Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 5

Industrial Grants (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): This Bill proposes to increase the amount available for grants from £30 million to £40 million and, as Deputy Donegan and other speakers on behalf of this Party have already said, we are in full agreement with the increase and with the encouragement of the industrialisation of the country. As has already been said by Deputy Donegan, it was, in fact, in the year 1956 that the parent Act was introduced, which is evidence of the fact that in that year the inter-Party Government were in full agreement with the promotion of industries in the country.

It is necessary to make that perfectly clear because I have a suggestion and a complaint to make about the allocation of moneys for industrial purposes. For example, I believe that grants should be earmarked for certain parts of the country and that those wishing to set up an industry should be told that a grant of x pounds or x hundreds of thousands of pounds is available for an industry in a given area where the manpower and unemployment in the area justify it. In the past there has not been sufficient persuasion or encouragement exercised on these industrialists to establish industries where they are needed. That does not mean to say I am in favour of establishing an industry in an entirely unsuitable place, or that I am in favour of browbeating people into setting up an industry in a location where it would not be likely to succeed. But I think it should be within the competence of the Minister and his advisers to investigate and ascertain what particular type of industry is suitable for a particular area. Having done that, the grant should be made available in that area and in that area only until the need is met. In this way we would preserve a reasonable distribution of the population throughout the country. It would prevent the flight from rural districts and the creation of a monster like Dublin city. If that had been done over the years, I do not think we would now be wasting the time of this House discussing the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill which has become necessary because the people have been driven out of rural Ireland and the provincial towns into the large cities.

The only other point I want to make is this: when the Government provide, through the Industrial Development Authority and the Grants Board, a substantial sum of money for the provision of a factory or an industry, the Minister, through his agencies, should see to it that the money is wisely spent and is not wasted. Again, that does not mean I am of the opinion that the Minister should be able to guarantee in advance that there will be no failures and that every industry will succeed. I do not expect such an unreasonably high standard. I find in my own town of Cavan that the Grants Board have provided something in the neighbourhood of £200,000—certainly nearer £200,000 than £100,000—for the establishment of an industry which never got off the ground. I am not slandering the industry or doing it any harm. It is not a case of an industry that may make good if it gets a chance. This is an industry that was opened within the past two years. It never employed 50 people. When I last checked, the number employed was 11.

I say there is something wrong there. A proper investigation must not have been made into the chances of success of this factory. Indeed any sort of examination at all must have proved that it was unlikely to succeed. The operation entailed the import of a partly processed piece of machinery. Some further work was done on it in Cavan and it was exported again. At any rate, I am not a technical expert in these matters. It is not for me to go into the reasons why this industry never got off the ground. Suffice it to say that something in the neighbourhood of £200,000—as I said, nearer £200,000 than £100,000—of State money was invested in this concern and it has never given any worthwhile employment.

Not alone is that a waste of public money but it is bad for the industrial morale of my constituency. It shakes the confidence of the citizens, and of the general taxpayer in particular, in this type of project. I believe that some years ago it would have been possible without any trouble to raise in Cavan town a very considerable amount of private capital to set up an industry there. But I believe that as a result of this effort it would just be impossible to interest the people in investing money in a local industry for the promotion of employment and production. This factory, built largely, I understand, out of public funds, is now a white elephant. I do not know whether the Government have any control over it, whether the fact they have put this large amount of money into it gives them the right to see to it that it is used for productive purposes and that it gives employment. If the Government have not that right, they should take that right.

Mr. Donegan

They have not got it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not think it is any interference with private rights for the Government to say: “If we are giving you £150,000, we are giving it to you on the understanding that you will go into production in a certain area and give employment, and worthwhile employment, and if it turns out that you never get off the ground”—as happened here—“and you do not give employment, then we reserve the right to make the factory and the works available to another undertaking which will go into production and provide employment.”

I think it would not be unreasonable for the Government, the Department and the Minister to compensate the proprietors of the undertaking which failed for properly vouched expenditure — and I say properly vouched expenditure—out of their own pockets. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition. At the moment it seems to be a dog in the manger operation. The people who are in possession of this white elephant are not giving any worthwhile employment. Apparently they are not prepared to get out and make way for others who might be prepared to do what they set out to do and failed. I put it to the House that that is not an unreasonable suggestion.

I am told that the Minister and his Department have certain rights in respect of factories built out of public funds, but that these rights expire after a number of years. Is the position then that a factory built largely out of public moneys for the purpose of providing employment and which fails to provide any employment, is to be passed into private hands after a short time to be used for any purpose whatever? If that is the position, I think it is an undesirable state of affairs.

I wish to emphasise that all I am asking is that where large sums of public moneys are invested in an undertaking, there should be a duty on the Minister to see to it that that money is wisely spent, in a productive manner, and that it provides employment. I cannot see anything more damaging to the industrial morale of any district than to have an announcement made that a factory is to be established, to raise the hopes of the parents and the young people in the locality that employment will be provided for them at home, to have a grand opening of such an undertaking with ministerial pomp and much publicity, and then for the people of that locality to find that the whole thing was a nasty dream, to find the building literally becoming a derelict site.

