Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 28 Nov 1969

Vol. 242 No. 14

Industrial Development Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The detailed provisions of the Bill are explained in the memorandum which has been in Deputies' hands for some time. Before proceeding to discuss its objectives, I feel it is appropriate that I should, at the outset, make some general comments on what has been achieved in the industrial sector.

The progress of our industrial development in recent years has been remarkable. The First Programme for Economic Expansion recognised that the real potential for development lay largely in producing goods for export. Our own home market could not support expansion on the scale necessary if the aims of full employment and a better standard of living were to be achieved. Since then we have moved ahead and have made significant progress towards achieving those goals.

1968 was our best year ever in terms of industrial promotion. It saw the approval of 120 new projects which, when in full production, will employ 11,000 workers of whom 7,500 will be men.

During the first six months of this year the picture was even brighter. 172 grant-aided projects were approved or were under construction or commenced production. These enterprises have an employment potential of 9,800 at the end of the first year and 17,800 at full production. It is also most heartening to see that, in June, 1969, the estimated number of persons engaged in manufacturing industry had increased by almost 11,000 over June 1968. This increase conforms with the employment target set by the National Industrial Economic Council for the whole industrial sector, including manufacturing industry, as a requirement for the achievement of full employment by 1980.

Our progress is dramatically reflected in the increase in our industrial exports from £33 million in 1958 to £184 million last year and a doubling of the share of total exports bringing it to more than 50 per cent. Other valuable aspects of our development are less dramatic because they are less obvious. They include the spread of technical and managerial skills. The expansion of our industrial exports provides evidence of our rapid improvement in these skills and also a growing opportunity for their acquisition.

New industries have resulted in a new infusion of technology and technical design, have raised the level of industrial skill and increased the demand for home produced goods and services. Not least they have increased the utilisation of our resources human and physical.

The extent of the international scale on which this operation is working can be seen in a breakdown of the projects I have mentioned plus others currently under negotiation. Approximately 25 per cent are British, 20 per cent are Irish, 20 per cent American, 15 per cent German and there are others from Holland, France, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, India and Spain.

I am particularly pleased to see an increasing number of Irish-based projects figuring in this list and can further report that the small industries programme which I inaugurated such a short time ago is also showing very worthwhile results. In the six months ended June of this year 119 projects were approved under the scheme and they have a potential employment of more than 700 people. It is possible to measure the potential of these projects in terms of numbers of jobs but the potential they have to keep initiative at home, to provide outlets for the enterprise of our young men and women and to confirm our rapidly growing self-confidence is so great as to be of immeasurable value.

Increasing attention will be paid in the small industries division to the provision of a range of services to small industry. Such a service, while aimed primarily at small firms, would not, of course, be confined to them.

It is heartening to note the progress being made at the industrial estates in Waterford and Galway to date. Factories have been constructed on these estates at a capital cost of £2.4 million. These factories are all either occupied or reserved for specific projects and a further area of 252,000 sq. ft., including two special type factories, is under construction. There are now 21 firms operating on the estates and a further three firms will take possession of their factories before the end of the year. Employment in these factories amounts to 812 persons at present of whom almost 73 per cent are men and a projected employment for the 24 firms is in excess of 1,700 of whom 63 per cent are expected to be men. There is every reason to believe that each of these estates will provide direct employment for at least 2,000 persons and a sizeable increase in the volume of employment in service industries can also be expected. There is a tendency sometimes to overlook the multiplier effect of industrial employment in creating additional jobs in distribution, transport and services generally.

The achievements of the Galway industrial estate together with the grant differential built into the Bill in favour of the designated areas will accelerate the rate of progress in the designated areas and will be a further valuable instrument in the task of ensuring a distribution of industry in conformity with the nation's needs and the Government's stated policy particularly with regard to the West of Ireland.

To me the most heartening feature of recent development is the progress of industrialisation in the west and north west. To the pioneering development at Shannon has been added the rapid progress of the Galway estate. These and the large-scale Snia Viscosa project at Sligo and certain other substantial projects that are in train for this area will, I believe, put sinews into the growth of industry in the west and have a powerful effect in raising confidence in its future both inside and outside the area. Linked with the establishment of further small and medium size industries this remarkable progress is, I believe, the beginning of the solution of the problem of underemployment and emigration which has for so long resisted all efforts to solve it. We will press on with vigorous efforts to build on this success.

This then is an exciting stage in the history of our industrial development. Very broadly, it is true to say that the high level of our present development has been reached through the efforts exerted to attract viable worthwhile industries from abroad coupled with a more pragmatic and adaptable approach to incentives. More recently a programme has been initiated by the IDA to stimulate by aid and expert advice the home-based manufacturing industries that have a capacity for growth.

Since the mid-60's not only has technology been developing more rapidly in traditional industries but new industrial development has been entering areas of more advanced technology and the number of large-scale projects requiring high levels of skills has been increasing. To meet these requirements additional facilities for education and training are being provided on a substantial scale. Training centres for semi-skilled workers and the retraining of adults have recently been established in the Shannon, Waterford, and Galway industrial estates. The demand for this training has been so strong that the centres are already being expanded considerably. The efforts of these training centres will complement those of the nine new regional technical colleges being built to increase the output and variety of skilled workers and, of course, the efforts of our universities and technological institutes. The best prospect of a solution to changing requirements for skills in industry is probably a high level of general education and flexibility in adapting skills to requirements.

I want to pay a tribute to the pioneering regional planning work on the Shannon Free Airport Development Company in completing in so short a time the programme for the industrial development of the mid-west region. The Industrial Development Authority has been given the task of preparing programmes for the other regions. On my instructions they are establishing offices in all the regions other than the mid-west. Work is now being completed on preparing guidelines to ensure uniformity of procedures and methods in each region, and this preliminary work will not only ensure comparability between programmes but will help to speed up the work of programming.

In the regions the regional manager of the IDA will work closely with the regional committees and the local authorities and will draw heavily on the considerable local experience and knowledge of the county development teams. Work in the regions will be done under the guidance and with the assistance of a steering committee in the IDA which will include representatives of the Departments of Local Government and Labour and will have a skilled staff at their disposal.

Because of the success achieved to date in our industrial drive and as larger and more complex projects become feasible it is increasingly necessary to be selective if new projects are to fit into the structure of a growing industrial sector and provide a base for further development and close links with established industry. Industries using or developing local materials, agricultural products or other natural resources have a special importance.

A very welcome feature of some recent large industries attracted here has been the extent to which they will use home materials. Industries based on home materials alone would fall far short of providing sufficient opportunities for employment. Nor need we be disturbed at this. Many countries such as Switzerland, Denmark, Japan and nearer home, Britain, have very limited natural resources to support highly developed industries.

The extent to which new industries open up linkage possibilities with existing concerns or with further new industries is of prime importance in building an integrated industrial structure. The criteria embodied in the Bill for the higher grant level will facilitate the giving of priority to such industries. An approach to a product policy based on the establishment of criteria rather than by specifying particular products is desirable at a time when technology is evolving rapidly.

At the same time, however, there must be a policy aimed at identifying and examining possibilities for particular products or product groups. Product policy will need to be reviewed frequently to take account of developments in technology and marketing and the growth and change in established industry. The resources of the authority in this area are being considerably augmented.

I have already referred to the work being done in this direction by the small industries division of the IDA towards increasing the linkage between older established industries and new industry. Two other sections of the IDA, the home industries division and the project development unit, examine opportunities for linkage at an early stage, as projects come to the IDA. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards is doing valuable work in assisting manufacturers in developing products and is embarking on a scheme to provide information on the capabilities of firms, commencing with engineering industries.

If we are to advance as rapidly as we would wish, it is desirable to have some large capital intensive projects. Large projects have a number of attractions. They provide high quality employment for highly skilled staff; they have an inbuilt tendency to expand rapidly; they can have a substantial impact on other industries and services and they can provide resources to attract ancillary industry. Such projects, however, can be costly in terms of infrastructure and of the incentives that must be offered in the face of the sharp international competition for them. Their cost to us would limit the number we could seek to attract but in any event we could not at this stage of our development accommodate more than a limited number of them. It is, therefore, particularly important to secure first-class projects with a significant impact on the economy promoted by leading companies which are capable of providing the resources, financial, marketing, technical, and research, necessary to sustain and develop them.

Monitoring industrial progress at home and abroad and keeping an eye on newly emerging growth industries and industries whose prospects are likely to worsen will be a function of an economic and statistical unit in the IDA.

It is of great importance that home based industry should attain a level of development at least comparable with that of foreign based export industries. I am certain that this can be achieved. Indeed, the development of foreign based industries should naturally assist in facilitating home based development. In the new factories young Irishmen at management level are gaining experience in the most modern methods and workers are being trained in new techniques. Irish enterprise and innovation in industry and, indeed, in business generally is our best assurance of long-term growth and an essential corollary of increased skills.

It can be said of this Bill that its objective is to up-date, integrate and to clarify the incentives available for manufacturing projects over the whole country. It has been drafted after the views of the various interests concerned had been considered and the best advice available had been taken.

A.D. Little, Inc., an international firm of consultants, were engaged to review the structure of our promotional bodies dealing with industrial development and the scope of and effectiveness of our incentives. Their findings pointed to the fact that increases in employment, reduction in emigration, improved services and better standards of living require accelerated industrialisation.

The main recommendations of A.D. Little, Inc., as approved by the National Industrial Economic Council are carried into the Bill.

This is an amending Bill. Briefly, it provides in the first place for an expanded and more sophisticated structure for industrial promotion. The expertise and functions of An Foras Tionscal will be merged in the Industrial Development Authority which will be outside the Civil Service for staffing purposes. The authority will offer a career to the qualified and expert staff who will be needed to operate, in a flexible way, the sophisticated promotional and advisory services required in a climate of competitive and freer trading. The House will notice three new forms of grant assistance, namely, the rendering eligible of leased assets for grant assistance, the subsidisation of interest rates and the giving of guarantees for loans and the provision of grants for industrial research and development. In addition, the Bill contains revised provisions for new industry grants and training grants and a scheme of re-equipment grants comparable to the adaptation grant scheme which has lapsed since September, 1967.

