Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 May 1965

Vol. 215 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 40—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £4,544,000 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1966, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála, lena n-áirítear Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, agus chun Ildeontais-i-gCabhair a íoc.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Mr. Crowley

I was appalled by the lack of knowledge on the part of various industrialists who just did not know what type of grants or training was available to them or to their staffs. If we are to equip ourselves for entrance into the EEC, one of the most important functions of Industry and Commerce is to ensure that all management has the right training. Admittedly, we have made tremendous strides in the training of management, but I am still not satisfied that our standards are high enough when compared with those of other countries. I would urge the Minister, therefore, to ensure that IMI and the other bodies concerned are staffed with the right personnel, capable of passing on their knowledge, training and experience to managements in our various industries.

There are very few people in industry or in management who know about the readaptation grants. It would be advisable, I think, for the Minister to issue a pamphlet to all these people because, when we enter the EEC, these people must be geared at that stage and not merely trying to get up to the proper standards. I know the Minister will do all in his power to ensure that proper training and facilities are available to all these people.

In conclusion, I should like to compliment the Minister on getting into such concise form all the information he gave us in his opening statement. Because of the expanding nature of the work of his Department, I know that this was no easy task.

Mr. H. Byrne

My contribution will be brief because of the very lucid and comprehensive coverage already given to the various points by Deputy O'Leary of the Labour Party. As a rural Deputy, I should like to impress upon the Minister and his Department the desirability of decentralising industry as far as possible. Agriculture, our premier industry, is no longer a labour-absorbing industry, due largely to mechanisation. I speak, in particular, for the midlands. Rural Ireland is starved so far as the provision of industries is concerned. The Minister and his Department would be well advised to keep that particular aspect of our economy in mind. There is a great deal of talk about developing industry in the west. I do not say that is not desirable, but it is equally desirable to establish industries in the midlands and in other rural areas. I could not say enough about the importance of decentralisation. In my constituency, towns like Rathdowney, Mountmellick, Mountrath and Stradbally have a look of doom about them. If rural Ireland is to be saved decentralisation of industry must take place.

Deputy Donegan referred to the desirability of some arrangement for profit-sharing by workers engaged in industry. That is certainly very desirable. We live in an age in which the worker is no longer the ignoramus he was 40 years ago. Educational facilities have changed that position to some extent and the worker now knows when he is being fooled. He can size up a situation. If he is to give his share to the national wellbeing, he will not do it until some arrangement of the kind adumbrated by Deputy Donegan is made.

To revert for a moment to decentralisation, one of the worst running sores on the body politic today is emigration. Decentralisation of industry is one way in which this drain by emigration can be arrested, controlled, and ultimately perhaps eliminated.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): There is a great deal in the Minister's brief for which we can be thankful. In general, he paints a relatively happy picture of our economy. Our exports have reached a new record figure of £222 million. We have, so to speak, for the first time in our economy broken the sound barrier of the £200 million mark. Our imports have also substantially increased. I understand the October figure of £347 million gives us a trade deficit of £125 million. It was always considered here that a trade imbalance of that magnitude, or much above £100 million, was rather getting into the red. We have, at the same time, a balance of payments deficit of £31.4 million. Were it not for various, perhaps fortuitous, circumstances, it might be worse. We happened to have a large measure of foreign investment. We had loans by Aer Lingus and the ESB during the year which brought us in some capital. Judging by our stock exchange activities, perhaps in measure due to economic conditions threatening in England, there has been a movement of capital from that direction also. There has been a considerable purchase of Irish properties, hotels, even land. These capital movements have kept our balance of payments at the figure of £31 million. In the Government's Second Programme for Economic Expansion, they are quite prepared to accept a deficit of £16 million per year. Perhaps they would call it a planned deficit. Even translating back £31 million to the 1960 financial level, we are still facing a balance of payments deficit which is too high to be comfortable.

I would emphasise that our economy is a very fragile thing. Let us take the position of the last returns for the United States. Their trading exports were greater than their imports by £1,000 million. At the same time, they ended up with a balance of payments deficit of about £1,000 million, largely due to the fact that they were financing an army overseas, that their industrialists were investing extensively in Europe, to such an extent that President de Gaulle tried to introduce some kind of squeeze on the dollar. The United States can operate on a planned deficit consistent with that kind of trading potential.

With a trade deficit of £125 million, our position is completely reversed. We cannot, without serious risk to our economy, lightly undertake a planned balance of payments deficit. Already, in the first quarter of this year, there is evidence—let us hope it will not continue—that our position may not be as happy as it was in the past year or two. For the first quarter of this year, our import excess is £43.3 million as compared with £31.9 million last year. If that is continued for the rest of 1965, we will have a very serious trade imbalance at the end of this year and one far in excess of what we have realised this year. Therefore, I would say our economy is entering a more difficult and more competitive phase than we have experienced up to date. We must not forget the fact that, as well as these capital movements, we have enjoyed over the past year or two fairly good terms of trade—terms of trade completely different from those in 1957-58 when the last inter-Party Government were in office.

I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts made by our industrialists during the past year, particularly their efforts towards increasing our exports and in the field of trade exhibitions, both on the Continent and in America. That is a forward-looking approach which, up to recent years, we in Ireland could not embark upon. I hope in the year ahead the equivalent activity will show itself among our export firms in regard to trade exhibitions and fairs all over the world and that it will help to sell our products abroad. We must remember that many of the countries in which we show our goods have a huge economy, and even a small amount of trade to them would be a very substantial help to us.

