asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in respect of the last five years the potential employment indicated to his Department by the proposers of new industrial projects.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Potential Employment in New Industries.
31.
Excluding projects in which the capital investment is less than £10,000 in each case, the promoters of new industrial projects or extensions to existing ones, which commenced production during the period 1st January, 1961 to 31st December, 1965 indicated a total potential employment for their projects of 26,000.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what employment has actually been given?
No.
You could not?
No.
Surely it is a reasonable assumption that a check would be kept on that sort of thing?
I do not think that is done.
If a collective body obtain grants on the basis of providing 26,000 jobs, surely there is some reference to the employment actually provided?
Not at all.
It is only the potential employment.
The question asked about potential employment.
The supplementary question is as to the actual employment that has been provided.
There is no follow-up to find out how these projects turn out.
There should be.
No. This would involve investigation into the affairs of each individual industry.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not be concerned about the number employed in the new factories to which assistance has been given? The Ministers and the Taoiseach have opened factories and have told us that 100 persons would be employed initially and that the potential was 600. Surely there should be some information as to what the actual position is after one, two, three, four or five years? You do not give a damn what happens.
If the Department were running properly, it would keep an eye on these industries.
Is it a factor taken into consideration when people apply for grants and grants are made?
Of course it is.
Potential.
There is no check as to whether they live up to what they suggested it would be?
Not individually.
Question No. 32.
Surely Deputy Cluskey ought to be allowed to finish a supplementary question that he asks?
I have called Question No. 32.