I am against that. I do not care who is in favour of it. I do not expect miracles. I do not even expect the Minister to guarantee that there will be no failures. I know there must be an occasional failure but at least I would expect that the undertaking would get off the ground, and that at the time when the money was put into it, the building built, and the place opened, there would be a reasonable chance that it would succeed and operate for a reasonable time. This never happened here and that is what I am against. I would ask the Minister to make a statement on this kind of thing, to tell the House whether these grants are given without any undertaking being given, and if an undertaking is given, what is the nature of it, and to tell the House whether these grants are given without any rights in favour of the Department to see that the money is wisely spent and properly utilised.

I want to ask the Minister whether he accepts my suggestion that there should be attached to the giving of these grants an obligation that the money must be properly used and put into productive employment. I am putting it to the House as a reasonable suggestion that where an undertaking of this nature fails, the Minister should be at liberty to make it available to some other undertaking prepared to provide employment, always compensating the proprietors for properly vouched expenditure. If there are any repetitions of this nature in the locality from which I come, it will certainly be very bad for the industrial morale of the area. Not only has there been the one to which I have referred, but there has been another, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, not in my constituency but only 20 miles away. I am glad to have had this opportunity to ventilate the grievance which I personally have and which my immediate constituents have in this connection.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Within the terms and limitations of present Government policy in the matter of industrialisation, we must, of course, support this consolidation measure. All of us must accept the fact that since this part of the country got some measure of independence, the major failure of all Governments has been a failure to provide adequate employment for our people. That statement has been made time and time again, but it needs to be accepted on all sides that this is our major failure. To some extent, we have been the victims of our own propaganda. In considering the little advances we have made, with now and again one opening of one factory giving employment to 150 people, we must consider the fantastic demand there is for jobs, and must consider that against the puny size of our achievement in the creation of jobs since 1926. Over that period 2,000 per year is the average. If this country were run from some other part of the globe, it is doubtful that they would not have done better than 2,000 a year, which cannot be described as progress.

We appear to jog along with some of the progress of the 20th century but one looks in vain for any improvement which one could say arose from the conscious policy of an Irish Government to make real inroads on the massive problem of unemployment. Whole stretches of the country are given over to desolation. Recently I was coming from a Congress of Trade Unions in Killarney and I had occasion to go through a constituency whose only notable point is that it returns strong Fianna Fáil members to the House. I looked for some traces of concern by those members for that constituency. There was rush grass everywhere. In the main town of Abbeyfeale, the only thing I saw—there were no factories, no industries, just a few public houses and a few shops with elderly people and children—was an advertisement in a store advising people where to go to the emigrants' bureau in England. This could be repeated over many western and south-western constituencies.

If our policy depends, as the policies of this Government depend in large degree, on acceptance in full of a private enterprise philosophy, if one accepts its limitations and conducts one's policy of expansion of employment within these limitations, then the achievements of the Stormont régime, with a similar philosophy, are substantially greater in the matter of attraction of employment from outside in recent years. The Northern Ireland Government have beaten us flat in the kind of industrial development they have got. Where we can attract factory employment for 50 men or women they opened up factories which will employ 2,000 people. Our local papers, the local cumanns, and so on, herald the news when we get one small branch factory open. In Northern Ireland, basing most of their expansion on this kind of policy, they have done far better. In this part of the country, we are the victims of our own propaganda. What the Sunday Press tells us has been achieved in industry, the promises of employment, and so on, we are apt to believe.

In this matter of aid to and adaptation of industry, to some extent I think, within the limitations I have referred to, our role, if we cannot convert the Government on major issues, is to study improvements on the methods they are at present using which we do not believe give us the answer to the huge unemployment problem facing us. We are too prone to think that this help to industry must be vested purely in machinery and plant. We do not understand fully, I think, the crucial importance of the various people operating these industries. It is crucially important that management make correct decisions. It is crucially important in the area of training, to have the right technicians. It is crucially important to understand that many of the mistakes in industry have been caused by the complete omnipotence of the office. The office says "This shall be done" without any real understanding or consultation with the people in charge of production in the different elements, the foreman and so on. This is reflected elsewhere in our society.

We have this complete adulation of the white-collar authority that is vested in the power of ownership of a company. There is too little regard for the practical man on the shop floor, for the technician in our industry. Our wage structure leans to the administrative side. The attitude is that the administrative grades must get the major award without recognising that the technological side of our industry should get the real rewards. There are fitters much more important than managing directors.

We realise that our economic future will be dominated by exports. Most of our optimism stems from imagining that we shall preserve our export market. A lot of the export achievement of Irish industry exists—this is not merely my statement; Challenge, the recent booklet of the Federation of Irish Industries recently brought out this point—and can continue only with the aid of the present kinds of tax incentives we give them. Without such assistance they are not an economic proposition. Many firms that export depend for their profit on the home market. As a result of the recent Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, the home market can no longer be secure in the near future.