A grant differential of 10 per cent will apply in favour of the designated areas, formerly undeveloped areas, under the sections relating to re-equipment, modernisation and expansion. This is a departure from the former adaptation grants scheme which provided a maximum grant of 25 per cent throughout the whole country.

I have instructed the authority that payments made on and after 1st March, 1968, in respect of fixed assets for re-equipment may be considered for grant purposes and 460 grants have been already approved on this basis.

The rates of ordinary or new industrial grants also provide a differential for the designated areas—in this case 15 per cent. The basic rates of grant which may be paid on satisfaction of specified and clear criteria are 40 per cent in designated areas and 25 per cent elsewhere. For cases which meet higher standards a further grant —up to 20 per cent of fixed assets costs—may be paid. A package of incentives suited to the particular project can now be offered and may include grants towards fixed assets purchased or leased, towards interest payable on loans for fixed assets, towards reduction of rents on factories leased or guarantees of loans. This flexibility will meet the needs of those special cases which may not derive maximum benefit from a direct grant system. The promoters will, of course, be required to have a substantial stake in the undertaking.

The desirability of the package offered will be enhanced by the authority's new power to provide factories for purchase or leasing in any area. A reduction of rent below the economic rent in such cases will count as a grant.

Apart from the specified criteria and the percentage grants limits, Deputies will notice certain limitations on the amount of assistance which may be offered. Grants for fixed assets and towards rent reduction may not exceed in total the appropriate percentage of asset values. While the Government may authorise grants for an undertaking under these provisions in excess of the limit of £350,000 binding the authority, the percentage grant limits may not be exceeded. The issue of moneys by the Minister to the authority is fixed at £100 million. Almost £50 million have already been issued in respect of the various current industrial incentives.

Housing for key workers is essential to many new industries and the necessary social and other priorities of many local authorities do not always permit of their meeting this need promptly. The authority is being empowered to provide or procure the provision of houses for this purpose, normally, I expect, acting through the National Building Agency, and to subsidise rents as appropriate.

The Bill also contains various necessary ancillary provisions following the merger of the IDA and Foras Tionscal in relation to pensions, staffing, procedures and the manner in which the value of assets and grants will be calculated.

From what I have said it will be readily evident that the general activities of industrial promotion and development have already led to very significant and tangible results for our people in terms of employment, living standards, and reduced emigration and to well-founded hopes for the future.

Before I conclude I should mention to the House that the amount of money which may be issued by An Foras Tionscal is very close to the statutory limit and it may be necessary for me, depending on the progress of this Bill, to introduce a short Bill to increase the statutory limit. Otherwise, unless this Bill is enacted or the short Bill to which I have referred, before the recess, An Foras Tionscal might not have enough money to meet its existing commitments to the middle of January. I want to give the House notice of that situation. I think we can be confident that we are approaching the objectives that we all have in mind with some success and this Bill will assist us to get further faster. I confidently recommend it to the House.

The Minister need have no fear so far as this side of the House is concerned in relation to the Bill which he may have to introduce to increase the statutory amount available to An Foras Tionscal. He will certainly get a swift passage for that measure and he will be facilitated in every way.

It was this Party, when in the interParty Government, that first introduced the system of grants. We do not want to hark back to what is now history but when dealing with a serious amending Bill of this kind one must point out that this was so. In fact, the party now in Government at that time opposed the measure violently and said that when they returned to power they would remove it from the Statute Book. They not only kept it but expanded it in some ways. On this side of the House we have been saying for some years that in the detailed application of incentives to industry notably in grant form and also in the remission of tax—a matter which is not being dealt with this morning—there would be, as the years went on, a constant need for review and for change. It is a complex matter on which one does not produce doctrinaire views and stick to them and it was something that should have been attended to by the Government over all those years. They are now going to do it and it is small solace to us on this side of the House to have to read from the document on which we fought the last election, namely, "Summary of Policy: Towards A Just Society". I quote from page 14:

Fine Gael propose (1) concentration of national resources available for industrial development on those activities which show greatest potential for expansion. (2) The regrouping of the numerous State services at present dealing with industry into a new industrial development corporation which would be responsible for providing a comprehensive service to existing industry and for preparing and implementing a planned new industry programme.

That was pre-Devlin, pre-Buchanan and before the last election. What a pity the people did not listen to us. They might have got this done a little faster. Unfortunately, the position now is that the Government are not doing all that we proposed there. They are going only a very small part of the way.

My first duty is to draw attention to page 355 of the Devlin Report and in the interests of brevity I shall give a résumé of the items that the report recommended should be grouped together into one industrial development corporation as proposed by Fine Gael before it was ever mooted elsewhere. The Devlin Report considered that the items of information to industrialists should be grouped under one head; that the work of investigation of the potential should be within the same group or organisation. That organisation should also be responsible for a survey of our home markets, for seeking out firms that would develop the potential. There should also be—something that was not mentioned here this morning—consideration of the degree of Government participation in industry.

We must face the fact that things have been done by the Government through the agency of Nítrigin Éireann, the sugar company and other such concerns and these things were properly and rightly done by the Government because it was not a field which private enterprise would enter. Some of us might say that some things should not have been done by the Government but should have been left to private enterprise. The Devlin Report considers that the degree of governmental participation should be within the aegis of a large industrial development corporation. It says, too, that investigation of the requirements of infrastructure—I shall deal with that later: it is a most important factor, the development of roads, services, housing and other things—must keep pace with new industry as we place it to what we think is the best advantage.

We must remember that there is now, quite obviously, in every sphere of Government spending a list of priorities and if that is so, the infrastructure for industry must be put in the position that will give us the best advantage and there must be priority for money for that work. The Devlin Report also recommends that ascertainment of manpower requirements should be under the control of this organisation as well as the ordinary work of authorising grants. It also says the work of Córas Tráchtála should be within this organisation and it suggests that promoting exports and cutting down imports should also be undertaken. It ends by saying that the organisation should also produce an annual review, do an annual stocktaking to see how we were moving.

What the Government is doing today is merely taking An Foras Tionscal and the Industrial Development Authority and putting them together. That is a good thing of which my Party strongly approves but it is not going the whole way. I would go further than the Devlin Report and I say on behalf of my party that within this global organisation there should also be the work of the Industrial Credit Company. If this corporation could be got to knead and work one section with the other to better advantage we would get better value for our money and a better result.

I should have thought that with three or four years to go the Minister would have availed of the opportunity to discuss some of our failures. I am not a "Weary Willy" going about yelling "woe" just because there have been some failures. I think the Minister will agree that on this side of the House I have not shouted about failures to excess for the purpose of political advantage. The Minister might have pointed out why there were failures and, perhaps, have indicated paths that could be followed in the future to avoid a greater number of failures. It is a good thing for a Minister to come here occasionally and take an objective, not a party view, not only of the good parts but also of the bad parts of the curate's egg.

When replying the Minister might go into the question of certain industrial failures and, perhaps, reach conclusions as to why they failed. Were they too big? Where they entirely dependent on something for which we have no raw materials here? Was there a manpower problem? What was the situation? Was there insufficient investigation into the financial worthiness of those participating? These are things the House would like to know. The present time, when obviously there is not an election pending, is a time when the Minister might undertake this exercise. The Minister is a man who I regard—and I am sure many in the House regard—as a good Minister who makes a great contribution to our national life and he could have come here and discussed the whole matter, not from the point of view of saying that everything in the garden was lovely, but in an objective and constructive way.

The first serious provision in the Bill deals with grants. With the exception of giving an extra 10 per cent for re-equipment grants in the designated areas which I presume are the undeveloped areas, there is no improvement in the level of grants. In fact, as I understand it, there is a disimprovement for new industry because at present you can get 50 per cent on the east coast and 66? per cent in a designated area. This is something which now appears to have moved to 60 per cent maximum on the east coast and 45 per cent in the designated areas.

Vice versa.

Yes. The point I want to make on this is that what we are doing is, as the Minister said, producing an amending Bill. We are not producing anything new. The Minister also dealt with the fact that it is possible now to convert a grant into a remission of interest on a loan which you might get from the Industrial Credit Company. That is available at the moment. The only difference is that you will not have to go to the Industrial Development Authority and from there to Foras Tionscal and from there to the Industrial Credit Company. You now have to go to the Industrial Development Authority and from there to the Industrial Credit Company. This has got one move out of the way, but it has left two moves still to be made.

This is another reason why, in my view and the view of the Opposition party, this Bill should have been far more embracing and should have brought all the incentive bodies for industry together. This is something which should have been done in the view of the NIEC and the Devlin Report. In passing, I should like to pay tribute to the work of Mr. Walsh. I see the Minister has now appointed him to the Fair Trade Commission. He was with the Foras Tionscal industrial development people.

I want to refer now to the board of the new body. As I understand the composition of the boards of Foras Tionscal and the Industrial Development Authority, it was largely made up of civil servants. They did magnificent work and were excellent in every way. At the same time, a very great number of the people on the board of the Industrial Credit Company were eminent business men. Now that we are getting this bigger grouping, the Minister might tell us when he is replying, whether the board will be representative of the chambers of commerce, the Federation of Irish Industries, the trade unions and some civil servants, or whether the board will be the same as the board we had in Foras Tionscal, a board largely made up of civil servants.

I prefaced my remarks by saying that the board did their work extremely well, but that is not to say that a different type of board could not work better, or as well. This is something that should be considered. We are all in this now, and the amounts of money involved are quite colossal. I asked two questions a few weeks ago and, as I understand it, at the moment £20 million is owed for grants for new industries and £4 million for grants for re-equipment. This does not frighten anybody, but the amount of taxpayers' money being spent, and borrowed money which the taxpayer has to repay over a long number of years is such that, in my view, the proper procedure would be that the chambers of commerce, the trade unions, the Federation of Irish Industries and ordinary business men should have seats on the board, and that there should also be the guiding light and experience of civil servants. It should not be exclusively a board—and I say this in no denigrating way—of professional executives. The board should also dictate policy and, as the Devlin Report suggests, examine the whole structure and see what way we are moving in a general sense.

