity, a decent style and fair price, and rightly so. However, it was rugged for the workers that, in order that some people should be taught that kind of lesson, the workers should suffer the hardship and privation of near-poverty for such a considerable number of months until the protection was restored and the industry given a chance to accelerate and improve its position.

From that moment, the industry has never looked back. It has now achieved a high degree of efficiency. The extent of its export trade is an indication of the intrinsic worth of that industry. Some £2 million worth of shoes were exported last year, not only to Britain, to which some 80 per cent went, but to places as far afield as America. This then is an industry which is well worth caring for and protecting, and I hope the discussions taking place in respect of the substitution of tariff for quota will be watched carefully by the Minister, as indeed they will be watched in the intervening months by the captains of industry, by the captains of the trade unions and by the watchdogs of that industry in this House.

In my contribution on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, I omitted to mention that the implementation of this plan necessitates in very large measure a greater increase in tax revenue. We do not begrudge an increase in taxation of this kind for the essential facets of our economy, to improve social welfare benefits, to make possible education for all our children, to give us the free health scheme to which we all aspire and, above all else, to accelerate the sluggish wheels of industry and to improve out of all proportion the growth rate of agriculture. In respect of taxation, the philosophy of our Party has always been that it should be apportioned in accordance with the ability of people to pay.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does that arise on the Estimate?

Mr. Treacy

I am coming to that if you will let me develop my point. I was coming to this question of prices. It is a matter of deep regret to us of the Labour Party that the Minister has adopted the hopeless and helpless attitude of not being able to do anything at all in respect of the control of prices. The attitude that competition will keep prices down is a lot of hooey and the Minister knows that well. It is alarming in the extreme to think, as indicated in a reply to Deputy Dr. Browne recently, that in respect of the prices of some 250 commodities which the ordinary consumer uses every day, there has been a substantial increase.

It has been said that this Government have a vested interest in this price question. The higher the prices of commodities go, the more the Government will garner in turnover tax. I would not wish to attribute such a callous motive to any Government. Neither would I wish to attribute to them a desire to acquiesce, as they seem to be acquiescing, in the dictates of vested interests in industry, trade and commerce by allowing prices and profits to spiral at a time when we know it to be the policy of the same Government to be very restrictive in respect of increases in wages. The trade union movement is gravely perturbed at the indifference of the Government and their inactivity in respect of keeping prices steady.

The formula for a ninth round of wage increases was achieved at national level for a two and a half year period, on the clear understanding that prices would be held steady, that there would be no appreciable increases in prices, that the ninth round increase in wages was to compensate for price increases up to that point, that it was to include a little extra to improve the standard of living and was not a licence to every exploiter, extortioner and profiteer to rampage around the country and rob the workers left, right and centre of this 12 per cent increase in salaries and wages.

If this attitude is to continue of an abandonment of responsibility on the part of the Minister, an attitude of helplessness in this sorry state of affairs, that competition will level things out, I do not think one can expect the unions, and certainly not the rank and file of the trade union movement, to accept the situation lying down. The Minister may well expect, and all concerned need not be surprised, a further demand for improvement in wages and salary scales before very long more. One cannot stand by and see the standard of living of our people dragged down, the wage increases recently obtained dissipated, without warning that it is the duty of some of us to see that the standard of living of our friends and colleagues in a trade union movement shall not be dissipated. We shall see to it that what has been achieved in standards is maintained, irrespective of the consequences.

Many members of the House have seen fit to refer to the situation in their constituencies in relation to the duties and responsibilities of the Minister and his Department. It is to the Department one looks with hope and enthusiasm for the creation of employment for unemployed people, for boys and girls leaving school and for unemployed adult workers in cities and towns, and especially in rural areas. I listened with great interest to Deputy O'Donnell when he pointed out the wonderful organisation and opportunities that other Governments make available to local industry in rural areas. I regard my constituency of South Tipperary and West Waterford as, in a very large measure, underdeveloped. I know of no worthwhile industry established in any town there for many years. There is a very high incidence of emigration. Figures supplied to me by the Minister for Social Welfare recently showed that unemployment there at that time was higher than some years ago. The area, to a large extent, is forgotten so far as establishment of industry is concerned.

The Minister may say that it is not a matter for him or his Department but for the entrepreneurs of industry and men of property and capital to provide the blueprint for industry and that the Department will provide the necessary loans, grants, stimulants and aids; but it is no satisfaction to the unemployed and the potential emigrant to be told that. I am concerned about the men and women of no property and it has been the theme of my speech that there is an obligation on the Minister, when he sees in that constituency that private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do the job, not to look blindly on the exodus and emigration from the area, and the high incidence of unemployment, without asking the State to intervene and see what can be done to change that state of affairs.

In my native town of Clonmel, there has been no additional industry for many years, although a major industry is a dire necessity there. There is no outlet for the brilliant young boys and girls from the secondary schools and I know for a fact that 90 per cent of them are emigrating because they have no hope, no security and no prospects of a future in their own town or county.

At the employment exchanges, an additional 200 or 300 men are signing. In other towns of Tipperary, the future is also gloomy. They have an aspect of despair. Cashel, which had a Deputy in this House for many years, now enjoys the privilege of having two here, but I know as a young Deputy how inadequate we can be in winning industries for our town. There is no industry whatever in the historic town of Cashel and I would say it has one of the highest emigration rates of any town in Ireland.

In West Waterford, in Tallow and Lismore, the cry to their Deputy is: "What can you do to bring us industry?" We have gone from time to time to Foras Tionscal to put propositions to them but to no avail. Unless one approaches that body with a positive blue print for an industry which is regarded by them as being not merely economic but has a manifest and sizeable potential, they are not interested. I have heard, and I agree with Deputies who said, that if you had a different texture of skin, spoke with a different accent and had a different kind of cheque book, you might be received more cordially and achieve greater results. The ordinary Irishman going up with the best intentions has had a sorry experience. The capital is there in abundance; the money will be made available. There are many amenities to attract industrialists—rich arable land, water with good fishing, good roads, piped water supplies and an abundant labour force which is highly intelligent and adaptable and which could prove itself to be the best in the world if given a fair opportunity, but we have been as voices crying in the wilderness for a long time as regards securing additional industries.

By reason of these trends and our experience and facts which cannot be controverted, we, in the Labour Party, have become more and more convinced that the State, and particularly the Minister's Department, must play a more vigorous and responsible part in initiating industry. We must not rely on private enterprise because while our social philosophy regrettably is that private enterprise should be left to do what it can best do and that the State should not either hinder or retard them but aid and stimulate and co-ordinate their efforts, despite all the help and stimulants the Department has poured into the system, the system has proved an abject failure. It therefore devolves on us to do what is wise and right and socially good and establish more industries of the kind I mentioned, such as the ESB, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Bord na Móna and so on. Only in that way can we stem the exodus of many thousands who are flying from rural areas. As figures show, some 17,000 persons per annum are leaving rural areas for cities and towns, and also for Britain. The Minister should see to it that the rural areas are no longer denuded of their people.

I support Deputy T. O'Donnell who suggested many magnificent proposals which could be implemented in order to provide remunerative and secure work for the rural population. Agriculture, of necessity, cannot completely absorb these people. It has been proved, by reason of the introduction of many labour saving devices on the land, that the rural population are flying away. My appeal to the Minister is to take the initiative himself and not to have any fear when he embarks upon a State enterprise of an expensive kind to absorb our unemployed and to raise our living standards. He will find a vast amount of support for himself throughout the whole nation.