The Taoiseach, probably in Killarney, made the disturbing statement that, by 1971, one-third of our home market would be gone. That means that 50,000 jobs would be gone and there is also the problem to be kept in mind of the attraction of industrialists from abroad. It is vitally important that our industrial arm be strengthened but, in our Party, we do not have any great faith that present Government policies for expansion will have any marked effect in the future. This is not pessimism. Considering our attempts at industrial expansion in the past, relving on classical private enterprise principles which have not done this country much good in the expansion of industry and which have not cut any ice in regard to unemployment figures, we do not see that present Government policies can help to any significant degree.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a certain statement. We shall go farther and say we think that, where taxpayers' money is involved in a private firm, most certainly there must be a sharing of decisions between the State and that firm. It is too rich altogether to see taxpayers' money taken and passed into the hands of private shareholders in a company and, from that point on, to lose track of the exact effects and results of this money. Ways must be explored to ensure that there is a share in decision-making from the point where the firm takes taxpayers' money. This is pretty fair.

If I am hard up for cash to extend my firm and if the State gives it, then, from then on, the State must have a share in the decisions.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

The Deputy is forgetting that another criterion is whether or not it will work. It is no use saying "Is it fair?", "Will it work?"——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Fianna Fáil have been in office for 40 years and I must say that their rate of 2,000 new jobs a year is as pessimistic a picture——

Mr. Colley

The Deputy goes back far. Why does the Deputy not go back to 1961?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Fianna Fáil average in the provision of new jobs per year is nowhere near what is necessary and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Colley

Last year 14,000; in the previous five years, 12,000.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Does the Minister maintain that 14,000 new jobs were created last year?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is not so. The Minister can look up his brief before he replies to the debate.

Mr. Colley

I have it here.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is the Minister saying that 14,000 new jobs were created last year in the economy?

Mr. Colley

Yes; I am talking of new jobs.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Taken against the background of a drop in agriculture——

Mr. Colley

It was in 1966.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am talking about the fact that the Minister's Government were in office——

Mr. Colley

From 1961 to 1966, there was an average of 12,000 new jobs.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Over the period the Minister's Government were in office, the number of new jobs was nowhere near the figure required. We require 15,000 new jobs just to keep our heads above water.

Mr. Colley

Agreed.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am saying that Fianna Fáil policies as operated at present, do not work. However, Fianna Fáil may continue with their expensive policies. That is their business—so long as they are in Government. So long as Fianna Fáil are left there, they are entitled to make their mistakes on behalf of the people. Our function is, to the best of our ability, to refer to those mistakes. When cash goes into the hands of an industrialist from abroad for the purpose of setting up a business here, is sufficient check made that the money is used for the purposes for which it was requested? I am aware of the position in which many industrialists coming in from abroad to set up industries suddenly spread into the hotel business. We have found that one industrialist who came in here to manufacture a particular product, suddenly, a year or two later, began to carve out a whole section of the hotel industry.

We understand that industrialists come from abroad to make money here, and if they bring something we lack as well as give employment, that is acceptable as a bargain. They come for profit, and we allow them to do so, so that we may gain employment and skills we do not have, but I question the wisdom of allowing industrialists to come here and set up industries, and in a year or two, to acquire Irish assets that we should be operating ourselves. The example of a foreign industrialist coming here to manufacture certain products and then branching out into the hotel industry is an indictment of the present policy. I think that in the case of any foreign industrialist coming here to set up an industry, Ireland is the loser in the long run, although we may gain employment in the short run. Everything we sell at present we will lose in the future. It may be good for the election records to say we have created so many new jobs but we must consider the future of these jobs and that industry. In the long run, how much money is lost to the country when Irish land is sold, Irish property sold to foreign enterprises, and what is, in the long run, the loss or gain to the country?

Another important aspect of this matter which we must seek to see developed in Irish industry is marketing. I share the concern of others in the House about whether in fact before foreign industrialists set up here, we make sufficient investigation to ensure that there are export markets for the activity in which they wish to engage. We must give serious consideration to this. If there is taxpayers' money involved and if, as at present, we have little control over the use of that money once we give it to the foreign company, it is all the more important that our preliminary investigation should be as foolproof as possible. Also, when we bring in foreign industrialists, our minimum request should be that they will understand that in this country people have the right to organise in trade organisations to protect their own living standards and that we have here gone to a good deal of trouble for 50, 60 or 100 years back —even to the time of Daniel O'Connell, when there were certain combinations in Dublin—to give this right to our people against British rulers and against native Irish employers, the right of ordinary people to organise in trade unions. We do not want the type of industrialist here who wishes to change this system.

A long time before the State was founded Arthur Griffith propounded this philosophy that all we were interested in was industrial expansion and that wage standards and living conditions of the people involved in this industrial expansion did not count. Our Party has never sympathised with this viewpoint. We believe that the human factor, the wages paid and the living standards achieved, are extremely important and foreign industrialists coming in here must understand that this country is not in Europe the haven for low wages and that we do not seek to industrialise our country at the expense of low living standards for Irish men and women.