The position of the re-equipment grants is not satisfactory under the new Bill. Before the last general election Fine Gael produced a very measured policy statement on re-equipment grants. It is quite clear that you cannot give to existing industry for everything it does, every advance it makes, every expansion it makes and every re-equipment it carries out, a grant of 50 per cent or 60 per cent. The volume of re-equipment going on would cancel out your opportunity to do that. That is a physical and financial fact which we, on this side of the House, clearly accept. There is the case—and it is most important that this should be remembered; I know of one particular case which I will now cite, without giving the name, of course—of the existing industry that makes a major expansion, an expansion as major as if there were a new industry coming in, and this existing industry gets grants at approximately half the level only of the new industry.

I can cite a case which I have cited to the Minister before. In fact, the people involved were very strong supporters of the Minister's party. This case was one of the things which motivated my party to decide on a policy in relation to major expansion by existing firms. The case I want to cite is that of a factory which was sited in rented premises. The owners had to leave that premises because of a corporation order. They went to another place in the town and there they built what was actually a new factory. They utilised a building at the front for office space only. They employed 100 more people than a new industry about a mile away. They got a grant of £16,000 in respect of their activities and the new industry got a grant of £168,000. There is something wrong when that can happen.

Before the last election my party said, as policy, that when major expansion was carried out in the way of re-equipment by an existing industry, when it was major in relation to the capital employed in the first instance in that industry, it should qualify for grants at the same level as a new industry. That is not in this Bill. This is a fundamental mistake. Surely the man who has capital of £50,000 employed in an industry and who goes out and spends another £50,000 of borrowed money on major expansion or re-equipment, is entitled to grants at as high a level as the industrialist who comes in from abroad and spends £50,000 on a similar project.

I do not think there is anyone anywhere who could quarrel with the very measured approach this party produced on this matter before the last election. The approach was measured in this way. What it said was that if the man carried out re-equipment to the extent of 10 per cent of the capital involved in his business, and that is going on every day, you could not possibly give that man the same level of grants as the grants for a new industry but, where that man had carried out major expansion in relation to his capital employed, he is fully entitled to the same level of grant as a new industry. It is a shame that that is not included in this Bill. In fact, the Minister may expect an amendment on Committee Stage if we are not satisfied with his reply on Second Stage.

The question of industrial estates has been mentioned by the Minister. There, again, we on this side of the House can take solace, if nothing else, from the fact that we pushed very, very hard for this to be done. I am trying not to be political or destructively political but I must draw attention to the fact that the NIEC Report of 1962 indicated that there should be industrial estates in this country and advance factories and that nothing was done from 1962 until 1966 when the policy was adopted by the Government.

The reason why nothing was done is quite obviously a political reason. The Minister was not there for that period and he need not take that ball and play it back into my court if he does not like. As I have said before, if you say at any time you are going to establish an industrial estate in Sligo and you get a deputation from Leitrim and you tell them: "I do not intend to put an industrial estate in Leitrim" you lose votes in one place or another. Fianna Fáil are the party that work out their gains and losses in every election down to 100 votes. For four years nothing was done about industrial estates. As I speak I look at Deputy Tom O'Donnell beside me. The proof that industrial estates will work is the Shannon development where they work very well. The Minister pointed out in a speech how well they did work. At the moment all we have are Galway and Waterford. The people should have been told where the factories would be built. When the Buchanan Report was produced we should have critically examined it, not taken it hook, line and sinker; we should have appraised it and said: "He is right. We must put an industrial estate there and that means that main roads to that place will have priority." It is better that people should go from Leitrim to Sligo for employment than from Leitrim to London.

There is no gain for the Government in stating exactly where these estates should be. I believe that the building of further industrial estates and statements on the Buchanan Report have been delayed for the reason that members of the Cabinet are trying to get their own place into prominence. On practically every piece of industrial legislation I spoke on in this House I have referred to the city of Craigavon in Northern Ireland. I would commend to the Minister that he should pay a visit there. There may be discrimination and the people who will get jobs may not be employed on a fair basis. Leave that consideration out of it. It was decided there would be an industrial town there and the infrastructure was put in. They were in the position up there that, having a majority, they could do it by gerrymandering and could thumb their noses at the areas that were not getting industrial development. However, the result is that there will be a great upsurge in industrial employment and industrial exports, and we shall be very lucky if they do not continue to do as they have done, take a very large number of the plums coming from abroad off our plate.

I should like now to mention something that is not in the Bill. In banking circles in this country we have the statement that in a year all overdrafts will disappear and the manner of producing capital from commercial banking circles for industry will be by stated loan with stated repayments. We all know that in the small industries in country towns what happened was that overdraft accommodation was used as permanent capital. That will not be allowed any more. On the Estimate last year and the year before I charged the Government with not doing enough to enable existing Irish businesses to go public. The services are there, on paper at least, in the Industrial Credit Company, but if you look at the whole business scene in this country and just think of how many companies have gone public in the last ten years, you could count them on the fingers of your two hands. This is not a healthy situation in regard to participation in industry by the people of Ireland.

There should be a provision in this Bill for the encouragement, by guarantee, by any other expedient the Minister can think of, to companies, and particularly small companies, to go public for the dual reason: that they would have their capital and nobody could take it from them and that the ordinary person would have an incentee tive to save. A salaried person who invests in the national loan will find— there is one floated at the moment and I must not say anything derogatory— that the value of the £ will go down in the next ten years to, perhaps, 10/- by 1969 standards. There would be an incentive to the Irish salaried man to put his savings into existing industrial shares if they were widely quoted on the stock exchange. There he could see the fixed assets of the company guarding the depreciation in the value of his savings as the years went by. People would be involved in industry, and they would want industry to go on, and there is nothing like involvement to bring things to a successful conclusion. We in Fine Gael stated that again before the last election but, unfortunately, the Government did not adopt it. They went only half way with some of the things we painstakingly produced.

Another thing we suggested by way of encouragement to industry which is not in this Bill was that it would be our policy, if in government, that, in the case of money invested by an Irish citizen in a new industrial undertaking, tax on 50 per cent of the dividends would be remitted for five years. This is something that could have been properly included in this Bill.

I was quoted last week as saying that we needed an increase in the number of jobs of 7,000 per year until 1987 to reach full employment and to reduce emigration to the natural figure arising from the fact that young people all over the world will move from one country to another. That is the figure that is facing us. What is extremely sad is that we have never in any year, since the production of the First Programme for Economic Expansion, reached that target. While we have employed more people in industry in each year, that number has not compensated for the numbers leaving the land and other occupations. That means that, with this amending Bill coming in, we are in a failure position.

I am not trying to blame the Government for this, I am merely recording the fact that the targets which the Government have set themselves have not been attained in any one year from the printing of the First Programme for Economic Expansion. There must be a very big upsurge in the activities of our industrial operators if the desired expansion is to take place. We must also attract industries which have a high labour potential; and we must be prepared to put in the huge capital sums that will be required by way of grant. I often wonder if we can continue with our present level of expenditure as far as grant is concerned but, having considered it, I have to say that we cannot afford not to; we have got to go on.

I am sorry this Bill has not taken, under one grouping, all composite services because that would have meant a greater step forward. The Bill does not produce anything new. When the Minister is replying he might indicate what advantages, apart from the advantage of convenience, he is going to get from this Bill. I do not want to be hypocritical, but the more expansive proposals Fine Gael made, after painstaking work, would have led us to more hope that the loss position with regard to jobs might be changed to the desired position of 7,000 new jobs a year. I hope the Minister's proposals will do that. Perhaps some of the criticisms that have been made here may help him to indicate how he thinks this will occur.

I should like to commend the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the audible and comprehensible way in which he presented this Bill. He seemed to be familiar with the material contained in it. I am bound to say, however, that I found the speech itself an extraordinarily complacent one. I should like to give some instances, chosen very rapidly as the Minister was speaking, of what I mean. On page 1 of the printed text the Minister says: "The progress of our industrial development in recent years has been remarkable." On page 4, on industrialisation in the west, he says: "Linked with the establishment of further small and medium size industries this remarkable progress is, I believe, the beginning of the solution of the problem". On page 6, under the heading "Product Policy", the same sort of self-congratulatory phrase is used. The Minister says: "Because of the success achieved to date in our industrial drive". The Minister did not say "successes"—because, of course, we all agree there have been very welcome successes. Nevertheless, the Minister used the word "success" in the general unqualified sense.

It is a matter of fact, readily verifiable, that since the end of the war western Europe and the United States have seen an industrial boom on an unprecedented scale and for an unprecedented duration which no one in the immediate post-war period had expected. The Minister is fortunate that the only economic hiccup in the western world took place at a time when the inter-Party Government were in office here—to the great discomfiture of Deputy Sweetman and of the second Coalition Government. I think claims like "success" and phrases like "remarkable" can justly be made only in the context of the economic development of comparable countries around the world.

I should like the Minister, in his reply, using readily available index numbers, to indicate to the House the rate of industrial growth, let us say for the period from 1950 to date, in western Europe as a whole; in north-western Europe, in the EEC countries and even in the poor crisis-ridden, lagging United Kingdom. Having read out those figures, if the Minister were then to read out the figures for industrial growth in this country and quote his sentence: "That progress of our industrial development in recent years has been remarkable," the Minister might conceivably raise a laugh. We have been towed along behind the west European industrial boom. I say this at the outset because I have been sickened by the claims made for the welcome growth we possess, as if it were solely the work of one political party and as if it were a phenomenon unique in the world. It took ten years after the development in Europe had started for our development to begin. While the progress which we see is extremely welcome, I think the complacency about it is, and I suggest the sentences I have quoted indicate complacency, extraordinarily ill-judged.