Looking at the trade figures, although the position has improved somewhat, we are trading with many countries who do not give us a £1 for £1 trading relationship. Certain countries, particularly those behind the Iron Curtain, have been prevented from conducting trade on that basis. We on this side have been advocating pressure on these trading blocs to ensure we will get a more equitable balance of trade between ourselves and them.

Again, looking at our trade figures, it is obvious agriculture is still the backbone of our economy. No matter what the Minister for Industry and Commerce may say about our expanding industrial arm, we have a long way to go before we can regard this as an industrial country. We will still be depending largely on exports, particularly of live cattle and food, to finance our industrial development here. When it comes to trade balances, there is no question which is the better type of export. When we export any agricultural product, there is very little corresponding import to balance it. Imports of a few other small items of that nature are the only outgoings we have to keep up an expanding agricultural industry. On the purely commercial side of exports, although we can expand our exports, we are always faced with the difficulty that we have to buy a correspondingly high percentage of goods.

In the Book of Estimates, I see a figure of £330,000 for the shipbuilding subsidy. This is the same as the figure for last year. I should have liked the Minister to have dealt with this item in a little more detail. Considering it is exactly the same as it was last year, the figure presents itself to me as some form of employment subsidy, rather than a commercial subsidy. Doubtless it will be £330,000 again next year. I should like the Minister to give us some information on the question of this shipbuilding subsidy. For how long will it go on? Will shipbuilding in the foreseeable future become a solvent concern, or are we to continue ad infinitum this subsidy?

I also notice a figure of £12,500 for St. Patrick's Copper Mines. I should like the Minister to give us some information on what this £12,500 is all about. I thought we had heard the last of the St. Patrick's Copper Mines, but apparently we are still paying some subvention. I should like to know more about this expenditure of £12,500.

There is an increasing subvention for industrial research which I welcome. The subvention is increased from £191,000 to £375,000. Again, I would like more details as to the nature of that expenditure. It is now of such magnitude that one would expect an annual report from that body. Maybe there is. Other research bodies who receive amounts of money of that nature usually try to produce an annual report. If a report has not already been produced by this body, I would recommend it as a suggestion to the Minister.

Another matter in which I am interested is the question of coal and anthracite. On page 66, paragraph 189, of the Progress Report on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, it is stated:

Consumption of coal in 1964 is estimated at 1,475,000 tons or about 9 per cent less than the previous year. Home production of semi-bituminous coal and anthracite was about the same as in 1963, i.e. 207,000 tons. The continued decline in the demand for coal reflects the trend towards oil, particularly in the manufacture of gas and in industry. The feasibility of using low-grade semi-bituminous Arigna coal to extend the local generating station is still under consideration.

I raise this matter because it is of concern to me in Tipperary in the Ballingarry mine, and in the neighbouring mines in Kilkenny. Indeed, the Minister for Transport and Power was asked a question today on the matter. Apparently there is increasing difficulty in disposing of the products of our mines. I think it desirable to draw the Minister's attention to it, and I presume it comes within the ambit of his Department to find if an alternative outlet can be provided for coal from those mines. It would be a serious matter if the coal were accumulated at the pitheads and there was no sale for it. There would be considerable unemployment in my own county, and in Kilkenny.

I wish to join with other speakers in giving my due meed of praise to the Committee on Industrial Organisation and the various survey teams who at relatively short notice have produced so many excellent surveys. Considering that so many of the survey teams must consist of individuals who could not perhaps be expected to have the technical background information which people in a narrow industry would have, of necessity, we must accept the fact that they produced very excellent surveys, 26 in all. I do not pretend to have read them all, and probably the Minister has not either, but those I have read were quite worthy productions.

I notice the Minister is disappointed that there have not been more applications for special grants and loans. He mentioned 450 applications and a disbursement of £254,000. That is not too bad. About a year or a year and a half ago, the position was considerably worse. I would say most of the applications must have come in the past 18 months or so. I know that in the preliminary stages when these grants were introduced, there was a considerable time-lag before any application came in at all.

We all welcome the success which the Minister intimated of the Buy Irish Campaign. I hope that when the levy is lifted, our people will have become adapted to the purchase of Irish goods, and will have got over the kind of traditional distrust of articles of Irish manufacture which has for too long handicapped industrialists in this country.

I was disappointed in the Minister's very skimpy reference to foreign associations. For the past three or four years, there has been talk of our becoming a member of the EEC; yet from the Minister's speech, we seem to be doing nothing whatsoever about membership of that Community. I cannot even gather from his speech whether we have an observer out there. We seem to be piously waiting to see if someone will ask us to come in. This is important to us because we seem to suffer from lack of membership of most international organisations. We are now applying for membership of GATT and at the moment apparently our membership is being considered. Again there was no information in the Minister's brief as to how our application for membership was progressing.

We have announced our readiness to participate in the Kennedy Round and we are all aware that the chief difficulties confronting the Kennedy Round were the tariff barriers, the non-tariff barriers and the import quotas and protection devices. They were particularly related to supporting agriculture. Agriculture was the basic difficulty in the breakdown in negotiations as regards Britain's application for membership to the EEC. It was always believed that the Kennedy Round could not come to fruition until the question of serious agreements in the EEC was arrived at. Now that has been arrived at, so the Kennedy Round does not now prevent discussion at EEC level. But, in the Minister's brief, I find little concrete information, except the mere statement that we are again interested. The truth of the matter is that we are unable to do so until Britain does so first, and, judging by recent pronouncements by the British Prime Minister, it looks as if British membership of the EEC is not a matter likely to be considered in the near future. Therefore, our prognostications for entry to the Common Market by 1970 may be extremely unreliable.