The nation is like a family. The family, as is laid down in our Constitution, is the fundamental unit of society possessing inalienable rights. As in the family the least gifted, mentally and physically, share in the lot of the most brilliant and physically strongest and as in the family the resources and heritage of all are available to all. Accordingly, we in the Labour Party say that every man, woman and child in this nation should be backed by the resources of the nation and guaranteed against poverty, want or insecurity. Moreover, they should be backed by security against the spectre of unemployment and the haemorrhage of emigration.

We believe that every citizen in our community should be backed by the resources of the State and that their individual powers should be backed by the powers of an organised nation. It is only in that way we can achieve the Ireland of happy homes which I feel we all aspire to. It is only in that way we can achieve the equal opportunities enshrined in our Constitution and the social justice for which we all plead. That is the kind of policy and philosophy we should seek to carve out.

I should like to ask the Minister to have regard to the wind of change, to take his courage in his hands and to see to it that the Second Programme for Economic Expansion is so organised and so backed by the resources of the nation and of the people that it will be a reality and we shall not have at the culmination of this programme in 1970, the spectre of the first plan, of 170,000 unemployed and a standing unemployment figure of 50,000.

I have nothing more to say except to wish the Minister every good luck and every success in his task and in anything he does to improve the lot of the people of this country. We in the Labour Party extend to him our hearts and our hands in anything he does in that regard.

Mr. Dolan

Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom comhgáirdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Aire agus leis an Roinn as ucht na h-oibre a dhein siad i rith na bliana. Fear macánta atá san Aire. Is duine é a thuigeann cúrsaí na Roinne agus tá an-thaithí aige ar obair na Roinne ó cuireadh i mbun na Roinne é.

Tá athrú mór chun feabhais tagtha ar chúrsaí déantúsaíochta i gcomparáid leis an dóigh ina raibh siad roint bhliain ó shoin. Go deimhin, tá spiorad nua sa tír. Tuigeann pobal na hÉireann cad tá dhá dhéanamh ag an Aire ar son na tíre agus tá meas acu dá réir air. Tá a fhios acu go bhfuil an tír ag dul ar aghaidh maidir le tionscail do bhunú. Tá daoine as tíortha eile ag bunú tionscal nua in Éirinn agus is maith an rud é sin.

Tháinig méadú i mbliana ar an méid daoine atá fostaithe sna monarchain. Tá 167,000 daoine ag obair i monarchain na tíre seo faoi láthair. Is méadú 5,800 é sin ar an uimhir a bhí ann anuraidh. De réir na bhfigiúirí a thug an tAire dhúinn tá 32 monarchain nua dhá dtógáil anois. Is mór an deifríocht í sin i gcomparáid leis an scéal brónach a bhí le h-innsint againn sna blianta ó 1954 go dtí 1957 nuair a bhí na daoine ag teicheadh an tír amach gan dóchas nó airgead acu. Ba thráth é sin fosta nuair nach raibh airgead ag an Rialtas chun obair do chur ar fáil do na daoine.

I gContae an Chabháin an tráth úd do bhí na monarchain bheaga a bhí againn i ngalar na gcás. Dob eol dom féin monarcha amháin a dúnadh ar fad. Ní raibh meas madra ag an bhFreasúra, go mór mhór ag Fine Gael, ar an ndúngaois a bhí ag Fianna Fáil monarchain do bhunú ar fuaid na tíre chun obair do sholáthar do na daoine. B'fhearr go mór leis an bhFreasúra na tailte móra féarach— beagán daoine saibhre agus a lán daoine bochta.

Is mar sin a bhí an scéal go dtáinig an Rialtas seo i gcumhacht. Is cúis mhisnigh dúinn go léir an dul chun cinn atá déanta ón am nach raibh na daoine sásta earraí a deineadh in Éirinn do cheannach. B'éigin don Rialtas seo an dearcadh sin do leigheas agus san am gcéanna ionnsaí do dhéanamh faoi lucht an Fhreasúra a bhí ag innsint do na daoine gur fearr na h-earraí a bhí ag teacht isteach óna tíortha thar lear ná na h-earraí a deineadh in Éirinn.

I was adverting to the fact that a tremendous change has taken place in this country since the advent of Fianna Fáil Government in 1932. One of the principal planks in the Fianna Fáil platform was the need for the establishment of an industrial arm which would help to absorb the great numbers of our people who were beginning to leave the land. Indeed, they have been leaving the land from the time of the Famine, not only here but in most European countries and, more recently, in America.

The difference between this Party and the Opposition is that we have always admitted people were leaving the land but we have tried to remedy it, tried to provide the industry which would absorb the labour leaving the land because of the higher standards of living succeeding generations have been demanding. It is easy to recall the campaign waged then, not by other countries but by people within our own country, against Irish-manufactured goods. I venture to say that that campaign was more detrimental and more vicious than any foreign country could ever wage against the goods of another country.

That opposition to Irish-made goods came mainly from the Fine Gael Opposition. Those who went throughout the country trying to convince people to take shares in Irish industry, trying to encourage people to help establish industries in our towns, were labelled as people who should be shunned by the ordinary citizen. It was said they were doing this work for their own benefit, that they had no other interest.

It is, as I said, a great change to see the attitude nowadays to goods made by Irish workers in Fianna Fáil factories—I am not ashamed to admit that many of the factories were started by this Government in their early efforts to establish a small industrial arm here. We admit there was a measure of protection for a time and it is good to see now that we are able to produce goods which we can sell in competitive markets in Europe and indeed further afield. Our goods now are equal, if not superior, to goods produced in countries with long industrial traditions.

It is also good to see the change in people's attitudes. No longer are they critical of our efforts to extend further our industrial arm. If we had more faith in the ability of our workers and industrialists to establish and maintain commercial undertakings, we would be doing a great deal to help our people and to strengthen the national economy. It is a shame in a country where we are trying to find employment for our people that any of our citizens should still show preference for some goods produced abroad, particularly when we have comparable and frequently superior goods made at home.

As a prime instance, I mention Irish whiskey. Still, many of our so-called patriotic people very often enter bars and, to the detriment of the distilleries, of the farmers who produce the grain and of the workers involved in the production, show a preference for foreign brands. While everybody is entitled democratically to purchase what he wishes with his own money, I submit people should be more considerate in this respect, particularly when there is on offer an Irish-made commodity as good as, if not better than, the foreign brand. In fact, I would extend this message further afield: if many of our exiles would ask for and show preference for articles produced in the motherland, they would be doing a great deal to stem the tide of emigration and to place the people who remain at home in good employment.

Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann could be used more effectively to get this message across to our people at home and abroad. Usually if a politician says something like that, he is accused of approaching the subject from a political angle but if neutral people, such as those engaged in television and radio, suggested support for home industries and home-produced goods they would be doing a good service.

I congratulate the Minister on what he has done in procuring for us a stand at the World Fair. I have spoken to a number of people who have seen it and, in their opinion, it is proving a fine shop-window for a small country such as Ireland. Despite what people may say about the expense of this stand, I am quite sure it will pay handsome dividends in the years to come— that we shall receive many orders for Irish goods not only from Americans but from people elsewhere who have had an opportunity of seeing them on display at the World Fair.

It is true that there is an abundance of industries in many counties. In fact, in some counties workers have to travel over the county boundaries to get to work. That may be because of geographical situations—proximity to seaports and such features—but there are many counties in which there is a great scarcity of industry. Through the Undeveloped Areas Act, the Government showed recognition of the necessity to encourage industries in the poorer counties, in tourist areas. In my constituency, for instance, one industry was financed to the extent of £187,000. That was good policy because in Cavan we have good roads, adaptable labour and housing for most of our workers so that they can live at home with their families.