The key to the whole strategy behind this Bill lies in the sentence on page 4, where the Minister states: "Very broadly, it is true to say that the high level of our present development has been reached through the efforts exerted to attract viable worthwhile industries from abroad". Qualifications are made later on in that sentence. I recognise the existence of those qualifications and I am not trying to take the Minister out of context, but I think this is a fair description of the strategy for the development of our industry, particularly since 1959. I look on the 1959-60 period as a time of great change in the thinking of the Fianna Fáil Party and as a moment of very major change in the evolution of this country. Many changes which occurred at that time seem to me to be retrograde ones for reasons I shall try to indicate.

I think the words used by the Minister: "The high level of our present development has been reached through the efforts exerted to attract viable worthwhile industries from abroad" are an accurate description of the heart of the Government's technique and the success of that technique in terms of the number of countries investing here, as indicated by the figures in the Minister's speech. On page 2 he is talking about the breakdown of projects mentioned plus others currently under negotiation, and the Minister goes on to say that: "Approximately 25 per cent are British, 20 per cent Irish, 20 per cent American, 15 per cent German"—the remainder are from numerous other countries which he goes on to mention. If we take those figures we see that 20 per cent or one-fifth is Irish, and that 80 per cent or four-fifths comes from overseas. We see that the share of the British in the development of the Irish economy was bigger than the home share, that the share of Americans alone was as big as the Irish share and that the share of the Germans almost as big. If we add together the share of the British, Americans and Germans it is three times the indigenous Irish contribution to industrial development. For reasons I shall state shortly this seems to me to be an extraordinarily dangerous situation in terms of the independent future of this country.

Everyone recognises the need to develop. In this century no nation and no party has a private patent on that. Indeed, we have witnessed in the world a growth race between different sorts of economies, and inside the same comparable system, between different nations. This is a worldwide phenomenon and, if we are to overhaul the defects, failures and inadequacies of the past—some of them outside our control and some that we should have dealt with with the establishment of an independent nation—we have to grow at a rate comparable to that of our main competitors, if not faster.

In endeavouring to do this, of course, we have immense difficulties. The first of them is, by modern economic terms, the extraordinarily small size of our home market—approximately three million people with, by west European standards, a low purchasing power. I suppose the purchasing power of the whole of this nation is equivalent to the purchasing power of one large German city of, say, 1¼ million or 1½ million people. That is the scale we are on, firstly. Secondly, of course, we are put into an extremely difficult and dangerous position because of our need, which on all sides of the House we accept, to export a very large proportion of our total production. The United States, for example, can get by with a tiny part of its total production exported. We have to go to an enormously large proportion in terms of general economies around the world. This, again, therefore, puts us—I am not blaming anybody for this; I am stating it as a danger we have to guard against—in an extraordinarily vulnerable position in circumstances of a downturn in world trade.

But, most important of all, the greatest difficulty is one that I see almost no reference made to. I am not now trying to use pejorative or abusive terms. I should like if the Minister either on this occasion or on the occasion of the Estimate for his Department would enter into a debate—I hope a rational and constructive debate—on the question of the cost of credit, the interest rate on borrowed money. It seems to me that this is the key to the development not just of Irish industry but of Irish agriculture, of Irish home building, of the whole of our economy. This may seem to be a trivial subject but it is central to the strategy, it is central to the technique, it is central to the thing which the Minister says is the objective of this Bill, which is, to integrate and clarify and update the incentives, available for manufacturing projects, because the most powerful incentive for a manufacturer is a high rate of profit and if he has to borrow at the current world historically high levels, this is eating into the rate of profit and is a profound disincentive.

We are in the circumstances in this part of this island that we have a sovereign Parliament and we have an independent Republic but that we have never tried in the history of the State —and I suggest it was possible and that it is a major omission—to establish financial independence, by which I mean to establish a separate currency which did not flow freely from here to London or around the whole sterling area and which in the accumulation of savings and in the level of interest rates was related to national needs and not to international ones.

Professor Louden Ryan in the very recent past has been indicating just how little control we have over interest rates in this country and how little power we have over the availability of funds or the price of funds through any sort of fiscal control procedures. The small countries in Europe and in other parts of the world that have the same development difficulties as we possess and that had to try to undertake, and in some cases have successfully undertaken, the sort of growth path that we are correctly endeavouring to set out upon, have found it necessary to establish control over their own currencies to a much greater degree. I think it has been said—and this is again much more of a justification for present difficulties than an attempt to blame the Government— that the real thing that is murdering our industrial and agricultural development here is that the cost of interest is not just determined in London now; it is determined by the situation in the United States where capital is in extremely short supply and where there is currently both a boom, although a precarious one, and inflation and where people looking for investment funds in this greatest economy in the world are sucking money out of Europe and out of London and out of everywhere else and are bidding higher and higher and higher for that money. They, perhaps, because their research and development is so good and their rate of profits on new industries is so high, can pay these borrowing costs and still show a profit; but our industry, relatively weak, relatively under-capitalised, relatively new, is being murdered, as is our agricultural development. This is so not just for Ireland but for many of the smaller economies in the world who do not control their currencies more rigidly. They are being murdered by these high interest rates which are not generated in Ireland at all or not even generated in Europe.

The point is that if we had a more rigid control on the outflow of money, the actual naturally accumulated profits from Irish work, from Irish industry, from Irish people, would build up in this country, would not be able to command the same high interest rates as is possible on the world market and would seek investment opportunities here. There is a history of a similar series of efforts to those that are now codified and rationalised in this Bill. We have now been at it for 50 years. By and large, neither side of the House has priority or has special right of possession on these ideas. They are the right and possession of all parties. The rationalisation is a good thing and the intentions in some of the streamlining in the Bill will find ready support all around the House. I want to suggest seriously to the Minister that the sort of efforts indicated in this Bill, even the sort of borrowing scale indicated by a sum of £100 million, which, for a country of this size, is a very substantial sum, will prove ineffectual unless we can do something to insulate Irish industry against the sort of interest rates that are now being commanded on the world market and that any single significant step to reduce the cost of borrowing in Ireland would be more significant, would be more helpful, would be a greater contribution to our industrial growth than a whole series of efforts of the type outlined here.

That strategy of industrial development, as outlined in this Bill, as repeated in this Bill, is the strategy of saying to people overseas, "Will you please, with your high technology, with your expertise in marketing, your expertise in product presentation, come in and set up an industry in Ireland?" In order to persuade them to do this we have given them a very wide range of incentives, in some cases direct cash incentives; in some cases we have given them incentives in regard to the erection of factories; in all cases in regard to their profits tax, holidays, and things like that. I would commend to the House and indeed through the House to all people who are interested in the question of the development of an economy our size and the maintenance of our national sovereignty and identity, the work of the French economist, journalist and sociologist, J.J. SerwanSchreibes called The American Challenge originally published in French and now widely translated. The point I am making is that many of the companies coming here—this has been happening, too, with American investment in Europe—do not find it necessary to put in a great deal of their own capital. Because of their possession of expertise, of patents, of worldwide influence, and because of the level of incentives, they can get a factory off the ground here at very, very low cost to themselves, with very little of their own money in it and without any enormous capital inflow. In a more general sense, what is happening in Europe is that the Americans come to Europe, borrow the money in Europe, buy up the European firms with the borrowed money, and then, because of their expertise and the level of development of their technology, they are able to dominate the market and send back to their home base the profits from this process. The end result is that industry after industry all over Europe is substantially owned from outside the country. It has become so owned at the cost of very little investment by the new owner and, therefore, the new owner feels that in time of danger, in time of difficulty, in time of slump, in time of contraction in the world economy, these companies can be readily closed down and simply abandoned.

This is a process that is profoundly dangerous to every small economy and, by the standards of the United States economy, the economy of The Six is already a small economy. How much more dangerous then is the threat to an economy of less than 3,000,000 people less industrially developed. This, I suggest—I am trying to do nothing other than raise a profoundly serious discussion on the future of our economy and, therefore, of the separate identity of the nation—this, I suggest, is a serious situation. It is one which can be seen developing in industry after industry here because the dilemma is that, if you say to overseas companies: "Please come in with your technology, your expertise, your world marketing connection" they will come in only on condition that we make things so nice for them that we actually surrender some of our sovereignty in the process.

One can give away one's sovereignty drop by drop and bit by bit and suddenly wake up to find that, in real terms of control over one's economy and industry and finance, one's sovereignty has disappeared. Without debasing what I hope will develop into a serious discussion, we have got benefits from what I might call, without implying a value judgment, the "Lemass policy" of industrial development here, which has now been going on for ten years. Of course we have got jobs. Of course we have got a development of our industrial structure and infrastructure. Of course we have got expertise in areas in which we did not previously possess it. Of course we have had a growth of confidence in being able to cope, something which, in the past, was one of the crucially lacking factors in developing interest in industry here. These are on the credit side. It is only fair this should be acknowledged.

On the debit side, we have, first, the precariousness about which I have spoken. Without following Deputy Donegan into asking the Minister for a recital of failures, some of these failures were precisely on the basis of the kind of precariousness about which I am talking. Because the actual amount the foreign company had to put down in order to get in here was exceedingly small it could be lightheartedly thrown away in a moment of difficulty. There is, therefore, the danger of precariousness.

We have been financing and assisting what I call the "Lemass policy" in a time of world boom. We have had ten years of world boom and we have to ask ourselves now how it will be when we have to get into a defensive position vis-à-vis our economy. I am suggesting the position could be very bad. One gets jobs; one gets pay packets and pumped booming of the economy and a certain euphoric effect from the existence of these industries; but one does not get the retention of the profits here and, in many cases, one does not even get the taxes until a considerable period has elapsed. We are, therefore, simply buying jobs at a very high price. We are allowing money, the natural accumulation of the result of the labour of our people from the most skilled to the least skilled, to be siphoned out of the country, a country already capital starved and a country from which there has been a capital haemorrhage for a very long time.