Again, the Minister made no reference to EFTA. It is another important trading bloc which by next year will have removed its internal tariff barriers. There is not one word in the Minister's speech with reference to it. Yet, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he should be very much concerned with EFTA activities and should be in a position to make some statement as to our standing vis-á-vis EFTA.

There was a recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at which there were 120 nations. This work is to be continued by a 55-member Trade Development Board appointed by that Conference. We did not hear anything from the Minister as to whether we were represented at the Conference or whether we became a member of the 55-member Trade Development Board, or whether we were merely relegated to the group of 77 undeveloped nations which were there. These are all important aspects of our industrial economy and of our agricultural economy, and I am extremely disappointed that the Minister did not make more specific reference to our position with regard to these bodies. I would, therefore, ask him to indicate whether he has more concrete information to offer than the rather nebulous chapters he incorporated in his otherwise reasonably balanced brief.

Before I sit down, I offer the Minister congratulations on appointment to his new post and I wish him many years of success.

Mr. Pattison

I want to refer very briefly to a few important aspects in this Estimate. First of all, I am glad to see the Minister will be giving effect to the pre-election promises of his predecessor to introduce a manpower authority. This is, and has been, part of the Labour Party policy for a great many years and we hope that now that a decision has been taken by the Government to introduce this authority, no time will be lost in setting up the necessary machinery. We feel it is not a day too soon; in fact, it is long overdue. Many workers throughout the length and breadth of the country have suffered severe hardships due in the main to the absence of a manpower authority. Usually when progress takes place, some lose employment and others find employment. Up to now, there has been no worthwhile effort by the Government to deal with the people who lose employment. Government speakers clap themselves on the back for the few who find employment through this progress but completely ignore and neglect the many thousands in the flourmilling and other industries who lost their employment.

One of the other points in Labour policy for the development of this country is reliance on the development of our natural resources. This is one point which got very scant attention in the Minister's speech. I say this especially in view of the fact that one of the biggest concerns using our natural resources is the coal mining industry. This directly concerns my own constituency and the neighbouring constituency, as Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary) has mentioned. It looks as if up to now the Government are not doing anything about it. In south Laois, which borders on my constituency and where a good many workers from Kilkenny are employed, three coal mines have been closed in the past few weeks. The coal mining area in Castlecomer is presently on short time, working only every second week. A large number of workers in Castlecomer have only one week's employment, followed by one week's unemployment.

We feel it is the duty of the Government to step in and help those concerned in any way possible. The same problem may not affect each of those mines but they have one problem in common, and that is large imports of foreign coal. As a result, the miners in those areas and in Ballingarry, as has been mentioned, are threatened with further unemployment. Coupled with a labour policy for the development of natural resources and their utilisation in order to give as much employment as possible, we have also stated that where private enterprise is unable to develop these resources, is unable to keep them working, then it should be the duty of the Government to step in and take them over.

There is plenty of coal in the Castlecomer colliery and there are plenty of workers but one of the biggest drawbacks there is that capital required for the further development of this mine is not available. It is too much to expect private enterprise to help out in this regard. This is a problem just like afforestation, in which you cannot get private individuals to put money into it because the return is too slow. They might not receive a return for their money until 50 or 100 years hence so in that regard it is the bounden duty of the Government to make capital available for the development of mines in such circumstances.

Private enterprise, down through the years, has given good and full employment in those mines. Now that source is completely exhausted and unless something is done by the Government hundreds, directly, and thousands, indirectly, will be unemployed. These mines pay good money to the ESB, CIE and other firms. A wide circle of concerns will be affected unless something is done very quickly.

As a result of the closure of these mines thousands of workers, who are on compensation, will also be affected because if the mines go into liquidation those people cannot be compensated. Something must be done about the importation of coal and then something must be done about providing capital to develop these mines at Castlecomer, which are mostly affected by lack of capital. It has been proved that there are extensive areas of anthracite coal still in that area if the mines can be developed and shafts sunk at the appropriate points.

The importation of coal, as I said, must be curtailed and there is no more opportune time to do it than at present, especially when, as previous speakers pointed out, we have serious balance of trade difficulties. Every little helps and this is one place where we could be of some help. The Economic Research Institute, in a recent survey, indicated that there is not likely to be much of an improvement in the import and export position in the coming year. Therefore, every effort must be made to help in this matter. I hope the Minister will take immediate action with regard to the coal mining industry in this country because once this industry collapses, once the workers are unemployed for any length of time they leave the country and are unlikely to return. Coal mining is not a job in which any worker can be trained or which any worker can do. It is a tradition which is handed down and once that tradition is broken the coal mining industry in this country will be finished for all time. Something should be done now before it is too late.

You cannot expect men to be unemployed for weeks on end and you cannot expect them to live on a wage that they can get only every second week. The workers in these concerns were very co-operative in regard to every effort made to keep the mines open. The miners in the Castlecomer Colliery went without the eighth and ninth round increases in order to help to keep these mines in production. They have played their part. Private enterprise has played its part. Labour has played its part. It is time now for the Government to step in and play their part.