I suggest that wherever possible Foras Tionscal should more or less lean over backwards to encourage people to establish industries in poorer areas where there are good workers and all the physical amenities necessary. There should be an official survey of each county, showing the number of people ready to take employment in these factories and giving their ages, qualifications, apprenticeship certificates and so on. Therefore, when an industrialist came to this country, he could see the register for each county and this might be a factor in attracting him to a particular place.

I would ask the Minister what is the position regarding the survey carried out in my constituency by the American Ambassador Oil Company. It is common knowledge that they found workable deposits of gypsum. I understand that is a very rare commodity in Western Europe today and one that should be profitable on the export market. If what I say is true, I trust no time will be lost in exploiting these deposits to the full and in trying to get a factory in the area as soon as possible. I should like to thank the Minister for the assistance he has given me in the past two years in trying to attract industry to my constituency. Many Deputies try to get as many industries into their areas as possible. Nobody can blame us for doing everything we can to provide the country with an industrial arm, which would be of tremendous benefit to our people seeking employment. Many of the people from my constituency supposed to be in wonderful jobs in England would be willing to return if they could get employment in their own county, even at less than what they are receiving abroad.

I want to congratulate the Minister and his Department on the wonderful job they are doing in making the people conscious of the value of an industrial arm to our economy and getting across to them the importance of buying the products of our own workers. I sincerely hope that the wonderful increase in the number of new industries that has taken place each year since 1957 will be continued in the future. If it is, there is no doubt that we will be able in the foreseeable future to absorb a large number of our people still seeking full-time employment.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The industrial policy of the Government would appear to be based on their economic programme which extends over a long term period to 1970. The importance of the part to be played by the Minister and his Department in that period is highlighted by the fact that the claim is made in this programme that prosperity and employment must be achieved by industrial expansion. I might add en passant that that is the exact view expressed by OECD. I was wondering if whoever wrote this Programme for Economic Expansion copied it out of the report of the OECD, because it is practically a verbatim reproduction of it from beginning to end. Be that as it may, it seems to me that those associated with industry are entitled to a stable outlook for their long-term policy. From 1964 to 1970 is a period of six years. Anyone who hopes to expand in that period wishes to know in what circumstances he may operate. It would, therefore, be of great advantage to the House and the country if the Minister would indicate how that policy relates to two definite factors: One, our accession to GATT, and the other, our relationship—whatever it will be—with the European Economic Community or with any other international organisation.

I understand that our application for membership of GATT is being made and that it is likely to be accepted. That means we will have to give to all the countries associated with it most favoured nation treatment. Taking it that the greater part of our industrial exports go to the United Kingdom or to British Commonwealth countries, we would have to give the facilities we enjoy vis-à-vis the British market to the other countries concerned. The only escape or operative clause as against that would be if we belonged to some international group, whether a free trade association or an economic group such as EEC. It was for that purpose I tried to elicit from the Taoiseach the conditions under which he would consider it advantageous for us to pursue our application to the Common Market. The reply was: “I can see no national advantage in indulging in speculation on this matter.” I put in one or two supplementaries but was unable to get behind the mind of the Taoiseach and the Government on this matter.

It seems to me from that reply that we are not trying to get into EEC. It may well be that the Minister could enlighten us on that matter. It is of paramount importance to anyone setting his sights for the future in the industrial arena. Is our aim subsequently to become full members of EEC? The Taoiseach has said that on many occasions. That brings us back to the same question: where do we stand in relation to the United Kingdom market in view of the fact that the major portion of our exports are agricultural exports going into that market? A clarification on this point is necessary. We cannot have the best of both worlds. We have to decide whether we are going to associate with a group of some sort and so protect ourselves against the most favoured nation clause, or are we going to go it alone and put ourselves in the position of opening our trade to the entire world? Practically the entire trading world is a member of GATT. Are we to throw our trade wide open to those countries? That seems to be a point the Minister should elucidate in the House.

I am not very much associated with industry myself but I have had inquiries from industrialists. The Government are making vacuous statements. They say we are going to join the Common Market, that we are going to be full members by 1970. There the matter stands. That is not sufficient. It is not sufficient for anyone investing large sums in industry in this country. The matter should be clarified as quickly as possible one way or the other. The Minister is the only one who can do that in relation to his Department and I hope he will do it when he is replying. There is also the question of whether we are as fully competitive as we were before the recent increases in the cost of fuel, power and other items, whether we are as competitive as we were before in the export market. The Minister might also refer to that when replying.

With regard to the over-all policy of the Government, is the Minister satisfied that the present industrial outlook is sufficient to achieve the objectives of reducing unemployment and emigration? The Minister comes from an urban constituency, a large centre of population, which is highly industrialised in relation to other parts of the country. The major unemployment from which we suffer is to be found in the rural areas, in the smaller towns of rural Ireland. There are several reasons for this. The primary one possibly is that people are seeking a better standard of living. People emigrate to England and come home with plenty of money, while those who are living in rural areas are lucky if they can find a few shillings to jingle in their pockets. Opportunities for employment in the rural areas are diminishing all the time. There is a considerable siphoning off of people from the land which is happening everywhere. The plan or programme adopted by other countries to meet this state of affairs where the agricultural employment content is falling is to set up rural industries on a small scale.

I feel that is the reason the Government have failed to meet the situation here. We have not been alone in the problem that our emigration is coming from the rural areas. The people are leaving these areas and running to the big cities to seek employment. When they do not get employment there, their road lies across the water where there is full employment. The Department should take an entirely new look at our industrial situation. I do not want to say anything against the Minister's constituency but it comes to mind that we have recently voted two sizeable dollops of money towards the Verolme Dockyard and to Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. The latter industry is not in the Minister's constituency but it is in County Cork. This type of industry is perhaps not what this country needs. This is the type of industry which has not achieved the aim we want to achieve, to keep our people at home and employ them.

These two sizeable sums of money voted to keep these industries alive could have been utilised in starting smaller industries, say, in west Cork, or in the rural areas of Cork, rather than in trying to build up major industries which do not seem to be a success and which will not survive if they have to face open world competition. The last speaker for the Labour Party concentrated on the question of State industries but I feel that over the years we have been making the mistake of trying to start major industries. I would suggest that the Minister interest Foras Tionscal, who seem to have the control of the setting up of industries, to turn their attention in that direction. I would suggest that instead of setting up these larger industries, they should set up eight or ten smaller industries, employing 30 to 50 people or even less, provided that they are based on Irish raw materials or on light raw materials which would not cost too much to import. That would be better than the attempts at the grandiose schemes to which the Government are inclined.

We are expending a tremendous amount of money in Wicklow in organising a fertiliser industry which may or may not be a success. Fertiliser production is already an established industry in many other countries. Perhaps our venture will be a great success and perhaps it will not, but large sums of money are being put into it. A large number of people are being concentrated in the area and a great amount is being spent on the building of the factory. I wonder if that money will give a full and fair return. If it were spent on siting industries throughout the country in our smaller towns and villages, it might give a more remunerative return and greater stability It would give us a chance of remedying the twin evils of unemployment and emigration from which we suffer. We are the only country in western Europe still suffering from these evils.

Many old-established industrialists have complained to me that they are in an unfair competitive position vis-à-vis the new industries. If a person comes here to start a new industry, he can get a free grant; he can get money to build a factory and considerable remissions of income tax for a certain period. That scheme was initiated under the Minister's predecessor, the late Deputy Norton. I was in the House when that was done. It seems to me that we have now got to a position where we have shown outside countries that we are prepared to industrialise here. We have shown outside industrialists that we are able to give them the manpower, the know how, the personnel and the infrastructure requisite for industry. Therefore, it seems to me that the older type of industries, many of which find themselves in not as good a financial position as some of the newer industries and which are not getting the same help, should be enabled to obtain assistance from the Department or from the Industrial Credit Company or whichever body is responsible for these matters.