I suggest also that in setting up new industries, it is very important to make a thorough examination of the area in which the industry is to be sited. Planking a factory in the middle of green fields, without worrying whether housing is available locally and whether the social infrastructure is available, is not sound policy because it is these things that decide in the long run whether the factory is an artificial institution or whether it can survive and expand. This is especially true where women are employed in a newly-established industry. Unless you can have a normal community associated with the employment source, you will not build up a permanent work force, but instead you will have a factory to give workers pocket-money which will enable them to take the boat to some other country. I suggest that there are many factories in the south and west of the country that exist on a continuous influx of workers from surrounding areas, who work for two or three years before getting sufficient money to go to Britain or elsewhere. They will not remain. It is not the amount they are paid that is the chief problem but the social setting in which they have to work.

In the past we thought—I suppose it is still true—that one area of the country by comparison with others could be described as underdeveloped. We must examine this whole problem afresh. There are parts of West Wicklow that are just as underdeveloped as the wildest parts of Mayo or other places in the West. We must consider what we mean by underdeveloped. I suggest that a better term for parts of the country as they exist, with their population conditions and the type of activity, would be emergency areas. I would say that emergency areas from the national point of view are those areas where there is no employment to be had and where the majority of the population are becoming increasingly an elderly group and where the population structure of the community is impaired and abnormal. I suggest that in much of rural Ireland at present we have abnormal conditions and communities where we have elderly people and young children, with none of the vital generations in between.

Social scientists are coming more and more to realise that, where you have whole communities so abnormally constituted in their population structure that we can expect no leadership and no initiative, and consequently no industrial expansion, there is no answer to such a situation. Therefore I suggest that the term "emergency areas" is a more apt term to describe such places where there is no activity, places which are practically an extension of the local cemetery. On my recent journey from Killarney, I passed through West Limerick, a most woebegone part of the country, with great emigration and no industry and no hope for the young people, a point of departure for places abroad. That is how I would describe West Limerick, and although it may continue to return Fianna Fáil Deputies forever, it is an abnormal community, with no possibility of the young people marrying and settling down to live there as they should.

I wish the Minister well with this Bill. It may effect some slight improvement in the manner in which he at present places his faith in industrial expansion. If his colleagues and he remain in Government for another ten years, he will be able to cite statistics to show we did better in employment creation in 1970 than in 1969, but, by and large, the picture will remain the same. The policies pursued by the Government represent an attempt to hit a moving target, the moving target of people looking for jobs and the policies of the Minister's Government are unable to create a situation in which we shall have sufficient jobs for all the people needing them.

The viewpoint of my Party is—it would take a larger discussion than this to open up the area—that the situation demands more than reliance on foreign enterprise and native enterprise and that we should involve the State itself in bringing about the expansion needed to employ and maintain our people.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

In the earlier part of this debate, I was criticised for not mentioning when introducing the Bill a number of items which were considered to be relevant to industrial development. Of course the reason I did not do so was that this is a relatively simple Bill. The effect of it is simply to increase the total amount of capital which may be allocated to An Foras Tionscal, from the existing statutory maximum of £30 million to a new maximum of £40 million. The detailed discussion on the whole policy of industrialisation would, I think, be more appropriate on the Estimate for my Department and on the legislation which will be brought forward, as I have announced, in connection with changes in our industrialisation policy. However, there are some matters which were mentioned and on which I think I must comment.

First, I suspect that Deputy O'Leary and a number of his colleagues in his Party have become so blinded by their own propaganda—he was talking about our being blinded by our propaganda—that they do not realise what is happening in this country. I suggest that there are not very many members of the Deputy's Party who realise that we have, in fact, between 1961 and 1966, over that five-year period, created an average of 12,000 new jobs in industry each year. I do not blame him for not having been aware of this some time ago because the statistics available did not reveal this until they were collected some time after 1966. The only year for which we have any kind of detailed analysis for grant aid to industry is 1966. Grant-aided firms established up to the end of 1966 accounted for, in 1966, an output of £50.9 million, including exports of £37.7 million.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is the Minister taking into account the loss in agriculture?

Mr. Colley

I am talking about new jobs in industry.

Mr. James Tully

The net increase.

Mr. Colley

New jobs in industry.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is time the Minister grew up. New jobs are new jobs in any man's language.

Mr. Colley

I agree new jobs are new jobs. I am talking about new jobs.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am talking about an increase in the number of jobs.

Mr. Colley

If the Deputy meant to say the net increase in employment, he should say what he means. I know the Deputy is taken aback by these figures, and he is trying to cover up his confusion, but he should realise what is happening. I do not say that we have reached the stage where we are approaching full employment. What I do say is that we are achieving quite a substantial increase each year.

Mr. M. O'Leary

2,000 a year.

Mr. Colley

——in the number of new jobs created, that is, the number of new jobs created in industry and also in tourism, but largely in industry.

Mr. James Tully

Would the Minister agree we are 100,000 worse off job-wise than we were 15 years ago?

Mr. Colley

No, I would not; but, on the other hand, if the Deputy wants to go into that, what he means is that many people who worked on the land —and the Deputy will agree many of them did so in very poor conditions— are not now doing that.

Mr. James Tully

Still very poor conditions—many of them have gone.

Mr. Colley

We know when most of them went. If the Deputy and his Party were responsible for the creation of new jobs in this country, the situation for the people would be a very poor one, because they cannot even make up their minds how to approach the problem: they do not want foreign industry; they do want foreign industry. They want foreign industry but they want the Government to step in and run the business for the foreign industry.