I was pleased to read in the Minister's speech about the many industries which were established throughout the country both in the undeveloped and the developed areas. We have got none of these industries in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency. I should like the Minister to bear in mind that Kilkenny city has got none of these industries. I was in the labour exchange on Friday morning of last week when unemployment benefit was being paid out and the queue extended across the yard of the labour exchange and out on to the street. That is the situation despite all the talk by Government speakers during the recent election about the increase in industrial employment and the decrease in unemployment.

These industries should not be concentrated in particular areas. There should be some direction by the Government of these industries to places where they are badly needed. The flour milling industry, in particular, has closed down and two small mills in my constituency have closed down over the past few years. The Government have made no effort to provide alternative industries for the forgotten towns. The Minister should have discretion to direct industries to places which are not getting a fair crack of the whip at the moment. All areas contribute to central taxation. Therefore, all areas should be treated equally from the point of view of receiving industrial development grants. If they are treated equally in relation to taxation they should be treated equally in regard to its disbursement. I would ask the Minister to do something very quickly. He should use his good offices to avert the situation I have mentioned in the coal mining industry.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

We are very proud of the industrial arm which has been built up here since the inception of the State. I do not think this is the appropriate place to say who was mainly responsible for that. I shall not make a political speech. History will say that successive Irish Governments, in their own way and in the spirit of the times—the spirit that moves men and women—introduced the legislation and the attitude of mind which brought our industrial arm up to its present strength. Starting with projects such as the Electricity Supply Board, the sugar beet industry, and so on, and moving onwards it is the way a young country develops, gradually feeling its way towards industrial strength and self-sufficiency. In keeping with the age-long wish of Irish people, successive Irish Governments dealt with this need and, on the whole, dealt with it very well.

One of the spheres in which all countries emerging from a state of comparative lack of industrial resources suffer is industrial relations. We, here, have endeavoured to do what we can in that connection. It is a very difficult field for any Government to handle but I hope the new Minister for Industry and Commerce will handle it and persuade his Government to deal with this problem in a more forceful way than it has been dealt with in the past—and when I say "more forceful way", I mean a more co-operative way but more realistic way.

The day of bludgeoning either side in an industrial dispute has long passed away, if indeed it was ever a successful method of dealing with a dispute, which, personally, I very much doubt. Certainly, in this day and age, it can lead only to trouble and in fact no Irish Government have ever attempted that. They have veered far too much to the other extreme and have not, in industrial disputes, given the citizens generally the protection which they always feel they should get from a Government and, above all, from a native Government. Ultimately in an industrial dispute, whilst both sides suffer very much from it— the men suffer hardship and the employers suffer financial loss—it is to the benefit of nobody and, at the end of it all, the public have to pay for it in increased prices.

I hesitate to blame the Government exactly for their lack of a clear policy because it is a very difficult field. I am aware that a Government find great difficulty in coming into a dispute which involves great interests. They feel they will lose face, if they fail and they will perhaps create enemies on one side or the other, if they succeed. For that reason, it is a dangerous field for a Government and for any political Party to enter. Frankly, they are afraid of losing votes. We may as well face that: it is what every Government are afraid of At the same time, as I have said, they have a duty to protect the people from harsh demands which may come from either side in an industrial dispute. The logical way is to nip the matter in the bud, before it reaches the point at which passions are inflamed and hardship caused and money lost. That is why I should like to see the Government—I think it is their duty— in this part of the 20th century, do everything in their power to set up machinery which will help us to prevent such disputes.

I believe that some countries have, with a very considerable amount of success, brought in what, roughly, I would call delaying machinery which holds up everything for a time until both sides, with impartial observers, can have an opportunity of examining the situation. I believe a period of three months is the length of time selected in some countries in pursuance of that policy. That is probably a good enough method but, of course, there might be occasions when a three months' delay would cause hardship to persons in the trade or difficulties to firms. I want to stress that, in this day and age, there are no fierce ideologies, as I would describe them, separating the various political Parties here in Ireland or, indeed, the various employer and labour bodies. I know that in other countries there sometimes is a history of harsh treatment, of bitter relations with people outside. In Ireland we have not that situation within the memory of most adults.

Therefore, we should find it fairly easy to set up that machinery. I do not see why, with our considerable skill in what I would call mental speculation, in devising ways and means of approaching these matters, we should not be able to do that. We could, if we set ourselves to it, give a lead to other countries in industrial relations. The Government should set that model, that ideal before them— that every strike or lockout that takes place is a sad reflection on the wisdom of the three parties involved, the labour, the employers and the Government.

I should like to see the Minister and his Department giving a great lot of thought to that question. The day has come when, from the point of view of our industries, disputes are things which can do the general body of our citizens a great deal of harm unless they are dealt with firmly. Part of this treatment is the setting up of consultations—a commission might take too long—between the labour interests and the employer interests who should really get down to working out effective agreements instead of resorting to the big stick which, as I said at the beginning, is absurd.

We should be able to do a great deal more in that respect than we have ever done before. I can speak with some knowledge of a dispute which took place last year in the building industry and which went on for more than three months. It was a dispute in which, I am happy to say, there was not the slightest bitterness on either side. Yet it proved impossible to settle inside three months. Great hardship was caused all round—to the men, to the country and to the trade.