The only help that an old-established industry can get from the State is by way of a grant of £5,000 or £6,000 for plant improvement or for technical advice. vis-à-vis the newer factories, they are placed at a complete disadvantage. The time has come for a review of that matter and the question should be considered as to whether we should concentrate to a greater extent on the older type of industries, having regard to the fact that they have carried over through a difficult period.

There is in my constituency an old-established industry that could do with a considerable amount of assistance. Perhaps due to the fact that it has not been run on very modern lines, it is not in a position to compete in modern conditions. It is essential that that industry should be taken over by somebody. Although the industry is not as financially solvent as it should be, the market for the produce is still there and the old-established name of the firm still exists. If, as is possible in this case, a team were available who would be able to modernise the industry, they should be in a position to go to the State and ask for the necessary financial assistance but they are not in a position to do so. If it were a case of a brand-new industry starting here, without any tradition, without any industrial background in this country, they could go to the State and ask for, and get, financial assistance. This old-established industry which, perhaps through lack of modern management, finds itself in difficulties and which is willing to be taken over by somebody else, cannot secure the necessary funds.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion? The stage has come when this question must be reconsidered. We have established the fact that we wish to industrialise, that we have the potential and have got to the stage where we are becoming industrially minded. It takes a nation some years to arrive at that position. A number of our nationals have gone abroad and have been trained in business executive management and we are now in a better position to build our own industries based on Irish capital, of which there is quite an abundance, and based on Irish personnel, rather than trying to entice foreign industrialists to come here. Many industrialists have come in here but have not remained permanently. Perhaps the Minister would direct his mind to the few points I have raised and see if he could meet me in respect of any of them. If he did so, it would be to the advantage of the country as a whole.

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

This has been a protracted debate. One would gather from some of the observations offered from the Opposition side of the House that our industrialisation programme has been a failure. The contrary has been the case, as I hope to demonstrate in the course of my subsequent remarks. No doubt, the gloomy forebodings that have been offered from the other side have been made in the knowledge of an impending by-election. I can only repeat what everybody, not only in this country but throughout the world, knows, that the Irish economy is going very well and that it is the intention of this Government to keep the movement in the right direction.

It has been stated frequently that, given ordinary international stability, there is no reason why we, through our own efforts, should not continue to raise the standard of living in this country, to increase the employment potential and to ensure that the Irish economy will be as good as that of any country in Europe. However, as I have said, the debate has been protracted and many specific points have been raised by Deputies and I prefer to deal with these specific points in so far as I can rather than indulge in generalities.

The first point was made by Deputy Cosgrave, to the effect that there was a multiplicity of bodies dealing with industrial matters, and industrial grants in particular, and this caused delay through excessive consultation. This point has been made on previous occasions and I dealt with it when introducing the Industrial Grants Bill, in 1959, when the functions of the Industrial Development Authority in relation to grants were changed. At that time, the Industrial Development Authority had responsibility for examining applications for grants under the Industrial Grants Act, whereas Foras Tionscal had responsibility for examination of applications for grants under the Undeveloped Areas Act. The Industrial Development Authority represented to me that they as a promotional body whose main function it was to encourage industrialists to set up new industries in this country or to expand existing industries found embarrassment, having attracted these industrialists, in subsequently having to examine their applications for grants. They suggested that the grants legislation should be dealt with exclusively by Foras Tionscal for both Industrial Grants Act and Undeveloped Areas Act cases thereby leaving the IDA free to pursue their main function, the function for which, in fact, the body was set up, that is, the attraction of new industry to the country, and the preliminary examination of the applications before being formally presented to Foras Tionscal. There is, of course, the Industrial Credit Company, whose function it is to provide loan capital for the advancement of Irish industry.

I think the activities of these three bodies are separate and distinct and that these activities justify their being handled by these three specialist organisations. I do not think there is any unreasonable delay, or any frustration, for promoters in the examination of applications coming before any one of these bodies and, as many Deputies have pointed out, it is necessary that the proper examination of them should be carried out, regard being had at the same time to the fact that inordinate delays are not conducive to the implementation of our industrial programme.

Deputy Dillon, Deputy Corish and a number of other Deputies today remarked on the position of employment. The suggestion was that I dealt with the employment position rather summarily in my opening statement. That was not the case. I referred, first of all, to the subject of an increase in employment in manufacturing industry in the year 1963 compared with 1962, explaining that employment in manufacturing industry had increased by some 3.4 per cent during this period. I went on then to refer to the question of increased employment in relation to industrial grants in respect of projects located in the undeveloped areas and I stated that by means of grants already approved, the employment in those areas will have increased by 12,000 people when these activities come into full production. I went on to say that in the areas outside the undeveloped areas the corresponding figure was 16,000. Therefore, the total employment which may be envisaged on the basis of industries which have or will have received grants from Foras Tionscal will amount to about 28,000 people, that is, on the basis of the applications already before the body.

Deputies opposite have been making reference to the decline in employment but it is very significant that in manufacturing industry, there was a fall in employment in each year of the last Coalition Government's term of office. It went from 177,000 people in 1954 down to 168,000 in 1957, a total decline of 9,000. We have heard repeated references to the fact that there has been in the past seven years an over-all decline in the numbers at work of over 70,000 people, but if we look at the statistics supplied to us in simple form in Economic Statistics published with the recent Budget, it will be seen that in one year, 1956/57, the last year of the last Coalition Government, there was a decline of some 41,000, leaving a decline of some 32,000 over the other six years of the seven-year period referred to.

It is correct to say, as Deputy Corish said, that unemployment is slightly higher in June, 1964, compared with June, 1962. However, one can get a more balanced view of the situation by considering developments in relation to employment in manufacturing industry during this two-year period. The number of people employed in manufacturing industry in March, 1964, was 171,600 compared with 159,600 in March, 1962. Therefore, the fact emerges that in industrial employment, there has been an over-all increase of 12,000 in those two years.

Deputy Corish referred also to the proposal in one of the CIO reports that development centres be set up, and suggested that nothing was being done about the examination or implementation of that recommendation. I ought to inform the House that I established a committee to inquire specially into the matter of development centres and to report to me the measures that committee considered necessary to take in order to encourage the development of industrial activity in such development zones. I do not have to tell the House how difficult a problem this is. It is one that we have to approach very carefully, having regard to the fact that there is throughout the country a labour pool still unemployed and it would be difficult to select one area above another or one group of areas to the exclusion of others.

The next point discussed to any great extent was the question of price increases. The suggestion was made that I had been doing nothing whatever to attempt to control these increases. As I indicated in my opening speech, I have concerned myself with this matter for some time past. I have already indicated in the course of statements in the House, by way of answer to Parliamentary Questions and otherwise, the scope of the investigations which my Department has carried out and the results disclosed by these investigations of price increases. There is nothing to be gained by Deputies exaggerating what these price increases have been. We saw one notable example of this exaggeration today from a source from which I did not expect it to come, from Deputy Treacy.

The cost of living index figure indicating the consumer price index changes as between mid-February, 1964, and mid-May, 1964, shows an overall increase of some 3.9 per cent. Deputy Dr. Browne referred to the details of these increases which emerged from a Parliamentary Question he asked some days ago. If I exclude beef and mutton in which there was, because of world conditions, a substantial increase in price, the increases disclosed by the publication of this new index have not been very great. I need only quote at random from this list of over 200 commodities to which Deputy Dr. Browne referred: Wire mattresses, 2.73; table knives, 1.65; certain kitchen ware, 2.75; electrical goods, 0.85 and 0.54; footwear, 1.17. By and large, the increase indicated by the mid-May figure has been no greater than 3.9 per cent.