Over and over, under this policy, we have seen that, up to a certain level, Irishmen may participate either in management or in research and development. I do not wish to do damage to what exists, but we all know cases —the Minister will agree with me in this—where there is a definite cut-off from the point of view of how high Irish management may go in these foreignowned firms. We are certainly developing our skilled and semi-skilled labour force; but we are, at the same time, putting some of the very best of our management personnel and our research and development personnel into what is for them an extremely exasperating position because, in a high technological and expert industry, they learn their expertise and their trade, have a sense of possessing the trade and being proud of it, but they can go only so high. Many of them are emigrating because, having learned their skill and their trade, they cannot get the opportunities for promotion here and they simply go and see if they can do better elsewhere. This is a genuine drawback.

I am not trying to make this into a party political discussion. In the long run—things can be obscured by jargon and I want to keep jargon out of this— the evolution of this policy, without much more vigorous parallel activity of an indigenous sort, will result in the sort of figures we had this morning: 20 per cent Irish and 80 per cent non-Irish—I have not got the figures—but the number of new jobs expected to be created will be created through non-Irish industry. Perhaps the Minister would give us a more detailed breakdown when he comes to reply. The point is we will end up in what many of the developing African nations and South American nations, trying to develop, call a neo-colonialist situation because we do not control our finances, because we do not control our financial system and our currency, and, because so much of it has passed from our ownership, we do not control our industry. Lest we offend these precious people from overseas, at times we do not even fight strongly enough for the basic rights of our workers. I will give one example—the situation in EI in Shannon. This was a subsidiary of one of the greatest corporations in the world and we were so glad to get them that they were allowed to come in here under less than satisfactory conditions for the workers employed there.

This is the Ireland I see. I know the personal dedication of the Minister. I hope I shall not embarrass him with his colleagues when I say this. I know of the Minister's dedication, not just to Irish industrial development and more especially—I know it is near his heart— the development of industry in the west of Ireland, but I know his dedication to Irish culture, Irish language and to the whole spirit and essence of Irish personality, Irish individuality and Irish nationality. Yet, here is the irony, and it appears to me to be the irony of his entire party, that, on the one hand, in their best representatives, they stand for all these things, but on the other hand they stand for a policy of industrial development which puts all these things into the most profound jeopardy. That is a desperately contradictory situation which is facing us. It is a difficult choice and, I suggest, in the end an impossible choice. In the end, these things are irreconcilable.

There is an alternative method for industrial development or, I could suggest, if one does not wish to disturb an already precarious situation which I suppose nobody wishes to disturb, there is a parallel possibility. There is a possibility whereby we could protect our individuality and protect ourselves against the vagaries of the western economic system. Obviously, that is by the much more profound and vigorous development of the public sector of our industrial life. This is something that the Minister's party, certainly until 1959—until the beginning of what I might call the Lemass policy —were well aware of.

We have had the unfortunate tradition that only those sectors of industry which were non-profit making were sold to the nation by their previous owners so that the nation was left with these intractable problems. The British coal owners were, undoubtedly, very glad to get rid of their coal mines because there was no profit in them. Tramways, urban transportation, water-works and all these sorts of things are not money-makers. However, when these non-profit making but necessary elements of the economy were peddled to the State, they were then generally run in an undemocratic, unimaginative and bureaucratic way. Then, right-wing politicians and factory owners were able to say that this was nationalisation. They said it was inefficient, cold, inhuman, and that it was not wanted.

It is only fair to point out that almost every airline in the world is either openly or covertly in public ownership; and the aircraft industry of the world would not exist without the public policies of governments in relation to expenditure. It is only fair to point out also that that economic miracle, the Volkswagen car, was developed under public ownership and that it was only when it was very definitely a profit-maker around the world that it was sold back into private ownership. It is only fair to point out also that the Renault motor-car firm, that all of the firms associated with INI in Italy, that much of the steel industry in Sweden, one of the most efficient in the world, that much of the whole industrial sector of Austria, which has seen remarkable and unexpected growth, are in public hands. Therefore, to judge public ownership by the undemocratic and often ruthless and inefficient standard of the yardstick is unfair and unjust.

I suggest to the Minister that the sort of things that the Government have done very well in certain areas are more widely necessary. I hope to have the pleasure shortly of commending the sort of thing I have in mind when the Nítrigin Éireann Bill is introduced. This is the sort of development that has protected us against an international nitrogen monopoly and that has made it possible for us to build a fine chemical industry, which, contrary to the prophets of doom, is viable and profitable.

This is the sort of thing in which the Government can do much more. By so doing they can protect us against the awful dangers, both to prosperity and to sovereignty, involved in the policy implicit in this Bill. It is explicit in the sentence I have quoted:

...present development has been reached through the efforts exerted to attract viable worthwhile industries from abroad...

I suggest that the whole basic philosophy behind this is very dangerous for us. Of course, we do not wish to dismantle what exists. We have extraordinary advantages, for instance, in location on the world shipping lines and, if we participate in the Common Market, in the availability of deep water harbours and so on. I wish to make it clear that the Labour Party welcome the participation of foreign industries in the industrial development of Ireland. What we see as being dangerous is the domination of Irish industry and, subsequently, the Irish economy. The development of this sort of industry will lead to the loss of our sovereignty.

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but, since he obviously wishes to discuss this matter seriously, may I invite him to develop a little further what he was saying about the development in State industries, such as NET, in the context of the necessity to have access to foreign markets and technical know-how—I am leaving aside the question of capital —their development on a serious basis as a real alternative to what we are doing at the moment in the light of the problems of full employment and emigration?

I should be happy to do this at length on another occasion Obviously, the Minister has thrown this at me realising that what I say in reply is unprepared and, therefore, inadequate. However, I would be happy to deal with areas in which I can claim the most personal knowledge, if I might be allowed talk about the dairy industry, the food industry, perhaps something about the possibility of industries based on the sea, and something about the mining industry. The mining industry is an example of the sort of thing I have been decrying. I might also refer to the extraordinary mineral possibilities being developed outside our influence and control.

I hope the Minister will accept that this is an immediate response to his invitation and not a prepared set of observations. I shall take food and dairying together. With regard to the food industry—I am subject to correction on this—it is accepted that, with the advent of convenience foods and with women all over the world not wanting to do too much housework, the food industry is the most rapidly growing industry in the world, with an extraordinary potential. We have an extraordinary potential in the production of a wide range of food products, whether it be meat, milk or vegetables.

We have shown the sort of thing that it is possible to do with one single product, namely, butter. We had the wit to undertake something not specially remarkable but simply the market research, packaging, product development and promotion of butter.

In regard to chocolate crumb, the vast majority of the production of chocolate crumb in this State is outside Irish ownership. There is a very significant contribution, in regard to cheese, from overseas firms. In regard to meat products of all sorts, we have the failure to rationalise. Let me give the example of bacon, where the Danish share of the British market is approximately ten times ours with a product that we developed originally. What the British eat for breakfast was originally an Irish product. I am thinking as I go along: I take this example because we are both familiar with it and because it has immense export possibilities right beside us. We have a whole lot of small, separate, rather ineffective private firms doing very little product development. By the influence and intervention of the State, we have a Pigs and Bacon Commission. Because the ideology of that Pigs and Bacon Commission, if one might attribute it with the possession of such a thing as an ideology, is based on the interests of these private factories, we have not developed a uniform, high-quality national product. We have not developed product research. We have an extraordinary promotional failure. We have the final culmination that the British market for the product I am talking about is the biggest in the world. We invented the particular product somewhere around Limerick about 100 years ago but the Danish share now is 11 or 12 times bigger than ours. I give that as an example of the way in which properly-directed, modern, democratic public enterprise could reverse a situation had the Government wished to put the interests of the primary producers and of the nation as a whole and of public production before the interests of the private bacon factory owners. I might pass from that to the matter of mining.

Does the Deputy advocate the nationalisation of the bacon industry, or, indeed, of the meat industry? Does he advocate the abolition of the small firms within the meat industry?

I am advocating public ownership. One wants to distinguish between "nationalisation" and "public ownership." I am not advocating that they become the property of the State. I am advocating a situation in which some of them are co-operative, some of them are owned in a manner by which the public have participation, by a technique to be worked out. The efficient ones can remain in private hands. I am not saying that the efficient ones must be taken away from their owners. I am advocating that the whole structure—marketing, promotion in Britain, product development—be done under a State umbrella in an effective way. This is not to say that where there is a good, vigorous factory the State should take it away. I am not advocating that. I was giving the Minister an example when he asked me what public development could do.

I want to turn from that to the question of mining. I do not intend to refer to it in detail now because I am not documented to refer to it without warning. We have had an extraordinary failure, an extraordinary inadequacy, an extraordinary omission with regard to the development of the national geological service, the Geological Survey. For very many decades, one might almost say, it was repeated over and over again that Ireland had no mineral resources. We now find—I am sure to the great delight of everybody —that we have a number of valuable areas. We did not, however, find these through a national effort. The geologists working for the State would be just as bright and just as competent as the people working for a Canadian firm. We did not find the stuff in that way. We did not set about the development in that way. We have a legal structure whereby our rights as a nation over what is under the ground are extraordinarily unprotected compared with almost any other nation. The development of our minerals is the perfect example of what I was decrying, because there is an employment potential for Ireland in that development, largely of unskilled labour. In terms of profits the potential is small. When the particular deposits, which have an estimated life of 15 or 20 years run out, the people developing them may go away. Mineral deposits run out and there has been an extraordinary failure in the area of mining.

Could I draw the attention of the Deputy to a peculiar phenomenon in regard to mining? To look at the map, it would appear that all the minerals which we have are south of the Border. Therefore, on the face of it, it seems an untenable proposition. The Deputy might think about the implications of that fact.

I shall note what the Minister says and I shall do so. At the moment, I am simply trying to reply to the Minister's request for some illustrations of where growth might take place and where failure has been damaging. I refer to the sea as a whole. By that, I mean the possibility of developing the sea under three headings—fishing, shipping and the mining of the continental shelf.