That dispute, as others, had its origin in the unfortunate mixing of politics and economics, always a dangerous thing. It is necessary for a Government to keep their eyes very closely on the economic side of legislation and, naturally, on the economy of the country as a whole, but it becomes very dangerous when, for political advantage, a Government meddles in economics. It can upset, and does so frequently, the whole structure of industrial relations and wages. That was one of the difficulties involved in the 12 per cent increase. The 12 per cent increase may or may not have been necessary but certainly its impact, on top of the 2½ per cent turnover tax, disrupted our whole economy and started an inflationary trend that inevitably led to industrial disputes.

I had not intended making a political speech out of this—it is a subject far too serious for any political advantage to be sought from it—but what I call meddling Government action in this field—meddling with economic forces for political advantage —can create and has created, undoubtedly, great hardship for citizens. Indeed, it never results in the political advantage the authors of that type of Government action hope to achieve.

That is a further reason why both employers and labour should welcome the setting-up of an authority with powers to take those matters out of the hands of any Government or any individual in a Government who felt he would be free to indulge in action which might be in the long run very irresponsible in its effect. Therefore, I ask the new Minister to give this his most earnest consideration. I am sure I speak for the whole Fine Gael Party when I say that this is of enormous importance in Ireland.

We have an industrial arm. I shall not go into all the details of all the types of industrial incentives which are being offered. Other speakers referred to Córas Tráchtála and other bodies set up to encourage exports and the establishment of industries generally. That side of our industrial effort is going well, but in common with all countries—we are not the only country suffering from growing pains in industrial relations—we need a very clear policy and a very firm lead from our Government. I say "our Government" because although I speak from the Opposition benches, we are all at one in a matter like this. We all want industrial peace. We know what the disruptions cost and Fine Gael do want to help to ensure that these industries, which are so necessary for us in the maintenance of our standard of living, should, by Governmental action, be enabled to run smoothly in this matter of industrial relations which lies in our own hands. We do not have to buy any ideas; we do not have to pay anything for ideas in that respect; and if we can cut out the vast majority of these disputes, we can increase our economic output and our export policy enormously. I hope the new Minister, with the great goodwill he has, will assiduously apply himself to this matter, which, mind you, is an extremely difficult problem but is very important for the country.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Cluskey

There is only one aspect of the Minister's speech on which I should like to comment, that is, his statement that expenditure on the World Fair will be reduced by some £58,000. I had the pleasure last summer of visiting the World Fair but unfortunately the pleasure was somewhat lessened by a visit to the Irish Pavilion. In my opinion, the outside of the pavilion was anything but representative of the country. One could only describe the outside appearance as something like an adobe hut. I am not sure whether the Minister has had occasion to visit the Pavilion, but if he had, I do not think he would disagree with that description. The inside of the Pavilion in some respects was well in keeping with the best in our country. Unfortunately, however, a commercial concern had been allowed to use the grounds immediately outside the Pavilion to sell Gaelic Coffee and even by American standards the price of the Gaelic Coffee was undoubtedly exorbitant. I would suggest to the Minister that it would be in the interests of the country if he looked into this matter before the Fair re-opens.

Mr. Clinton

The establishment and expansion of industry generally is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and of the various bodies which have been set up for the expansion of industry, but in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, where we have unemployment constantly at a figure of about 50,000 and emigration running at about 25,000 annually, all of us have a duty to assist wherever we can in establishing new industries and expanding existing industries.

I am concerned mainly with the difficulties confronting people who come here with the intention of establishing an industry. We have a number of bodies involved in this process and I have often wondered why it was necessary to have so many separate bodies with separate identities, instead of having one or two bodies entirely responsible. For instance, we have the Industrial Development Authority and Foras Tionscal. The Industrial Development Authority process whatever proposals are brought before them and when they have gone through them for some considerable time, they hand on their findings and recommendations to Foras Tionscal. Foras Tionscal then proceed either to accept or reject or amend the proposals. It would appear to be much more sensible if there were only one body instead of two. Then we have Córas Tráchtála and the Industrial Credit Company. The Industrial Credit company should be part of that one organisation, as should Córas Tráchtála which is the body whose officers go to various countries and carry out the necessary promotional work.

I say that this creates a difficulty especially for people coming from abroad because they fail to understand why it should be necessary to make separate contact with these various bodies and to have to try to solve their difficulties through so many bodies. The feeling I have encountered among these people is that they expect to be able to walk into one office and put their proposals before the people there and that a solution will be found for their difficulties. That, however, is not the case, as we know only too well. While recommending that we reduce the number of bodies that appear to be doing part of the same job, I would suggest, as I have always suggested, that it is quite wrong that local authorities are not brought into the picture much more. Local authorities have an important part to play in establishing new industry, in providing sites and services and supplying a proposer with all the necessary information before he can proceed to establish an industry.

I should like to refer specifically to an industry to which I referred recently. It is an industry in which the State has a very heavy investment and it is surprising to me that no great concern has been shown that this factory, which has been built for some time, is obviously in serious difficulties at present, that it is employing a very small number of people when the employment content at a later date is expected to be somewhere in the region of 1,500 or 2,000 people. These difficulties are there but they could be solved if there was a follow-up and if sufficient interest were shown. I am referring to Potez Aerospace, the aeroplane factory at Baldonnel. I cannot understand how the type of difficulty in which they are at the moment arises at this stage. I was never quite certain whether an application was made to Dublin County Council in the normal way, to the town planning section, for permission to build because if it were the difficulties which now exist would then have arisen, as it is normal practice to consider all the services required by the industry and all the difficulties that may be involved before town planning permission is given.