It was envisaged that following the negotiation of the ninth round of wage increases, there would be some increase in manufacturing cost. The House will remember that the advice of economists available to the Government at the time indicated that an eight per cent increase in wages would be justified in the circumstances. In effect, the trade unions won, and all credit to them for it, an increase of 50 per cent in excess of that, an increase of 12 per cent. It was envisaged there would be some upward movement in prices as a result because manufacturers had to pay these increases and had to take account of them in the cost of their finished goods. It is, I think, now reasonable to assume that the upward adjustment of prices which was necessary to take account of this wage increase has been completed and that further increases from this cause need not be expected.

There have been suggestions that a rigid system of price control should be introduced, and if I may repeat what I said on a number of occasions and in reference to the introduction of the Prices Bill, 1958, it appeared to be agreed on all sides that price control in ordinary conditions was not likely to be effective. It was likely to be effective only in conditions of scarcity or when rationing was necessary. At the recent annual general meeting of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, the members were addressed by Professor Busteed, Professor of Economics at UCC, and he said the same thing, that price control was not practicable in ordinary circumstances. Everybody knows that when price control was enforced here and maximum prices were fixed, the maximum prices tended to become minimum prices and, in fact, there may have been only one price. We remember that when commodities were scarce and prices were fixed, black-marketing went on, but apart from that goods were freely sold in the open and there was only one price, which was the maximum price. Therefore, in these circumstances, competition was not allowed to have free play.

The Prices Act gives me certain powers to investigate the movement of prices and to effect controls where I consider it necessary. I assure the House that I am continuing to keep a close eye on price movements and I have in fact increased the staff of the prices section of my Department to ensure that the work will be properly done.

The question of our international trading arrangements was raised by Deputy Cosgrave and referred to in general by a number of subsequent speakers. Deputy Cosgrave's suggestion was that we should review all bilateral arrangements and re-negotiate them, where necessary. That process has been going on all the time. As the House is aware, we have trade agreements with Germany, France and Finland under which these countries give quotas to certain Irish exports. The trade agreement with Germany was renewed, following a review undertaken with the German Government at the end of last April. Consideration is now being given to the review and renewal of the trade agreement with Finland and negotiations in connection with the review and renewal of the trade agreement with France are due to open on 6th July next. As the House is, I think, aware, a French delegation will visit Dublin for that purpose.

That brings me to the question of our balance of trade with other countries. It has been said over and over again that the important thing for us to achieve is an overall balance of payments in our trade, and while our balance with particular countries may be adverse, nevertheless, if we maintain an overall balance as regards our total imports and exports, including invisible exports, there is no reason to feel unduly worried about the situation.

There is a special difficulty in this matter, as the House knows, in relation to our trade with the so-called State trading countries. Two years ago, the House enacted the Restriction of Imports Act which gives the Government power, where necessary, to restrict imports from these countries so that they may be induced to achieve a more balanced state of trade with us by increasing the volume of their purchases from us. The position in relation to a number of State trading countries behind the Iron Curtain is reviewed in the light of the volume of trade passing between us and them and I am considering at present taking action to restrict under the Restriction of Imports Act 1962, the volume of our imports from these countries.

I may say that the countries in question have already been informed of the enactment of this legislation and what is proposed, and it has been conveyed to them that the question of the limitation of the volume of their exports to us will arise, unless they provide more extensive facilities for the importation of Irish goods to these countries.

There is in all this the over-riding condition that Irish industry must be competitive and that with the restricted raw material resources we have here, we must look abroad to find many of these materials. It is only fair that our manufacturers should be given the same opportunity of getting their goods at the best price as manufacturers in other countries, who are their competitors, have. Nevertheless, I am looking closely at the whole picture and I assure the House that the action I deem necessary in the best interests of the country will be taken as appropriate.

Mr. Cosgrave

Was there any reaction from these countries?

Mr. J. Lynch

There was, in a number of cases. I could not specify what it was now. This brings me to the point made by Deputy Dillon who referred to the inflationary trend that he noticed and which is connected with our balance of payments position generally. I do not think it would be correct to say that we have any kind of a serious inflationary situation confronting us at present but that is not to say that I do not agree with the Deputy, and with Deputy Corish, who, I think, also made the point, that the situation requires constant review in the light of developments affecting expenditure levels.

It is true that at present we have an excess of imports over exports, but when allowance is made for items of invisible trade, the margin between imports and exports narrows very considerably. I do not think the present deficit on current account in the balance of our international payments provides grounds for uneasiness. The amount of the net deficit is not substantial and it must be remembered external industrial investment in Ireland, which is taking place at the present time, involves the importation of considerable quantities of plant and machinery which of course inflate import levels to a considerable extent. In any event, I agree with the view expressed by Deputy Declan Costello in the House some time ago that a little inflation is a good thing because it provides a stimulus to the economy. The overall need arises to ensure that this stimulation will not be frustrated in any way and that there will not be any retarding of our economic progress.

Much discussion took place in the course of the debate on our policy of tariff reduction. Deputies Corish, Anthony Barry and Treacy questioned the wisdom of a policy of tariff and quota dismantlement in present circumstances. They expressed their apprehension about the ability of industry to adapt itself to the new situation which will develop. There seems to me to be some misunderstanding about the programme for the reduction of tariff and quota protection for industry. The actual position is there was a ten per cent reduction in tariffs on industrial goods on 1st January, 1963, a second ten per cent on 1st January, 1964 and there will be a third reduction as of 1st January, 1965. That brings the total reduction of tariff to 30 per cent of the rates which existed on 1st January, 1963 into effect on 1st January, 1965.

These ten per cent tariff reductions are matched by the ten per cent quota enlargements. Two of these ten per cent quota enlargements have already taken place and the third will be made with the third tariff reduction on 1st January, 1965. At that stage it is the intention to review the policy in regard to tariffs and quotas in the light of the effects of the changes brought about by the adjustments made in tariffs and quotas since 1963.

The future policy in relation to protection may be influenced by the necessity to continue to provide a stimulus for industrial re-adaptation and achievement of an increasingly higher level of efficiency and competitiveness in all sectors of our industry. The present policy of tariff and quota dismantlement is carefully worked out and it has been initiated because of the desirability of reducing the level between the Irish tariff rate and the tariff rate applicable in west European countries generally. So, in the event of our achieving membership of the European Economic Community itself, we would not find ourselves obliged to undertake tariff reduction on a scale which might then be beyond our capacity.

A further and equally compelling reason for the policy of reducing tariffs for industry is the desirability of providing for it a stimulus for the achievement of higher levels of efficiency and the adaptation of methods needed for the re-adaptation of our industries. I have no doubt of the ability of industry to cope with the situation as I have outlined. I am supported in that view by the fact that the tariff reductions made up to the present have had no adverse effect on the level of our imports.

It is not right for Deputies to say that the situation which is developing will provide opportunities for low-cost countries to exploit our market here. Deputies will recall that the week before last I introduced legislation, which has yet to come before the Seanad, providing for amendment of the Control of Imports Acts, designed to provide the machinery at our disposal for the limitation of imports from these low-cost countries.

Arising out of this, of course, I naturally come to the question of our membership of the EEC and GATT. The House is aware our application for accession to GATT has been renewed. It is at present before the GATT authorities and it is hoped that our application will be successful. I think it is necessary in the main, because of the commencement of the Kennedy Round negotiations, whereby GATT countries will be expected to reduce tariff levels and to give the benefit of any reductions within their countries to other member countries. It is not possible for me to say at this stage what our final terms of acceptance will be. I do not think many other countries know what the effect of the Kennedy Round reductions will be on their particular position but it is hoped that as a result of the increased momentum of the Kennedy Round, the international trade of member countries will benefit.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister leaves GATT, is he in a position to give any indication of the probable date of the acceptance of our application and when he expects to be in a position to give us this information?