Fishing has not been a very profitable area since the war. The enormous British commercial undertakings have found it very non-profitable and trawler fleets have been shrinking. I applaud the efforts of BIM. I think we have the beginnings of a growth now but it is a little limited in scale and it is certainly late. The little fisherman is weak in terms of capital, is weak in terms of potential, is very defenceless. A much more extended public development, not just in the boats or in the ice plants or even in the packaging plants, but in the whole process of product development, market research, marketing, a unified push of a vertical sort, with a profound State benevolence towards it and co-operative participation in it, would have put us in a very much better position. We know cases where the opposite happened. We know cases of big investments, with public help, in private undertakings, where very sophisticated and expensive trawlers bought with national benevolence ended up working out of other ports, landing their fish in other places and sometimes worked by foreign crews. I am pointing to the dangers of the private method.

Geographically, we are the Japan of Europe. We are the offshore island on the continental shelf. In view of the way the world is going, this is an extraordinarily favourable situation provided one is equipped to take advantage of it. The shipping industry is notoriously and up and down one. The biggest producers in Britain have been going bankrupt. The Americans can hardly produce ships economically at all. It is left either to publicly-owned companies which can weather these economic downturns or else to the bigger and bigger private ones in Japan, Sweden and a few other places. We have practically no shipbuilding industry at all because we could not get through the bad patches. We could be major shipbuilders, major shiprepairers, major shipowners for the world if we had the public protection so that we could get over the terrible difficulties that small people experience in coming into an industry which is subject to sharp fluctuation in rates and where the big people gang up and swamp them. We will never get into that industry on the basis of private enterprise because we are too late on the scene. We could do so, to our immense national advantage, on the basis of public investment.

Finally, we have the great good fortune to have the ownership rights to what is on the floor of the continental shelf, that is the sea to a depth of 100 fathoms or 600 feet, north, west, and south of Ireland, which makes Ireland a much bigger place than the geographical limits we have. However we must have the expertise to develop that. We must provide facilities for learning the techniques, in our universities, in our shipbuilding industry, if we had one, of underwater work, geological survey work, and of diving and mining. We should plan ahead and prepare for that. We cannot say that a bonanza lies around the corner, but we can anticipate an extraordinarily fruitful development. We are immensely lucky to have a continental shelf but we are making no effort in our universities, in our research institutes, in our industries, to get ready for the day, quite soon, when that will become industrially utilisable in various ways and so, when the time comes—whether it will be oil, natural gas, manganese pellets, or whatever it will be we will be taking from the continental shelf—we will have to invite in some large international company to develop it in exactly the way that our copper and various other aspects of our economy are being developed at this time. I am not suggesting that we should "clobber" or chase away the people who are already here and are making a valuable contribution not to general economy growth but to job growth. I should like to distinguish those two. We will lose our sovereignty, our independence, our national identity, all the things that go with them, if we do not make a profoundly more vigorous, more resolute, more deeply-researched effort to develop the public sector in parallel.

I have tried very briefly to indicate some of the areas to the Minister. Of course there are many others of which, had I more knowledge or a better memory, I could give him examples in the way I have tried to do in regard to the fishing industry, the mining industry and the industries related to the utilisation of the sea.

I have utilised the presentation to the House of this Bill not to comment on the Bill in detail and not to try to say everything about something that seems to me to be a subject for the central debate for the future of this nation but simply to try to open up the subject in this House at a national level of the basic strategy, the basic technique, the basic ideology by which we are to develop our economy while preserving our identity. I suggest to the Minister, in a nutshell, that the method shall be the method of mixed economy and that for a successful, flourishing and vigorous economy we do not need to make the private sector stronger; we need to make the public sector stronger. I am not suggesting the abolition of the private sector. I am saying that we want a modern Scandinavian type mixed economy. Therefore, while many of the things in this Bill are valuable and while we do not propose to amend or to contest or even to comment on them in detail I have to make the point that this Bill is related to the major central problem that the nation has and that it is inadequate, because it is one-sided. I believe that the basic idea behind it, while it may have had a value in redressing the failure, in the period from the war till 1960, to participate in the western world's economic boom, is an unbalanced one, an inadequate one and one which if pursued without the sort of redressing of the balance that I have indicated will in fact lead the nation not simply into difficulty but into national extinction.

I was intrigued by the address of my colleague from North Dublin. I was hoping to hear something constructive from him on this debate. Lest I forget, I want to tell the Minister that I welcome this Bill and I welcome the continued advance of our industrial economy and I wish him luck in carrying out this work. It is easy to criticise a country like ours. May I bring the House back to the time the Treaty was signed. It is well known that Lloyd George stated behind the backs of the plenipotentiaries: "We have given them the agricultural south and they shall never be able to carry on!" The great industrial revival was started by the Fianna Fáil Government. Seán Lemass will go down in history for succeeding as Minister for Industry and Commerce in doing something for this country. We were starved for capital. It is all very well to say we should not have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage or that we should not have done this or that, but if John Jones or Paddy Burke is not able to pay his rent and if he can borrow it from the bank he will do so.

Private enterprise has brought this country a long way. Private enterprise made England the greatest empire in the world since the Roman Empire. I am a great believer in private enterprise and in the policy by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Industry and Commerce and by the present Minister. We have tried to get foreign markets. We have tried to get capital. If we had capital we would not bother trying to get it from outside. I listened to my colleague from North Dublin being very pessimistic and saying that we have sold our freedom and everything is going wrong and no advances were made.

He did not say that no advances were made.

He was very pessimistic about it, my honourable professor. If we were to do what the Deputy recommended we would be putting the clock back. I would like to see our financial position a good deal better and so would every Deputy and everybody else. We set up a commission years ago to deal with financial control. That commission sat for a long time. There were intelligent men on it from various parts of the country. International advice was got. However, times change and we must change with them and if it suits us now or in the future to have our own monetary system we will do so.

Other countries are very rich in mineral resources which contribute to their financial build up. For example, some of the countries I visited going out to New Delhi a fortnight or three weeks ago are very rich in oil from the sale of which they were enabled to do a lot. Our greatest resource here is agriculture so we had to create an industrial arm here. How was it done? The only way it could be done was the way in which it was done by our predecessors and by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not believe there was any other way we could do this.

We started to build up our economy through tourism. I remember how we approached that task from the start. I will leave that to discuss the Bill. The Bill, in my opinion, is another step forward. If some of our industries failed in the past "it is better," to quote the old tag, "to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all". We had to take chances and we had to encourage people to come into the country. If people were not prepared to take those chances we would never have got anywhere with our industrial development. That policy paid off very well. If a few industries fell by the way that is only natural.

You fell into a hole.

The Mayor of Galway is right and it took a lot of help to get me out. Our industrial revival is doing well. I agree with Deputy Donegan's point it would have been better if more companies went public because they would have been able to stand up to international competition. The last Deputy to contribute spoke of industries which had gone public and then went private. He spoke of the pig industry. He did not suggest nationalising it but asked to have a national body set up. I cannot see the difference between nationalising something and having it a semi-State body. As far as the pig industry is concerned, I came from a farm on which there was pig rearing.

This would seem to be a matter for another Minister.

I agree, I am just referring to a point made about how far down the list we are in our pig production. The Minister who is dealing with this matter tried to do something. If this cannot be done by private enterprise, if our people cannot be persuaded to do this themselves you will not really succeed.

The Deputy wants to bring home the bacon.

I was anxious about 24 years ago to see a survey of our mineral resources carried out in every part of the country so that we would be able to state definitely that there was a particular mineral in this, that or the other parish. That was done in wealthier countries but at that time we had to bring out a budget every year and depend on our people to pay increased taxation and there was only so much they could pay. We were very anxious to bring back some of our kith and kin who did well in other countries to develop our mineral resources here when we were not able to do it ourselves. For that reason I believe it is better to have people who will take chances and industrialise the country rather than say if the Germans or English come in to erect factories here that they will take away the country and do all sorts of things. That is impossible because the Dáil would nationalise everything if that were the case. The last Deputy's contribution was most pessimistic. He referred to things which happened in the days of the inter-Party Government. He would be wiser to leave that period of our economic upheaval alone because of what happened then.

I welcome this Bill. It is very nice to know that our industrial estates in Waterford and Galway are doing remarkably well and that the employment potential is very good in all our industrial estates. The one thing we are concerned about in regard to them is our export market. If we can do more to sell our products outside the country we will improve our economy very much. It was said on the other side of the House this morning that we were successful industrially because that was the whole trend in western Europe. Did the House ever hear such nonsense? In other words, the suggestion was that if we did nothing we would be a wealthy State and if we built a wall around the country we would do well. Even public men will not get into this House if they do not canvass, talk and visit the people.

There is no better man to describe how to come into this House and stay in it.

He is not the worst.

It is really nonsense talking like that. I have already referred to other countries which got on well industrially. When I was in Jerusalem at the world town planning and housing conference with my colleague across the House the President of Israel said to me: "We would not be where we are today were it not for the Jews all over the world who are giving us money." He then said: "If every Irishman all over the world did the same thing for old Ireland she would be the wealthiest country in the world." That is something we have got to think about.

Since this State was founded all Governments took the chances which had to be taken with regard to the resources of the county and they did what they could to encourage industrialists to come in here. The major chances were taken by our party and for that reason alone I am delighted that this Bill dealing with regional policy, with extending the loans, helping to build up the country, is being brought in. If we had done nothing in the past we would not be where we are. We would most likely be like Newfoundland. We would be trying to exist without any resources, good bad or indifferent. If there is any other short way to prosperity than through the type of economy we have adopted —development of our natural resources, industrial, agricultural and tourist—I have yet to hear it.

We must get more and more into the foreign market and we must determine to give more and more support to the men or to the firms who set up a sales organisation for the export of their goods. It is through exports that our prosperity will come not only through greater employment at home but also in a healthy balance of payments situation. In this respect I congratulate the Minister who has done so much for our exports by his travels abroad, accompanied by experts from his Department. We can do a lot in that field to raise our standard of living by giving more employment at home.