Mr. Donegan

Before the Minister came in here, his Party voted against industrial grants in 1955. I was here and he was not. I voted for it and his Party voted against it.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Donegan knows as well as I do that there was a great deal more in that vote than he is saying. I am talking about policies which are being pursued now. The policies advocated by Deputy O'Leary, and, I think, by Deputy Treacy who——

Mr. Donegan

What the Minister is saying——

Mr. Colley

Deputy Donegan was not interrupted by me and he can wait until I attack him before he speaks for the Labour Party. They can look after themselves. I know he is trying to promote a merger.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister talked about who started industrial grants and we told him.

Mr. Colley

Did the Deputy ever hear of the proposal by the son of the strong farmer to the cottage girl?

Mr. Donegan

No.

Mr. Colley

And the rejection of the offer to the consternation of the son of the strong farmer?

Mr. Donegan

No, I did not hear that one.

Mr. Colley

He should apply that to the current political situation and he will realise he should not be trying to defend the Labour Party.

Mr. Donegan

The Labour voters will decide that. The kite that was flown was very well flown, and deliberately so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing industrial grants: the Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Colley

The question of the creation of new jobs in industry is probably one of the most vital problems facing this country, and the policies we pursue in this regard are a matter of very great concern to everybody and every Party. Any suggestion that we should approach it on the basis of telling foreign industrialists grudgingly that they may come in but that we are going to ensure that they behave themselves——

Mr. James Tully

We will ensure that in future.

Mr. Colley

——and that we are going to put directors from the Government on their boards and so on—that is all very well in theory but what we must appreciate is that we are trying to get people to create employment. We are not talking about theories; we are talking about jobs for people. When we are talking about jobs for people, the important thing is the creation of new jobs for the Irish people——

Mr. M. O'Leary

In which you have failed.

Mr. Colley

——in reasonable conditions. I will never accept, and my Party will never accept, that a condition for the creation of new jobs in this country is that workers in the new jobs must be members of the Irish Transport Union.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Of any union.

Mr. Colley

What we want to do is to get new jobs for the Irish people in reasonable conditions. Deputy O'Leary was purporting to quote—I am not disputing his quotation because I am not familiar with it—from Arthur Griffith, saying that Arthur Griffith had said that he was concerned only with industrial expansion and not with the conditions in which people worked or their wages and so on.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The correspondence with James Larkin in 1913 makes that clear.

Mr. Colley

Whatever Arthur Griffith said, it is not the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. The policy of the Fianna Fáil Government is to create new jobs for the Irish people in reasonable conditions, and I challenge Deputy O'Leary to say that the people who are employed in foreign-based industries in this country are working in inferior conditions——

Mr. M. O'Leary

In conditions of freedom.

Mr. Colley

——in conditions inferior to those negotiated by trade unions in comparable employment. I challenge Deputy O'Leary to say that.

Mr. Donegan

When both the Minister and the Deputy are finished talking about Arthur Griffith, would you leave him where he would like to be, over here?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Donegan

Neither one nor the other of you owns him.

Mr. Colley

I repeat that the policy of this Government is to create as many new jobs as possible for the Irish people in reasonable conditions.

Mr. M. O'Leary

You are throttled by Taca and you do not care any more for the Irish people.

Mr. Colley

Deputy O'Leary may talk as much as he likes but we are not going to accept that one of the conditions, one of the factors to operate in new employment is membership of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, or any of the other unions.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Of course, the Minister does not like unions; we know that.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy knows as I do that every foreign industrialist is advised strongly by the Industrial Development Authority to negotiate with trade unions and preferably with one trade union.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is not what you said to them in New York.

Mr. Colley

When?

Mr. M. O'Leary

At your recent consultations in New York.

Mr. Colley

I challenge the Deputy to tell us about any consultations I had in which I said anything contrary to——

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am suggesting that in New York you told American industrialists that they need not worry about organising Irish workers, that they need not worry about trade unions.

Mr. Colley

That is not true, and the Deputy knows it is not true. I challenge him to say where and when I said that. If he cannot justify it, he should at least have the grace to withdraw.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am stating that the Minister informed industrialists in New York——

Mr. Colley

I challenge the Deputy to say where and to whom that was said. I am challenging him and he is not taking up the challenge.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have made a statement——

Mr. Colley

And the value of the Deputy's statement may be judged. The Deputy has made an allegation and refuses to justify it when I gave him the opportunity. I am willing to give him a further opportunity to justify it.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister knows that I was not in New York: I was not under the table in New York.

Mr. Colley

I am asking the Deputy——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Do not be making ridiculous challenges.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy is making ridiculous charges which are without foundation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I said that the Minister made a statement——

Mr. Colley

How does the Deputy know if he was not there? He must have some report. Let him produce the report.

Mr. Cluskey

Would it not be consistent with Fianna Fáil——

Mr. Colley

It would not be. Do not be changing the ground. He made a statement without foundation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I said that the Minister told American industrialists that they need not worry about trade unions.

Mr. Colley

I am saying that I did not, and I have challenged the Deputy to justify the statement.