Mr. J. Lynch

I cannot say to any close degree. The Deputy is aware of the present occupation of the GATT authorities with the Kennedy Round. We sent an observer delegation to the Kennedy Round discussions. During the time they spent in Geneva, they had consultations with the GATT authorities. If I may make a conjecture, it is possible our application will have been determined in or about the time of the ending of the Kennedy Round negotiations. I am not in a position to say when that will be.

With regard to the European Economic Community, it is of course true that our application has not been actively proceeded with, following the breakdown of the British negotiations for full membership. We find in full membership the opportunity that will help both our economic arms, industrial and agricultural. The House is no doubt aware of the reasons why we have not sought membership of the European Free Trade Association. The reasons are simply that at the time of the establishment of this body, we had already gained, as far as Britain, our biggest trading partner, is concerned, the advantages that Britain's other partners in EFTA would get over a period and also because it did not take any account of agricultural goods.

The suggestion was made that the uncertainty of our position in this respect is not conducive to industrialists making plans for the future. No matter what trading association we belong to, the net effect will be that, as a result of the Kennedy Round, tariffs may be removed as between these different trading blocs and third countries. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure our tariffs will not be at such a level at the time these concessions are granted throughout the world as to make it impossible for our industrialists to survive. It is for this reason we have embarked on the present rhythm of tariff reduction and, at the same time, have embarked on schemes for the adaptation of industry by way of special grants and other incentives through technical assistance grants and otherwise. No industrialist is under any illusion as to what will be necessary as far as his industry is concerned.

Deputy Treacy referred in particular to the footwear industry. I share with him the admiration of what that industry has achieved over a number of years, but the fact remains it is protected by a quota. That quota is subject to review, on the application of either the British interests or the Irish interests, by the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Corish

Not necessarily the British interests, but the British Board of Trade?

Mr. J. Lynch

That is what I mean.

Mr. Corish

It would not necessarily mean the industry?

Mr. J. Lynch

What happens is that the industry in Britain usually makes application to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Corish

It is an official review?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes. Once the revision starts, it is the duty of the Industrial Development Authority to examine the case made for the reduction of the quota. Ultimately, they must replace that quota by tariffs, which will give reasonable protection to the Irish industry and, at the same time, provide a reasonable opportunity for the British industry. There is participation by the management and trade unions concerned in the adaptation council for this industry, and I am well aware of the efforts they have made. I can only assure those people who feel their interests might be affected by replacement of the quota by tariffs that I will keep very much in the forefront of my mind the necessity of preserving the employment of the 5,500 people engaged in the industry.

Deputy Dr. Browne referred to the industry in another context when he referred to the report of the CIO survey team. He mentioned that there would inevitably be some disemployment in the industry through the ordinary reduction of protection. I should like to point out that the CIO report also envisaged, as a result of the improved efficiency of the industry, that this disemployment could be more than offset by the employment likely to be gained as a result of increased export markets.

Deputy Dr. Browne seemed to advocate greater taxation of industry— that industry could afford to accept greater taxation and that that would generate more public moneys to be spent for necessary social purposes. It is true that taxation of our industries is less than the average taxation of industry throughout Europe—but it is not very much less. I doubt if in present circumstances Irish industry could suffer more taxation. Certainly, as far as attracting new industry to the country is concerned, that would be a difficult problem for us.

Deputy Dr. Browne also said it was not necessary to bring in foreign capital and technical know-how in order to expand our industrial economy. There are more reasons than attracting capital and technical know-how for the present programme of inducements for foreign industrialists coming to this country. There is the very important consideration of markets. Many of the industrialists who come here have already established markets in different parts of the world. As an industrialist said to me one time: "Any fool can make the product, but it is a different matter to sell it". That is becoming more and more difficult at present. One of the principal results of our continuing to seek industrialists from abroad is the advantage of the access to the markets which these industrialists already have.

Deputy Tully raised the question of St. Patrick's Copper Mines and what the present position is as far as the disposal of the property in Avoca is concerned. As the House is aware, following a specialist study on the mining operations in Avoca, this report was made available to interested parties. Tenders were invited from these parties. A number of offers have now been received and are at present under consideration. As soon as that consideration is complete, a decision will be made in regard to the future of the mine. I do not think the House should expect me to comment in any greater detail at present.

Deputy Tully and Deputy Kyne raised also the impact of Mín Fhéir Teoranta on the present grass meal market. Mín Fhéir Teoranta was established following the findings of a second investigating committee in 1958. The company was given a capital subscription of some £200,000. This sum was devoted entirely to capital development. There was no question of subsidising in any way the output of grass meal from this factory. The principal purpose, apart from the production of grass meal, was the rehabilitation of peatland in the West and the provision of employment in that area. Since the re-establishment of Mín Fhéir Teoranta, there have been a number of expansion developments in the private sector of grass meal production. It is very difficult to understand why these private companies now say that, because of the impact of Mín Fhéir Teoranta on the market, they have had redundancy in their own undertakings and have had to close down some of their operations.

The Mín Fhéir factory is going into production only this year. They do not intend in any way to avail of price cutting or reduced wages to get an advantage over the private operators. The prices they are quoting are the current market prices. In addition, they are seeking outlets that have not been tapped before. I received representations direct from the Irish commercial grass meal producers. They were interviewed in my Department earlier this month and advised that the best course to adopt would be to consult with Mín Fhéir Teoranta and Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, who have an interest in grass meal production, so that with the co-operative approach they could tackle the industry's problems as far as the disposal of output is concerned. Arrangements have been made for a meeting between the Irish Crop Driers Association which, I think, is the principal organisation involved, and the directors of Mín Fhéir Teoranta in the factory in Mayo. I expect arrangements will be made for them to meet the Irish Sugar Company people also.

Dr. Browne

Is the Minister implying they will come to some price fixing arrangements?

Mr. J. Lynch

There is no question of price fixing. The main purpose, as I should like to see it, of this meeting is to seek other outlets. Mín Fhéir Teoranta have found other outlets and have made contacts for the disposal of grass meal to the new sources now open to them.

Deputy Donegan referred to the Industrial Engineering Company, Limited, of Dundalk. He admitted there was a special problem there. I maintain the position I have always held in relation to that company. Certain moneys were advanced to them through the Industrial Credit Company. One main company and five separate subsidiaries were set up for the employment of several hundred men who would have lost their jobs in Dundalk were it not for the initiative taken by the Taoiseach as Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1957.

Some mistakes were made early on. It is difficult to avoid mistakes in undertakings such as this. As the House is aware, the Great Northern Works, as they then were, in Dundalk formed the main depot for servicing and replacement for the GNR system. Several hundred men were employed there, and Lord Glentoran announced in 1955 his intention to scrap a considerable part of the GNR system and to close down the Dundalk works.

Nothing was done in the intervening years to see what alternative employment could be secured or what alternative arrangements could be made in Dundalk. The closedown occurred suddenly in 1957 shortly after the change of Government and the problem was thrown into the lap of the Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hope the problems, and they are many, facing these different industries will be solved and that continued remunerative employment will be provided for the former GNR workers and those since recruited by the Dundalk company

Deputy Dillon referred to the non-availability in our pavilion at the New York World Fair of Guinness's stout and Harp lager. I do not know whether Deputy Dillon has been in a pub recently, but he would be amazed at the tremendous variety of Irish-made lagers and beers available in pubs in every part of the country. Guinness are making a special effort to promote the sale of Harp lager in the United States but it would be difficult for us to pick out any manufacturer of lager in this country and give him special facilities in the Irish pavilion.