Deputy Burke covered a wide range, starting in 1920. He spoke about all that was done and undone in that period and gave the impression that nothing had happened in our economy until Mr. Seán Lemass came to office. I wonder if he realises that without Mr. W.T. Cosgrave's efforts in the field of sugar production and electricity—these were called white elephants—we would still be back in the twenties. In a small country like this we must always measure our prosperity in terms of the employment content of industry. I am afraid we must tighten our belts in that respect because according to latest figures from the Central Statistics Office there is more unemployment this year than last year. That is the yardstick by which we must measure our industrial advancement.

Therefore, I am glad to see that the Bill provides for more incentives. I can go back some years and recall having heard Members from the Government benches waxing eloquent against Deputy Sweetman's introduction of incentives in industry. I am glad to see that we have converted them to the belief that incentives have a most important part to play in our industrial development.

In this context I must refer to what has now become a dirty word both in the east and in the west. It is Potez. It is tragic to see one of the finest buildings in Galway lying vacant while there is something questionable going on in regard to its disposal. There has been a bit of a switching of receivership and the people in Galway are asking questions, and quite rightly so. I should like the Minister to refer to it when he is replying.

We have been talking about the importance of getting industrialists from abroad to come here. Let us not fool ourselves that it is love of the colour of our eyes that brings them here. They are hardheaded businessmen and, like men on the moon, they have studied their ground well, they have tested their footing well before they proceeded. On the continent there is a great lack of manpower and this is evident even here when we see so many people from this country, many of them from the west, going to Germany to work. They do not speak the language of that country yet they are prepared to go there. Therefore, the greatest incentive for foreign industrialists to come here is the existence of surplus manpower, with plenty of grey matter behind it. This is a question of bringing Mahomet to the mountain, not the reverse. In any event, if there is ever a recession in the industrial field here. I hope that it is not our own parent industries which will be first affected.

I am glad to note the reference to technical training in the Bill. The system of training young men in the training centres will be like the training gardaí get: the garda goes out to a station and is brought back after so many months or years for retraining. There is a lot to be said for that in industry, particularly nowadays when our machines are becoming more sophisticated as time goes on. The important thing is that we give this retraining if we are sure that it will help to increase our output because it is on output, particularly for export, that our economy depends.

I should like to refer to the standard of some of our manufactured articles and to suggest that there should be a closer relationship between the Department and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. I shall give electric fires as one example. After one year's use they are rusted and have to be thrown away. I suggest that all these things should be tested by the institute before they are put on the market.

As a member of the industrial advisory committee in the Galway industrial estate I am glad to see these two things are moving at the moment. We have had our teething problems, but now I hope we are getting our teeth into it in a greater way and that we will make progress. So far as the industrial estate in Galway is concerned we have given every assistance. Before the Industrial Development Authority was ever set up there we provided the sites for industries; some of them the greatest industries yet, some of them the greatest flops, but by trial and error we are getting places. I should like to assure the Minister of our continued support for this industrial drive.

I should like if the Minister would interest himself in other aspects. I see in the Bill a reference that where necessary the authority would be able to provide and arrange for housing for employees in industry. So far as the Galway estate is concerned let that be a number one priority. I know that the National Building Agency are playing their part in this matter. We have had a very big explosion of population in Galway. In Galway Corporation we have the highest demand or houses; we have built houses, we have hundreds more lined up, but there is nothing in the immediate future beyond the plans.

It is a good complaint to have in Galway.

People wanting houses?

The explosion of population.

Well, Deputy Molloy cannot claim any credit for that. I have played my part and I did not get any grants. It is all right having an explosion but we must also have houses for the workers. I know of young men who left our city and went to England because they could not get accommodation. They were young men suitable for work in factories, men who had the techniques required, and they had to leave. It is very important so far as Galway is concerned that this matter should receive priority, otherwise we will lose the people and the situation will be that factories will be deprived of skilled workers. It is good to have factories but we must also have accommodation for the workers. I should like to remind the Minister that many of these people come in from the country. It is not just a case of overnight instant families.

They come mainly because of the development of industries.

Yes. I am glad of that but I would remind the Minister that the incentive given by Deputy Sweetman started this trend in our town, an incentive which was decried from that side of the House. I would ask the Minister to cut the red tape in getting houses built, to work fully with the National Building Agency. People working in industry need houses—we cannot treat them as we have treated the itinerants in this country.

I should like the Minister to use his good offices with the Minister for Transport and Power on the question of provision of cheaper bus fares for the workers. Young girls very often have to travel distances up to 30 miles and they have to pay weekly quite large amounts of money in fares. There is no incentive for these young people if, at the end of the week, they find they are merely working for a bus company or somebody else. It is especially important that these young workers get some assistance or subsidisation to enable them to get to work.

While training they are naturally not getting high wages and much of their money is eaten up in fares. We must give these incentives if we are to build up industries, especially in the west. Industrialists are hard-headed businessmen; they come and take what they can get—that is business—but I hope we may be able to benefit by their coming.

Reference has been made to the mineral development in this country. If God did not give us good land on the surface I believe He gave us these minerals deep down in the earth. I hope they will be tapped and thereby help to build up the economy of the west because we have much emigration there.

I should like to see industries going into the west. Possibly that is a question for Gaeltarra Éireann. In the meantime we must ensure that accommodation is provided for workers, and do not let us throw the burden on our rates. At the moment Galway has one of the highest rates in the country. While that is a question for the Department of Local Government, I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, through his good offices, will encourage through this Bill the building of more houses for our workers and not to hold up progress in that respect.

I shall be critical, and the Minister knows I have always been critical, of matters relating to the industrialisation of the west. We have had reason for pessimism in the past; but I suppose we cannot have omelettes without cracking eggs and by trial and error we hope to achieve something.

I know the Bill is an attempt to tidy up the position and that this must be done now and again. I hope to see a closer relationship between the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards and the products of these factories. There are too many facets of industrialisation that could be grouped under one heading so as to present them possibly working unconsciously against each other. The yardstick of industrialisation is the number of men employed and we now have fewer employed than last year. We also have imports which are greater than exports and I hope and pray that situation will not continue. Therefore, we cannot clap the Minister on the back. If we were over there the Minister would not clap us on the back in the same situation. I wish our industrialisation drive every success but I promise the Minister that I shall be critical if I think fit.

I can depend on the Deputy.

This Bill for which we have waited a long time effects certain welcome improvements and goes some way towards streamlining our industrial development organisation but I must confess that, having waited for the Bill since the publication of the Little Report in March, 1967, and considering that the Government have had two years to formulate a new Industrial Development Bill, I am disappointed not with what the Bill contains but with what is omitted. Viewed against the background of the Little Report, the subsequent Buchanan Report and the Devlin Report, one cannot but note the inadequacy of the Bill.

One of the main weaknesses of our industrial promotion programme which has been mentioned in every debate on industrial development here in recent years is the profusion of organisations all dealing with industrial development. Studies recently carried out on the question of industrial development have recommended that there should be a tightening-up in this diffusion of responsibility. Last year the Federation of Irish Industries published a study on industrial development and commented on this fact and recommended, among other things, that the various State services to industry should be drawn together into one industrial development service which could look at the overall needs of particular sectors and individual firms against the background of overall development strategy.

The Delvin Report on page 353 again refers to the profusion of industrial development organisations and recommends greater co-ordination of effort and the bringing together of various organisations such as the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal, the Industrial Credit Company, Córas Tráchtála and others, nine or ten in all. These are organisations directly or indirectly concerned with industrial development. The Minister in this Bill goes some distance towards rectifying defects in our industrial development organisation by announcing that the IDA and An Foras Tionscal are to be amalgamated. He says in his speech that the Bill goes most of the way towards implementing the recommendations of the Little Report. I thought that the Minister in his speech or in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill would, perhaps, have spelled out in greater detail the actual steps that have been taken and will be taken to implement that report. The Minister does not refer to what I would regard as a very important recommendation in the report, the expansion of the present five member board to eight.

Another recommendation of the Little Report is that the board of the IDA should include a senior civil servant from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In view of what Deputy Keating said some time ago here about developing food processing industries and so on, this recommendation is a very important one. In speaking in debates here in recent years on industrial development I have repeatedly commented on the fact that one of the great weakness in our industrial development programme and its performance has been that we have not given enough attention to food processing industries. The IDA should take into account that this is, or has been, a predominantly agricultural country and that there must be tremendous scope still for the development of industries based on agriculture. When the Minister is replying, I hope he will outline in greater detail his intentions regarding implementation of the Little Report.

I welcome the measure, small though they be, taken in this Bill to co-ordinate the activities of the IDA and An Foras Tionscal. Industrialists coming here to inquire about the prospects of establishing plants here have commended on the fact that we have so many different State bodies dealing with different aspects of industrial promotion. By the time one has got around them the original enthusiasm may have waned and they may have gone away.

I urge on the Minister the importance of dealing with these various new measures in greater depth. Perhaps, this may be possible on Committee Stage. I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment, having waited two years for this Bill, that the Minister did not take a more courageous step and did not give us what we and the country expected, particularly in the light of the probability of our entering the European Economic Community in the near future. I am disappointed that the Minister did not indicate a more dynamic approach to the programme of industrialisation. It appears from reading the Minister's speech, and from the various sections of this Bill, that he has not given any indication of any significant revolutionary or new approach to the problem of industrialisation.

In the Bill and, particularly in the Minister's speech this morning, there is reference to a number of very important aspects of industrial development. The Minister referred to the small industries programme. He states that 119 projects have been sanctioned and that it is proposed, also, to extend the small industries division still further to provide various types of services for the small industries. I would be grateful if the Minister, in his reply, would outline clearly what type of new services he has in mind.

On a number of occasions. I welcomed the establishment of the small industries division. I want to state again that this was a major break-through, and a much-needed development. In fact, the establishment of the small industries division brings this country into line with what is in existence in other countries, even in the most highly developed industrial nations. It is also a source of personal pleasure for me to compliment the work of the small industries programme because two of the people who were primarily responsible for focusing attention on the need for such a division had close connections with Limerick.