Here we have the case of an industry that has to get rid of industrial waste and the local authorities say: "No matter what you do with that waste, we are not prepared to agree that it should go into the local stream." On the other hand, the Potez people say they can render this waste quite harmless by the process they propose to use and it could, in that way, go into the stream without causing any trouble. But no great interest on the part of anybody associated or concerned with the establishment and promotion of industry has been shown in the fortunes of an industry in which the State has so heavily invested. Not only is that so in the case of Potez, where the difficulties are simple enough and should be solved as a matter of urgency, but it is also the case in many other State-assisted industries.

I have been told today that Potez in Galway was originally expected to employ 700 people and that it is, in fact, employing 150 and that this has been going on for some time. We are not supplied with sufficient information about industries that have been State-aided, let us say, in the past five years. What has happened? Have they lived up to their promises? Have they done better or have they fallen down on their original target? I recommend that there should be a follow-up and that the difficulties which industry will inevitably meet should be solved as they can be solved, and employment continued as it should be continued.

Personally, I was disappointed that the Minister's statement in introducing the Estimate did not contain a more dynamic approach to the whole problem of establishing and promoting industrial employment generally. In the past two years about 5,500 additional jobs have been provided and I think there is no increase or if so, it is an increase of 100 or so extra jobs this year over the previous year, and the additional amount of money provided for industry and commerce in the present year is very small when we consider what is required. When we have regard to the rate of emigration, the present unemployment position and the fact that so many people are leaving agriculture we see that they must be accommodated somewhere if they are not to join those who are at present unemployed or those who have emigrated. We also know that increasing efficiency and greater mechanisation lead to further redundancy and that if there is not much greater effort in the near future to establish new industry and expand existing industry we shall have a serious unemployment position.

The services other than industry apparently have been disappointing inasmuch as they have not found the number of employment opportunities that was expected of them. Not only am I disappointed at the small number of extra jobs provided in an industry which seems to be the only possibility of absorbing people from the various other sources, but this booklet which we got this morning from the National Industrial and Economic Council carries the comment on page 5:

We recommend that greater efforts should be made to achieve a faster, sustainable increase in employment.

They, with their knowledge and their analysis of the economy generally and of its citizens, apparently are satisfied that we could, with greater effort, provide much more employment opportunities for our people. They go on to recommend various ways in which this could be done. There is no mention in the Minister's statement that he intends to adopt that recommendation and he seems to be satisfied with the rate of progress generally. I am disappointed that is so because I believe there is a considerable opportunity in this field to do much more about the establishment of industry and the expansion of existing industry.

We have been told that Córas Tráchtála have gone out to various countries to do promotional work but we have no information as to the response from these countries nor do we know where they have succeeded. I think the members of the House would be interested to hear something about the industries that have been established by outsiders and the countries from which they come, in a general way. I spoke about the lack of information generally about State-aided industries. Last year there was a reference in the debate on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce to the Avoca copper mines and there was a figure included for caretaking. We did not hear anything at all this year. What has happened in Avoca? Is that a continuing liability? Has it been closed down altogether? The House would be interested to hear about these things.

We heard a brief reference to Min-Fhéir Teoranta and the quality of the grass produced on the bogs. Could the Minister tell us anything about the economics of this project up to date: what sales have been made and what profits, if any, are likely to accrue from this industry? We should hear more about industry generally because it would give us an opportunity of deciding what was worth assisting in future and, where it was inevitable that assisted industries would fail in the future, to make preparations to replace them with something likely to endure.

Deputy M.E. Dockrell discussed at considerable length the importance of good industrial relations and the avoidance of strikes. During the year we had at least one serious strike which caused a lot of trouble. I think we can never fully measure or calculate the full effects of a strike of that kind, because many of our skilled workers leave as a result and many of them never return, and in the particular industry we badly need more skilled people. He has emphasised the importance of using all the machinery available so that strikes may be avoided and sensible decisions can be arrived at in time. It is far more important to prevent strikes than to allow them to occur and to continue for a time and then find a way of settling them. We always appear to be able to find a way afterwards.

I know this is not an easy matter, that it is a source of trouble in many countries but in a small country like this, where we are endeavouring to build up and expand our industry there should be greater understanding on all sides of the importance of avoiding stoppages at any price.

The Minister will appreciate the importance of having people with special skills and technical people of all descriptions. From his experience in the Department of Education he knows what a wonderful part is being played by the Vocational Education Committees and the various technical schools throughout the country. As soon as an industry is established and before it finds itself in difficulty regarding the supply of skilled workers the nearest vocational school should be equipped to meet the needs of that industry. It is quite possible, and it has been done in some cases, for skilled technicians in the industry to conduct night classes in the special skills and techniques that would be required in that local industry.

There are a few cases already in County Dublin where this must be done if the industries are to get locally the supply of skilled operatives that they will inevitably require but I must say that it has been my experience always in the past that the Department of Education were very willing to meet this need and have, indeed, met it quite adequately. The only thing that arises is the delay in providing accommodation. The need should be anticipated and all the necessary arrangements made before trouble arises

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Ryan

Some time ago I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce the fact that public money had been allocated to a firm which was using this money for the publication of obscene literature for consumption abroad and at the time the Minister took umbrage at my statement. As is usual whenever something responsible is said from this side of the House, accusations of irresponsibility were thrown out. In order to put the matter beyond any doubt whatsoever a sample of the production of this firm was referred to the Censorship of Publications Board and this Board has since condemned the book as being unfit on the grounds of obscenity.