Apart from that, the question of space enters it. When we decided to establish a pavilion in New York it was anticipated that best results would be forthcoming from a national display rather than a trade exhibit. Accordingly, our exhibition there is on the basis of a national display. This has meant that only a limited amount of space is available for such facilities as the supply of refreshments, and only on a modest scale.

As the House is aware, Irish coffee is supplied without any brand name being applied to the whiskey used. Other countries evidently considered it preferable to utilise a greater proportion of their space for trade exhibits and for the provision of a wide variety of refreshment facilities. For that reason, in a number of pavilions like the Danish one, facilities were made available for the sale of lager. If, as I said, it was decided that the national advantage would be best served by utilising the greater proportion of the space in the pavilion——

Mr. Dillon

Might I make two suggestions to the Minister? No. 1, I suggest that he reviews the position in regard to beer and lager and, No. 2, that he invite the brewers for consultation as to whether or not agreement could be arrived at on a planned exhibit of Irish lager.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is not the problem. The problem is one of space. I have consulted with those placed in charge of the pavilion, and those who have the concession for the sale of Gaelic coffee, and discovered that there were real difficulties in so far as the provision of space is concerned. The pavilion is only 12,000 square feet. It is limited to a budget of £300,000—a million dollars—provided by this House and compared with the exhibitions of other countries it is a very modest one. Accordingly, it is difficult to provide for everything people would want.

Incidentally, the exhibition has attracted quite a number of favourable as well as unfavourable comments, as I expected. I knew that certain things in the exhibition would appeal to some and not appeal to others. I have taken some trouble to check some of the favourable comments and find that in a number of international publications such as Time magazine, the Irish pavilion has been very favourably commented on. If I may quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail:

It is modern but simple; it is suggestive but civilised; it did not cost very much but that is something which is not typical of the New York World Fair.

There has been a lot of other favourable comment of that nature. If we had had more money, the situation would be different but our budget was modest and we had to cut our cloth according to our measure.

Mr. Dillon

May I take it the decision to exclude lager is not irrevocable, if ways and means can be found without spoiling the amenities?

Mr. J. Lynch

The Deputy can be assured of that. I am quite interested and I was anxious to see it provided. I thought the result might be an opportunity of making some money and advertising Irish lager.

Mr. Dillon

If an acceptable plan is submitted, will it be considered on its merits?

Mr. J. Lynch

Certainly. Now I come to the matter that seems to have hit the headlines more than any other in the course of this debate. I refer to Deputy Dillon's charges about the payment of subsidies to the Verolme Cork Dockyard Limited. Deputy Dillon referred to the subsidy arrangements for the third and fourth ships in the company's programme and he said that the third ship, the "Amstelhof", was built for the Netherlands Freight and Tanker Company with which the Verolme Cork Dockyard Company was associated. He said that shortly afterwards this ship was sold for the price of roughly £1 million and that a subsidy of £350,000 had been paid in connection with this ship. He then referred to the fourth ship being built for the Liberian National Shipping Line and went on to say that another subsidy of £350,000 was being paid in connection with that.

When a Deputy comes into this House and makes charges of a serious nature against somebody outside, whether an individual or a company, charges based on information he has not checked, or on information he knew, or ought to have known, was incorrect, such charges can only be described as irresponsible. But, when these charges are made by the Leader of the main Opposition Party, they can more properly be described as reprehensible. That Deputy Dillon was not sure of his facts emerges from his request to me, at the conclusion of his contribution, when he asked me to advance some correction of what he had said when I was replying.

In July, 1963, I introduced to the House Supplementary Estimates to defray the cost of subsidies proposed to be paid to the Verolme Cork Dockyard Limited in respect of five ships, the first five ships to be built at that dockyard. I do not propose to go again into the merits of the case for those subsidies since the House accepted the principle of the subsidy at that time. I take it that neither Deputy Dillon, nor Deputy Barrett, who also made reference to this matter—or indeed Fine Gael—is now raising the principle of the subsidies.

Mr. Dillon

We asked to have it referred back for inquiries.

Mr. J. Lynch

I said that I would not go into the merits of the subsidies, but as a result of world conditions in the shipbuilding industry, almost every country in the world, including countries with a long-established tradition of shipbuilding, like the United States, Canada, Britain, France, West Germany and Sweden, subsidies in one way or another their shipbuilding industries, in many cases to a far greater extent than we have done here in the case of the Verolme Cork Dockyard.

It must be remembered that the great majority of the 850 workers in the Verolme yard at Rushbrooke did not have the traditional skills and had to be trained. Their productivity in the early years could not be expected to match the productivity of subsidised competitors in other countries. We now have at Rushbrooke one of the most up-to-date yards in the world and a cadre of specialised workers whose productivity is fast increasing.

When introducing the motion for the subsidy on 18th June, 1963, I gave the House the pattern of payments of the subsidy which will be on a reducing scale for these five ships. The first ship was built for Irish Shipping Limited and the second for a Canadian company for use on the Great Lakes of Canada. Deputy Dillon's charges and Deputy Barrett's references today were in connection with the third and fourth ships. The third ship was built for the Netherlands Freight and Tanker Company Limited and the fourth, which is about to be launched shortly, was built for the Liberian National Shipping Line.

At columns 1390 and 1391 of the debates at that particular time, I said that the subsidy for the third, fourth and fifth ships would range from 15 per cent to ten per cent of the contract price, amounting in all to a maximum subsidy of £570,000 for these three ships. In replies to questions when winding up the debate, I repeated the rate of payment of the subsidy on these three ships. Deputy Dillon was present at the time and he knows that there could be no question of paying £700,000 for two of the ships. He knows that the total amount voted by the Dáil for the third, fourth and fifth ships could not exceed £570,000.

Deputy Barrett referred in particular to this maximum subsidy for these three ships and Deputy Dillon must have known that the maximum subsidy payable was £570,000. I therefore accuse Deputy Dillon of making these allegations recklessly and in conflict with the facts as he knew them himself.

Mr. Dillon

How much is the subsidy with regard to these three ships?

Mr. O'Malley

It is a bit late for you to ask that now. Why did you not ask it before you made that scandalous statement?

Mr. Dillon

There is nothing scandalous about it.

Mr. J. Lynch

The fact is that no subsidy has yet been paid either on the third or fourth ship. I hope Deputy Dillon will have regard to that. At this stage it would be useful if I explained that there is in existence a financial committee to handle the computation of the payment of the subsidy on these ships. That committee, which has the advice of a consulting naval architect, is well qualified to deal with the financial and constructional aspects of the building of these ships and all the necessary measures are taken to see that the ships are sold at a price in line with the level of prices of ships produced by shipbuilding yards elsewhere in the world. There can be no question that excessive subsidy payments will arise and the maximum subsidy on the third ship may not exceed 15 per cent.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about the third and fourth ships.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am talking about the third ship and the subsidy on that will not exceed 15 per cent. The maximum in connection with this ship is considerably less than the £350,000 which Deputies Dillon and Barrett stated has already been paid to the Verolme Cork Dockyard.

Mr. Dillon

A sum of £350,000 was paid on the first two.

Mr. J. Lynch

Both Deputies Barrett and Dillon said specifically that £350,000 was paid on the third ship and £350,000 would be paid on the fourth ship.

Mr. Dillon

It was paid on the first and second ship.

Mr. O'Malley

They are trying to get out of it now.

Mr. Dillon

What does the Minister propose to pay on the third ship being sold?

Mr. J. Lynch

In the first place, I did not interrupt one Deputy in the course of the debate. It is not easy to reply to a serious matter like this. I do not think any Deputy could claim that I interrupted him in the slightest.

Mr. Dillon

That is perfectly true.