Mr. Colley

On a point of order, I think the Deputy is being disorderly.

Mr. James Tully

You said that you are not going to make it a condition that they should be members of a trade union. You said you would insist on jobs with good conditions.

Mr. Colley

The first time I said that was a few months ago in response to a statement made at the annual conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I stated it because I believe it is treason to the people to have individuals make statements of the nature that they would rather see the grass growing over Shannon than for jobs to be created for people who are not members of a trade union. I do not accept this. I think the important thing is to create employment for our people.

Mr. Donegan

Do you not both think that you are not doing much good? You are not helping.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Donegan

Let them settle their troubles.

Mr. Colley

I agree that matters can be settled but the kind of statements we have been having in recent months and weeks are of no help to the country or to the trade union movement.

Mr. James Tully

It was the Minister who brought in Shannon a few minutes ago.

Mr. Colley

No, I did not. The Deputy did not hear Deputy O'Leary referring to conditions of work and talking about Arthur Griffith——

Mr. James Tully

He did not mention Shannon.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Your challenges are going up in the air.

Mr. Colley

Deputy O'Leary cannot escape in that way. Everybody knew to what he was referring. It is time it was stated what the objectives of the people are. We talk about full employment and we talk about the scourge of unemployment and emigration but are we prepared to accept the sacrifices that are necesary, if we want to conquer these things?

Mr. Cluskey

Is the Minister implying that there should be employment in any conditions?

Mr. Colley

Of course not: I said no such thing.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Colley

Let me finish my statement. Would anybody in this House care to mention a foreign-based industry set up in this country with the benefit of State aid in which the conditions of employment are inferior, by way of wages and working conditions to those obtaining in comparable employment in the same area which have been negotiated by trade unions?

Mr. James Tully

We could give the Minister a list of them. We have had trade unionists dismissed recently because they might look for better wages. We could give the names but this has no relevance to this debate.

Mr. Colley

It was brought in by a member of the Labour Party.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Speaking about your lack of achievement.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Norton

You do not like questions being asked.

Mr. James Tully

The Deputy has no right to ask anybody questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Colley

Anybody charged with the actual responsibility of this knows that there are limits to the kind of conditions one can impose. We would prefer that a foreign industry coming in here would work exactly in accordance with the way we would like it to work and that we would have an absolute guarantee of success. There are all sorts of conditions one would like to impose, and this is grand in theory, but in practice we are trying to provide employment for our people and what we can get becomes the practical thing and the practical thing is to get reasonable conditions.

The question was asked about what safeguards exist in regard to industries coming in and getting assistance. The safeguards are operated between An Foras Tionscal and the industrial promoters concerned and every effort is made by An Foras Tionscal to ensure that conditions are satisfactory. One safeguard is that the factory premises and fixed assets may not be sold or disposed of in any other way for a period of ten years from the completion of the payment of the grant, without the consent of An Foras Tionscal. In practice, what this usually means is that if a grant-aided factory closes down, another firm comes along and takes over the premises, and the grant is passed on from the first firm to the second firm, so that the one grant is paid in respect of the one premises. This is how it normally works in practice.

I have mentioned that there are changes on the way in regard to our approach to incentives and other matters, and legislation will be introduced shortly in this regard. Therefore I do not want to go into too much detail on this Bill. Some of the changes are being made as a result of certain reports that have been produced on these matters and full information will be available to Deputies shortly in regard to these reports.

Mr. Donegan

This is the Little Report?

Mr. Colley

That is one of them. There seemed to be a suggestion in the debate that preference is given in regard to assistance to foreign firms as against home firms. This is just not true. One of the reasons why the idea may be common is, I think, that a new industry qualifies, of course, for a higher rate of grant. In the case of the setting up of a new industry, the industry qualifies for an industrial grant, whereas an existing industry, which was expanding, used to qualify for an adaptation grant only.

Mr. Donegan

Only sometimes.

Mr. Colley

The vast majority of them did. There were certain qualifications. The basis for these adaptation grants was to assist industries to prepare for free trade. Those, therefore, not deemed likely to be subjected to extra competition in free trade did not qualify. But the House will remember that I announced a new scheme of re-equipment grants at the level of 25 per cent in most of the country and 35 per cent in the undeveloped areas which will be available for all firms, whether Irish or foreign, in respect of expansion or modernisation. These are on a continuing basis, not like adaptation grants which had a limitation in time.

Mr. Donegan

Are all industries included in that? The information is pretty scanty. If an industry here is re-equipping itself or expanding, it automatically qualifies for a re-equipment grant. The practice in the North of Ireland is that, if you buy new machinery or if you extend your buildings, you automatically qualify and you are paid 25 per cent, or 40 per cent, or whatever the figure is. To date here, you certainly did not automatically qualify, and I now want to know does this include every industry?

Mr. Colley

It includes manufacturing and ancillary industries. If the Deputy wants to know whether certain types of industries, which were not eligible for adaptation grants——

Mr. Donegan

Laundries, bakeries and so on were all ineligible. The reason given in the case of bakeries was that they were too near the Border and could not survive the competition from the North, which is the exact opposite of what the Minister says now.