It is the height of hypocrisy for this State of ours to prohibit the circulation of obscene literature here and at the same time as this Oireachtas does that it, by its agent, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, allows something like £¼ million, I am led to understand, to be paid to a firm for the circulation of obscene literature abroad when that kind of literature is prohibited from circulation here. It seems entirely wrong and not the kind of thing that is going to bring a blessing on this country or on our efforts here to be spending money for the production and the consumption of sin abroad and any kind of wealth which may seem to flow from that kind of thing is not to be encouraged.

I refer, of course, to a book called Budd Wing. There may, for all I know, be other products of this firm which have been sent abroad but which have not been brought to my notice or to the notice of anybody else but the particular book was banned by the Censorship of Publications Board in March this year and as a result of the prohibition in question the book may not be circulated here. I am aware, of course, of the fact that when the money was allocated to the firm in question by Foras Tionscal it was a condition of the granting of the money that the products of the firm be sold abroad but I do not think it entirely removes blame from us to say that its products are not for consumption or circulation here. It is equally wrong to be spreading that kind of thing throughout the world and it is the height of hypocrisy for a country such as ours which has censorship laws for its own people to be distributing abroad literature which it is forbidden to circulate here.

One of the interesting things which have developed from this controversy is the fact that Foras Tionscal takes a considerable time before it advises members of the public here, including members of this House, as to the amount of money it has, in fact, allocated to any particular firm. I have been endeavouring for over six months now to find out how much money was allocated by Foras Tionscal to Graphic Film Limited. One might think it was a matter upon which the public had a right to be informed as public money was involved but Foras Tionscal has refused again and again to give this information. When, after prolonged correspondence they stated the reason for refusal, they said it was paragraph 4 of the First Schedule of the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952. This section provides that a member of the Board of Foras Tionscal shall not disclose any information obtained by him in the performance of his functions as to the private affairs of any person or business, except in the course of a report to the Minister.

It seems to me to be extending the scope of that section too far to say that the amount of money allocated by Foras Tionscal to a concern is the private affair of that person or business. It is a wholly unacceptable proposition to make to this House and I am quite certain that if Oireachtas Éireann were aware at the time of the introduction of that legislation that it was to be used to deny to members of the public information as to the amount of money allocated by Foras Tionscal to particular bodies, the section would never have been passed or certainly it would have been passed in the face of extremely strong opposition.

I was not seeking, and I am sure other responsible people would not seek, detailed information about the private affairs of the person or business in question but the amount of public money allocated to it is not the private affairs of any particular business. We have been told by the Minister in reply to a Dáil question which I asked in February that he was not concerned about the basis for the refusal by Foras Tionscal to give the information. He simply stated he was in full agreement with the preservation of confidentiality in relation to proposals for the establishment and the development of industry.

One can understand a certain reluctance on the part of the Minister of Foras Tionscal to release, in advance of the establishment of an industry, information about it, because it would give to potential rivals an advantage to which they are not entitled. If somebody has the initiative to apply for a grant and to put up a proposal, it should be like a trade mark—it ought to be protected—but once approval in principle is given to the allocation of money, once the decision is taken to allocate a sum of money to a business, from that time on there is no justification whatsoever for the preservation of secrecy in relation to the proposal.

All we know at the moment is the rumours which were circulating and which were recorded in the newspapers at the time that a Canadian millionaire, the greatest newspaper proprietor in the world, was coming over here and was having discussions with the Department of Industry and Commerce, Foras Tionscal, Córas Tráchtála and all the various other authorities. There were rumours that £250,000 was to be allocated to the setting up of a film typesetting industry. Beyond that we know nothing definite except that in the last published report of Foras Tionscal to 31st March, 1964, there is an indication that money would be allocated towards a typesetting industry but it is the practice of Foras Tionscal not to disclose the names of any proposers at that stage. We know now that another report has been made out or is due in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1965. That date is now long since past and we are still left in ignorance as to whether or not some money has already been allocated and, if so, how much.

When I raised the matter in the House in February, the Minister indicated that he would get the report shortly after 31st March but he was not going to make it available to the House until June and that he would not disclose any information which that report contained until such time as he made the report available to the House. Again this seems to be without justification. The section upon which Foras Tionscal rely prohibits the publication of information in advance of the report being given to the Minister. If the Minister already has the report, then any information which is responsibly sought should be given. The people are entitled to know how much public money has already been spent for the subsidisation of an industry which is at public expense publishing pornography for consumption abroad. This is not a question of setting oneself up as a moralist. It is simply a question of calling for an end to hypocrisy and I do believe the Minister himself sees how hypocritical it is to be spending public money for this immoral purpose when we are trying to preserve our people from this kind of damage.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Ryan

The next question to which I wish to turn is the Fair Trade Commission. We were led to believe by the publicity attending its birth and by a considerable amount of activity on its part during its infancy that the Fair Trade Commission was going to work hard and see to it there were no unfair trade practices. We have considerable reason to be upset by recent tendencies toward mono-polisation in various fields of industry and commerce here. There is considerable danger in monopoly. One appreciates the justification for what is called rationalisation, for modernisation and for unification of some sectors of industry and commerce but it is an undesirable trend to allow the supply of raw materials for particular industries to be channelled into the one ownership.