Mr. J. Lynch

And I had to listen to hard things. The maximum subsidy is 15 per cent in the case of the third ship. That maximum is, as I have said, considerably less than the £350,000 Deputy Dillon says was paid. Not only that, but as a result of the increasing efficiency of the yard, the subsidy that will be payable, which is yet under consideration, will be considerably less than the maximum allowed.

My Department was well aware of the fact that the Netherlands firm, the Netherlands Freight and Tanker Company Limited and the Liberian National Shipping Line Limited have associations with the Verolme Cork Dockyard. I do not see anything sinister in a situation in which such an association would exist, especially if the facts are well known to me and to the persons who had a responsibility in connection with the subsidy arrangements. While I do not profess to be aware of the circumstances in which orders were placed, it would not be a matter for surprise if the directors of the Verolme Cork Dockyard Company were to influence its associated companies in the placing of orders for ships. Such arrangement would be of substantial benefit to the dockyard and would provide considerable local employment. This procedure is, in fact, quite common in present day shipbuilding and shipowning activities. If Mr. Verolme, as a member of a shipping company, requires a new ship, he will, of course, look for the keenest price possible at which it can be built. That was done in the case of the "Amstelhof". It was operated on charter by the owners and then an offer was made and accepted for its purchase. This was in the interests of the Cork dockyard because its effect was to make another order possible and so ensure continuity of employment in the yard.

Deputy Dillon's reckless allegation, unfortunately, received very wide publicity in our national newspapers, but, more unfortunately, it received very wide publicity in the world Press also. If the purpose of this attack was to secure narrow political Party advantage, then I think it was despicable. It is most damaging to our national industrial development programme, particularly when it took the form of ridicule with which Deputy Dillon embellished his inaccurate and unreliable case against Mr. Verolme. However, this is not untypical of the Fine Gael traditional approach to industrialisation.

Unfortunately, Deputy Barrett today made a reference that I was very disappointed to hear him make. He said in relation to the Verolme Dockyard that it was an ill-fated venture from the very beginning. I would not like to believe that that description was calculated to undermine the morale of that yard or to undermine the confidence of the customers of that yard in its viability or in the product that it can produce, but, unfortunately, that is the effect it will have.

This, of course, was typical, as I said, of much of the Fine Gael attitude to industry. In the past they opposed the development of the airport at Shannon and when they came into power in the first Coalition, they closed down the service and repair workshops, sending hundreds of skilled Irish workers to the far corners of the world to find employment wherever they could. As well as that, they sold off the transatlantic liners which, in view of the success of our transatlantic operations subsequently, obviously would have been in themselves a tremendous success at that time.

In the first Coalition period also, they prevented the expansion of our cement industry, an expansion which was authorised only when Fianna Fáil resumed office in 1951. They scrapped the grass meal development scheme in their second period of Coalition Government and that was revived when Fianna Fáil came back again after a Coalition period.

Fine Gael Deputies have opposed in one way or another the establishment of an airport in Cork, of the nitrogen factory in Arklow and of many other State-sponsored and State-assisted industries that are now giving useful employment and bid fair to become a considerable and desirable asset in the economy of our country.

One of the most recent efforts of this nature was the attack on the Potez factory in Galway, the implication, that has, unfortunately, again, received wide publicity and has been amplified by the local press, being that all is not well with that industry in Galway. I only hope that this most recent example of trying to undermine the shipbuilding activities at Rushbrooke will not damage or hinder seriously the shipyard itself or our whole industrial development programme.

Deputy Barrett suggested this morning that the subsidies are increasing instead of being reduced in the Verolme Dockyard. I am very happy to tell him that the subsidies provided for will not be used up to anything like the extent authorised by the House and that, therefore, the productivity and efficiency of the yard is increasing. I feel that the workers who are now employed in considerable hundreds at the Verolme Dockyard, which is progressively becoming more efficient and more competitive, will leave nothing undone themselves to offset the damage that has been done by this attempt to undermine the security of their employment.

It is very clear to me that this much-publicised move to the left of Fine Gael is only a facade which the reactionary elements in Fine Gael will throw aside as quickly as Fine Gael themselves threw aside the comprehensive policy hastily devised before the recent Kildare and Cork by-elections. I only hope that for the sake of the future of the workers of this country and for the sake of the expansion of industry, people with that mentality, with that record of objection to and harassing of industries, will never get the opportunity again of controlling the industrial destiny of this country.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister tell us if he can estimate what the subsidy on the ship will be?

Mr. O'Malley

Withdraw.

Mr. J. Lynch

The subsidy has not yet been fixed in this case but it will be disappointing for the Deputy, very considerably less——

Mr. Dillon

I am much obliged to the Minister for estimating my sentiments in this matter. What I want is facts and perhaps the Minister is in a position to give them. Can he give even an estimate, because presumably when the vessel was sold to a third party, the vendor had some notion of the amount of subsidy he was going to get in order to fix the price at which the vessel was sold.

Mr. J. Lynch

If the figure of £1 million which the Deputy mentioned was the sale price of this vessel, then, with the addition of the subsidy, the purchaser of the ship from the Verolme Dockyard will have lost considerably on the transaction.

Mr. Dillon

Can the Minister give us an idea?

Mr. J. Lynch

I could give a rough estimate but these matters are dealt with by a specialist committee who examine very closely all the operations of the concern, the cost of the ships in relation to the subsidy payable, and so on. I can assure the Deputy that if the subsidy reaches six figures, it is about as much as it will do.

Mr. Dillon

Approximately £100,000?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I raised during the course of the debate on the Estimate the question of the Flatley company.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be no further speeches at this stage. The Deputy may put a question.

Mr. J. Lynch

I overlooked the case made by Deputy Murphy about the Flatley company. This industry was established in west Cork with the aid of a grant of £90,000 of which Foras Tionscal approved in January, 1960. Of the grant approved, approximately £68,000 has been paid against a total expenditure of—I do not like to go into too many details—more than double that amount. The factory commenced production in 1961. After the payment of the grant and after the factory commenced production, reports indicated that the Flatley company in England were facing certain difficulties. Notwithstanding these reports and without the knowledge of any difficulties, Foras Tionscal sent an accountant, a man with specialist knowledge, to the factory in Britain to examine its accounts and to examine the product before the grant was approved. In February, 1962, the Flatley company of Salford went into liquidation and subsequent events are known to the House. The factory in Bantry has not reached anything like the employment envisaged for it but it is still in production. The company in Bantry is a separate company registered in Ireland, and it is solvent. It has difficulties, by reason of the problem in Britain, of working capital but I can assure the Deputy that Foras Tionscal is keeping a close eye on the situation.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We all know what happened. I merely asked the Minister to lend his help to keep it going or to develop it further.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Barrett made a suggestion that perhaps there was some slipshod examination of the type of person coming into this country to avail of grants. That is not so. These applications are examined very closely. I do not want to create any disillusion in Deputies' minds about the Government taking over these factories. Neither the Government nor Foras Tionscal are empowered to take over these factories. However, in so far as the Government or I or Foras Tionscal can help the maintenance of production in Bantry, everything possible will be done.

Mr. Barrett

In regard to the Verolme Dockyard, did I understand the Minister to say that the sale of the "Amstelhof", even at £1 million, plus the subsidy, would result in a loss to the Verolme company who sold it?

Mr. J. Lynch

It would, at those figures.

Mr. Barrett

Would the Minister explain why, in these circumstances, the Verolme company tore up a very valuable charter instrument which they had and which would have been of great benefit to them? The Minister should investigate that.

Mr. O'Malley

What is the next industry Fine Gael are going to stab in the back?

Mr. Ryan

Donogh O'Malley's dirt factory.

Question: "That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration", put and declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.