Mr. Colley

Bakeries are included. These were included within the past 12 or six months. Laundries are not manufacturing or ancillary. The general definition is "manufacturing industry or ancillary industry", or those which are related to manufacturing.

Mr. Donegan

Take my own neck of the woods. Take an industry which is drying and storing grain and which was excluded from adaptation grants: is that ancillary to flourmilling, or brewing, or to compound manufacture?

Mr. Colley

Before pronouncing on a specific industry, I would, I think, have to examine it.

Mr. Donegan

It does appear to be an ancillary industrial activity.

Mr. Colley

It may appear to be, but I can see certain objections. I am not at the moment to be taken as saying "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Donegan

Bottling beer?

Mr. Colley

I have doubts about bottling beer.

Mr. Donegan

I would not know. But it is all very interesting and we have been trying to get information on it for a long time. The first I heard of it was at a Fianna Fáil cumann and I did abuse the Minister about that.

Mr. Colley

And I replied to that.

Mr. Donegan

I am afraid we went too far, but it would be a great help if the Minister would very soon, for the benefit of people who want to expand, get some set of definitions clearly based.

Mr. Colley

I am endeavouring to get that done. For most industries, the position is perfectly clear.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Colley

Interesting as these asides are, I suppose we must continue the debate, though I would much prefer to listen to them than to talk.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. Colley

The point was raised——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wonder would Deputies permit the Minister to conclude this debate?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Minister be allowed to conclude?

Mr. Colley

The point was made by a number of speakers about the development of industrial growth centres. One or two Deputies, in fact, took both sides of the argument. They said they were in favour of industrial growth centres and, on the other hand, they were against them because they thought they would take away industry from the surrounding towns. Of course, this is one of the problems on which one has to make up one's mind. By the setting up of an industrial growth centre, one can direct some industries, which might otherwise go to individual towns, but I also believe that one can direct industries which would not otherwise go to the country at all. Furthermore, I believe that the development of these centres can lead to the growth of complementary industries in the manufacture of components and the provision of services in the surrounding areas, and at a fairly considerable radius from the centres themselves, and, on balance, if we are to make any really effective impact on the unemployment problem, we have got to pursue the development of growth centres vigorously.

The House is aware that, apart from the industrial estates already in existence in Shannon, Waterford and Galway, in the Limerick-Clare-North Tipperary area, the Shannon Development Company is being given responsibility for the promotion of industry in that entire region. It is proposed then to divide the rest of the country into regions and set up regional offices of the IDA in the areas, with the same kind of responsibilities. The fixing of other regions must depend on the Buchanan Report, which is expected fairly soon and which will be considered by the Government as soon as it is received.

A great deal of play was made about the necessity to develop industry, small industry particularly, in the towns and villages. I must say I was a little taken aback, listening to some of the Deputies—they were not all on the Opposition benches—because some of them apparently had never heard of the small industries programme. Somebody accused me of not giving it enough publicity, and, if that is so, it would appear the criticism was justified, but, whatever about the ordinary public, I would have hoped that Deputies would be aware of the existence of the small industries programme, which is at present operating in Limerick, Clare, Sligo, Leitrim-Roscommon and Carlow-Kilkenny, plus the other counties in which there is a county development team. The manner in which it is operating has certainly given hope that it can be a very important instrument in dealing with the provision of employment in small towns and villages throughout the country, and I hope it will be possible before the end of the year to extend it to the whole community.

I want to make it clear that, in talking about the problem of industrialisation and the creating of new jobs, we, in the Government, are not inhibited by any doctrinaire approach and, broadly speaking, we are operating on the basis of (1) the attraction of foreign industry here; (2) the expansion of existing Irish industry and the encouragement of the setting up of new industries by Irish people; (3) the expansion of the activities of the State companies and (4) the small industries programme.

In connection with the expansion of the activities of the State companies, I want to make it clear that in so far as I could do so, I have made it clear to the various State companies with which I have any contact that they are expected to examine very closely the possibilities that may exist for diversification of their activites or the utilisation of expertise and particular technical skill and knowledge which they may have within their ranks for the purpose of developing new industry. It has been made clear that in so far as this can be done, money will not be an obstacle in the development of this kind of employment.

It will, of course, be realised that more and more as one talks of the establishment of substantial industries, that is, fairly large-scale as regards employment and production, one is talking of very substantial investment and very substantial investment per worker engaged. This is inevitable. With the growth in our economy, the area left in which substantial employment can be created in any one particular plant is such that they are fairly sophisticated operations which are capital intensive. We have to recognise that that is so. There are areas of activity open to the State companies but I think there are also some fairly substantial and very worthwhile industrial projects in the pipeline at the moment in consultation with foreign interests but, again, this Government are not dogmatic or doctrinaire in this regard. We are prepared to contemplate any kind of arrangement, whether completely foreign-owned, partially foreign-owned and partially privately Irish-owned or a partnership between an Irish State company and a foreign company or a partnership between an Irish State company and private interests. We have no doctrinaire views on this. The thing we are concerned with is the creation of new jobs and we are prepared to adopt any of these methods in order to do it. The only test we want to apply is, is it effective?