This is a trend which the Minister and the Government are apparently not over-concerned about. I do not wish to discuss the merits or demerits of particular industries but we are not unmindful of the fact that recently people involved in the hosiery and knitwear industries complained that one of their most wealthy rivals in that industry were about to acquire the ownership of a firm which was one of the principal suppliers of that industry. Although the Minister, in reply to a Dáil question of mine last week, stated that he had received assurances from the purchasers that they would give scrupulous consideration to existing customers of the business about to be acquired, there is the danger that they will not, and if they do not, there is very little the Minister or the Fair Trade Commission can do about it. Certainly the Fair Trade Commission in recent times has been so inactive that we have good reason to fear the worst would have happened before any remedial action would be taken.

I would, therefore, urge on the Minister that he should endeavour to have a more active Fair Trade Commission to watch over these trends towards monopoly and, if necessary, set out a certain code of conduct in relation to monopolies, making sure at all times that this particular code is adhered to as, otherwise, grave damage will be done and there will be little use in locking the stable door when the horse has gone.

The Holiday Employees Act, 1961, prescribes certain minimum annual holidays to be given to all employees. There are unfortunately many people employed by insurance companies who are not yet receiving either holidays or pay in lieu. The Minister and his Department are much too slow in taking action in relation to this matter. When it was first brought to the Minister's attention that insurance companies were not giving these holidays, the view of the Department was that they were not, perhaps, obliged under the Act to do so because the Act provided for holidays in relation to employment contracts for services. It was the contention of the insurance companies involved that agents who collect insurance premiums are employed under contracts for services.

Most people deprived of their annual holidays are agents for industrial policies, the small 3d., 6d. or 1/- per week policies. It is an extraordinary thing that we should have this unsatisfactory position still obtaining. Several hundred agents are not permitted to take annual holidays without suffering serious personal loss to themselves. Nearly two years ago, the Minister made regulations to bring these agents within the scope of the Act and there is provision now directly for contracts for services and a regulation to provide for contracts for services. Notwithstanding that these men are covered by both of these provisions, they are not getting the holidays to which they are entitled.

On the last occasion on which I raised the matter I was told it was under consideration. It is an outrageous position that the Department will not take strong action, and that means prosecution, against those who deny workers in this day and age the legitimate holidays Oireachtas Éireann has prescribed for them. I hope the Minister will take steps in the very near future to see to it that these men are given their holidays and are compensated in respect of the holidays they did not get since 1961. The Minister has power to do that. He can certainly invoke the aid of the courts. At the same time, these people must be compensated and given pay in lieu of the holidays so far denied to them.

When the "Buy Irish" campaign began last year, we had a burst of labelling products with little gummed labels stating "Made in Ireland". When some of these labels were torn off, underneath was found "Made in England" or elsewhere. I had the experience of conveying the complaints made to me by constituents to those who were selling these goods and I was agreeably surprised to learn that it was not, in fact, a case of deliberate deception. The goods had been made in Ireland but on machines or moulds which had been used in England and were, because of some change in manufacturing processes there, exported here. It is highly desirable that there should be some definite mark on goods indicating that they have, in fact, been made in Ireland. Ignorance of the position may lead to a considerable amount of cynicism on the part of the purchasing public.

It must be remembered, too, that the present situation could lead to dishonesty on the part of some sellers. I do not know what the remedy is but it may be possible to have some kind of accepted mark affixed on such goods. I quite appreciate that the cost of new moulds might be considerable and one does not wish to add unnecessarily to the cost of the finished product, but I hope the Department will take some steps to ensure there is some way of recognising whether goods are made in Ireland or elsewhere. There should be some more permanent way than just a gummed label, which can so easily fall off the legitimate goods or be so easily affixed to goods which were never, in fact, made in Ireland at all.

There were many reasons why we had a general election when we did, but the ink on the returns from the returning officers was scarcely dry before we discovered one of the most cogent reasons, the increase in the price of bread, the staple diet of our people. When I raised the matter last week we were told by the Minister that the question of increasing the price of bread was under review. It would be very interesting to know when the Minister received the report recommending an increase in the price of bread. Considering it takes the Department anything up to three months, as a rule, to announce any information which comes to it, it is clear that the recommendation which made him increase the price of bread was received by him prior to the election. It might have been more honest to have informed the public of this increase before the election. Mark you, we were informed that we would not have any increased taxation. Some people are fortunate enough not to have to pay taxes but everyone has to eat bread. An announcement prior to the election might have been an important factor in determinng the way in which people would vote, had they known there would be an increase in the price of bread. It was a shabby trick by the Minister and his colleagues not to disclose that the staple diet of the people would be increased in price immediately after the election.

Prices are something from which the Fianna Fáil Party have been running away for a considerable time. They seem to be afraid to consider the part which prices play in the economy. We had the fantastic statement made by the Taoiseach, who regards himself as a modern economist, during the course of the election campaign that he did not know what a prices and incomes policy was. A man who declares in 1965 that he does not know what an incomes and prices policy is shows himself completely unsuited for the office of Taoiseach. This is a fundamental in every economy. It is recognised by an increasing number of people. We hope to educate the Fianna Fáil Party on the necessity for a proper prices and incomes policy.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.