It is true that nobody would claim that the operation of our policy has been 100 per cent effective in the sense that we have not got 100 per cent employment but it would be very unrealistic to suggest that because we have not achieved that aim our policies are a failure. To get a true picture, one must look at the performance in recent years, look at the trend and see if the policy we are pursuing is getting reasonably good results and whether by stepping up that policy and carrying out certain activities on the lines I have indicated one could not achieve a much greater performance than by scrapping the whole policy and approaching the problem on some completely different basis, such as has been hinted at by Deputy O'Leary.

Mr. O'Hara

Would the Minister mind if I reminded him that we certainly do not seem to be getting the results as far as the west of Ireland is concerned? People are still leaving the land. I cannot see any results in Mayo, particularly. I do not want to embarrass the Minister in any way.

Mr. Colley

No; the Deputy is not embarrassing me. I am much more concerned with the actual pattern of what is happening than with theoretical ideas of what might happen, and I think the Deputy is also concerned with the facts of what the situation is in Mayo. It is quite true to say that the amount of new industrial employment in Mayo in recent years has been relatively very small. It is quite true to say that. There are a number of factors, of course, which have been operating in this. I believe that one of the important factors with regard to Mayo and many areas in the West of Ireland has been the freight charges. From my discussions with industrialists there and people interested in setting up industries there, I am satisfied that this is an important factor. We are trying to find a solution to that. It is not nearly as simple as it looks. It is not merely a question of a straight subsidy because this would cause a flow into Dublin Port, clogging up there, and it would not be of any benefit to the West. We are trying to work out something.

Another problem has been that there has been far too much dependence, in my opinion, on the idea of somebody waving a magic wand—whether it be the Minister for Industry and Commerce or a local Deputy or the IDA or somebody else—and producing out of thin air a nice big shiny American factory. There has been far too much dependence on that idea when a great deal of the possibilities were being overlooked, the possibilities of existing small industries—nothing spectacular about it. The development of small industries in some parts of Mayo could very substantially contribute, I believe, to the provision of worthwhile jobs in Mayo for people living there. I do not say it is the full solution but I do say that the potential involved has not been by any means explored fully yet.

I also think that the regionalisation programme in connection with the IDA which I have announced should help very substantially because in whatever region that, say, Mayo will be located, there will be a central office of the IDA; there will be, I hope, a complete integration of all the local bodies, both the local authorities and voluntary bodies, who are interested in the development of industry in the area; a co-ordination of their efforts and a concentration, even in publicity, on that particular region and on the advantages of that region, to the exclusion of all other regions of the country, as well as which the activities, say, of the local authority in connection with the provision of water and housing will, I hope, be geared much more directly to the industrial development of the region. I am just mentioning these offhand as factors which I think have operated in the past against the provision of industrial employment in Mayo and some other factors which will operate in future.

Mr. O'Hara

The Minister can count on our fullest co-operation.

Mr. Donegan

It will be long-term.

Mr. Colley

Some of it will, but not all of it.

There was one other point that was raised by Deputy Treacy in regard to a particular firm. He was talking about the lack of assistance from myself and my Department and the agencies operating under me in this case. He said that all that was required was an injection of capital in this firm. The Deputy knows as well as I do that you could take the most bankrupt undertaking in the country and say, very simply, that all that is required is an injection of capital but there is a great deal more required in a bankrupt concern than just an injection of capital. The Deputy knows that there were many other factors in the case to which he was referring. Some of them have been eliminated; some of them are in process of being eliminated at the moment. Until those things were eliminated, there were faults of management and costing there which were such that unless they were eliminated, no matter what capital you put in, you would be pouring it down the drain. Therefore, it was not just a question of more capital. I think the Deputy is aware of the very strenuous efforts made by me and my Department and the Industrial Development Authority to locate abroad possible alternative sources for taking over this factory and carrying it on on a viable basis. None of these efforts was successful, but this does not mean the efforts were not made. In fact, very strenuous efforts were made over a fairly long period.

I would not like it to be thought that there was any industry in this country which found itself in difficulty and which felt no effort would be made by either the Minister or the Department of Industry and Commerce or the agencies operating under them to assist. In the particular case to which Deputy Treacy referred, it would not be true to say that no effort was made to assist. As I have said, the fact that the efforts to obtain people abroad to take over were not successful is not a reflection on the efforts made out rather a reflection on the condition of the particular industry. Circumstances which have occurred in that factory now, while they have not solved the problem, have certainly made it much more easy of solution. There is a certain proposition under consideration at the moment in relation to it, and the Deputy can be assured that in so far as I can do anything to assist in that regard, it will be done.

Mr. Treacy

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but may I simply ask him this? He is aware that a new company has now been formed in respect of the industry concerned, and of the local effort made by the chamber of commerce to raise capital. My regret was that the Minister in those circumstances did not more speedily come to the aid of the firm concerned. I express the hope that this help will be speedy, because time is not on the side of the firm.

Mr. Colley

I am aware of the recent developments, but the Deputy knows that what he and I have been talking about has been going on for six months at least, and perhaps longer, and that the developments he is now referring to have occurred only within the past month or month and a half. I do not think I need detain the House any further.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.