The fact is that the research and pioneering work into the role of small industries was done by the present distinguished President of Maynooth College, Professor Jeremiah Newman. The studies which he undertook on the Continent into the role of the small industries and the reports which he published subsequently were important factors in leading the Government to decide to establish the small industries division. It would also be very remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to the man who is now the head of the small industries programme, and who was formerly our distinguished county manager in County Limerick, Mr. P.M. O'Connor and who also did valuable pioneering work.

Since its establishment the small industries division has suffered from the normal growing pains of any new organisation. I am glad to learn that the Minister is conscious of this, and that it is his intention to streamline still further the machinery, procedures and methods of the small industries division. In this modern age, when one speaks of large-scale industrialisation and takes into account modern technological progress, it is well to remind ourselves that the small industry, even the small craft industry employing one or two people, still has a place in modern industrial democracies. It is noteworthy particularly in West Germany, and even in the United States of America, that the percentage of those employed in small industries is a substantial part of the total industrial employment.

I certainly wish the small industries programme well. There are many facets of its work with which I am personally familiar, and there are many aspects of its programme on which I should like to speak at greater length, but I do not propose to do so on this occasion. Perhaps, on the occasion of the Minister's annual Estimate that would be a more appropriate time to do so.

The Minister referred to a matter in which I am particularly interested because of its implications for the constituency which I represent. He referred to regional policy and very rightly paid tribute to the pioneering regional planning work of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, to which Deputy Donegan also referred. The Minister said:

Work is now being completed on preparing guidelines to ensure uniformity of procedures and methods in each region, and this preliminary work will not only ensure comparability between programmes but will help to speed up the work of programming.

This is a very important matter. The Buchanan Report dealt in depth with this whole question of regionalisation and particularly with the mid-west region, that is, the Shannon-Limerick region as it has come to be known. There is one comment I should like to make here. I hope on Committee Stage, if it is permissible to do so, to table an amendment. Buchanan referred to the fact that in the newly established Shannon-Limerick region, parts of that region are designated areas for industrial grant purposes, but there are other parts of it, particularly Limerick city, which are not designated areas.

Buchanan has commented upon— and I urge it on the Minister and will be urging it on him again on Committee Stage—the injustice of having grant differentials as between one town and another in the same region. Whatever grants are applicable to Shannon and Ennis should also apply to Limerick city. I have given a lot of thought to this, particularly in the light of what Buchanan has said, and I cannot see any justifiable argument for differentiating as between Limerick and Shannon and Ennis. It is vitally essential that when these regions are being set up a common scale of grant should apply.

There may be a case for two-tier grants in certain localities within the region, for certain reasons, but overall a basic common scale of grant should apply. I am trying to refrain as far as possible from being purely parochial in my outlook in this debate. This operates, and to my certain knowledge it has operated even within the past 12 months, very unfairly against Limerick city. I will be after the Minister again on Committee Stage to try to persuade him to put the record straight here.

In relation to this regionalisation of industrial development, Buchanan also refers to another very important matter —the danger in endeavouring to attract new industries, that is, cut-throat competition between one region and another and the danger of regions in their promotional activities succumbing to the human failing of exaggerating the attractiveness of a particular region.

There is nothing about this in the Minister's speech other than the few basic references here on page 5. I am particularly concerned about this. In devising machinery which would have the guidelines and the uniformity to which the Minister refers, it is vital that there should be co-ordination between the different regions and also that there should be the closest possible liaison between the regions and the central Industrial Development Authority.

Another matter in relation to regionalisation and the work of the IDA—I cannot find any reference to this in the Minister's speech—is the defination of responsibility. As the Minister rightly stated, the Shannon-Limerick region is the pilot project, the first of the new regions which are to be established. A practical difficulty presents itself in the sense that we have got the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, that we have also got the new Limerick Regional Industrial Organisation, and the IDA. If an industrialist wants to explore the possibility of establishing an industry in Limerick city he will have to contact the regional officer, then the Shannon Development Company, next the IDA, and finally the grants board. This is the position up to now, and I have practical experience of this, having accompanied industrialists on this route. It is a very slow process and there is a lot of duplication and over-lapping. I am disappointed that in relation to the Limerick-Shannon region the Minister did not define the various functions.

The Minister has stated that there is nothing in this Bill which would in any way affect the work of the Shannon Development Company. I am very pleased to learn this but what I am concerned about—and perhaps I should apologise for labouring the point, but I am speaking from experience of the practicalities of this whole set-up—is whether the Shannon Development Company, in the light of the present Bill, will have absolute power in the matter of promoting the entire region? Will the Shannon Development Company have full power to negotiate with industrialists and to determine the actual grants which are payable? I have had an example recently of an industrialist submitting a proposal. We had discussions with the Shannon Development Company who were most helpful and who advised on the actual lay-out of the proposal. The Shannon Development Company then passed the proposal on to the IDA who vetted it and it was subsequently passed on to the grants board.

I would think myself—and I have given this a good deal of thought—that if the concept of regionalisation is to operate efficiently and properly, the more autonomy the regional organisations have the better: I mean autonomy in the matter of promoting the area, negotiating with industrialists and, most important of all, determing the amount and the rate of grants.

I personally am all in favour of regionalisation. I must be in favour of it in the light of the tremendous progress that has been made by the Shannon Development Company since its foundation. It is absolutely essential that the functions of the various regional organisations would be clearly defined. We have a precedent in the regional tourist organisations which are working very effectively. I am not advocating that the same type of organisational structure would be suitable to industrial development. I hope the Minister, when he is replying to the debate, will outline as clearly as he can the machinery which will operate within the regions, that he will define what will be the functions of the Shannon Development Company, what will be the functions of the IDA, what will be the functions of the Regional Development Company and the county development officers.

I have said in previous debate here that there has been over the last ten years a tremendous wastage of time, effort and money by local development associations engaging in cut-throat competition in an effort to try to attract industrialists. Some of these have succeeded in attracting industry, but by and large their efforts were wasted. I am glad the IDA is being restructured even though the Minister has not gone the whole way. I am particularly glad that it is proposed to regionalise the machinery of industrial development and I sincerely hope it will succeed.

Section 15 of the Bill refers to a new system of grants for the establishment of advance factories. I am aware that the provision of advance factories is a necessary prerequisite for attracting new industry into this country and I am in favour of any steps the Minister may take in providing advance factories. Experience in the Shannon Free Area and in industrial estates in Waterford, Galway and Dublin has shown that the most important inducement we can offer industrialists is the provision of an advance factory at an attractive rental. Section 15 of the Bill provides that the authority may build advance factories in any part of the State in anticipation of industrial development. This section also extends the powers of compulsory purchase conferred on An Foras Tionscal.

Perhaps I am going into too much detail for a Second Reading of the Bill but I should like to ask the Minister, in relation to advance factories, where they will be built and by whom. The Minister has stated that advance factories can be built in any part of the State. While I accept the need for Building advance factories I do not think it would be desirable to see a mushroom growth of them all over the country. Is it the Minister's intention that the IDA build the factories or will local authorities and private enterprise be able to build them? Hitherto the grant system in relation to the building of advance factories worked on the basis that a grant was given for the building of an advance factory only when an industrialist went into occupation. If we take the Limerick/ Shannon region—and I am not harping on about this region merely because my own constituency is in it——

Could I ask the Deputy to change the name he is using for the region? The Deputy is leaving out North Tipperary and County Clare.

I am aware of that. The Buchanan Report referred to this region as the Limerick/Shannon region. However, the mid-western region is acceptable to me, because it has worked out very efficiently in our regional tourist organisation on Shannonside. I was speaking of advance factories in the mid-west region.

The Shannon Development Company is building advance factories in Shannon, Limerick city and no doubt they will eventually build factories in Nenagh and other locations in the region. We have no worries in relation to the building of them, but I should like to know what is going to happen in other regions. Are the IDA going to be responsible for the erection of these advance factories or will the local authorities be responsible? I read in the newspapers lately that certain local authorities in the country have purchased tracts of land on the outskirts of particular towns with a view to having this land developed for industrial purposes. I would like to ask the Minister if the local authorities will get any assistance by way of grant and how will private enterprise fit into the scheme? These are aspects of the new Bill which I should like to have clarified by the Minister.

In his speech this morning the Minister referred to the building of houses and section 16 of the Bill provides that:

(1) The Authority may provide and arrange the provision of housing intended for occupation by employees in industry and, for this purpose, may buy, lease or sell lands, subsidise rents and do everything necessary or ancillary to such provision.

(2) The Authority may carry out its functions under this section by arrangement with or though the National Building Agency Limited, a local authority or the industry in connection with which the housing is being provided.

The provision of houses is vitally important in relation to the development of industrial estates. The Buchanan Report referred to this problem in very great detail. In fact, the problem is much greater than it would appear from the Minister's speech or from the phraseology used in the Bill. The housing needs of the mid-west region according to the Buchanan Report and the Litchfield Report will have to be greatly accelerated. In relation to Limerick/Shannon alone the house building programme will have to be accelerated from 500 houses in 1957 to 1,350 houses in 1970, and to 2,000 houses in 1973 to keep pace with the anticipated industrial development of the region. In Cork, the programme will have to be accelerated to an even greater degree, from 450 in 1967 to 1,000 in 1970, to 2,000 in 1975 and 3,000 in 1980. In other words, the house-building programme for the mid-western region and particularly for the Limerick/Shannon area will have to be increased fourfold and in Cork it will have to be increased sixfold.

The provision of housing is only one aspect of the ancillary services that will be necessary for industry. The NIEC report referred to the vital importance of communications, efficient telephone service, and so on. As Deputy Donegan said this morning, the provision of the necessary infrastructure is a vitally important part of industrial development and I think the Minister also dealt with this in his speech. The infrastructural demands of major industry, as the Minister rightly said, are very great and there is, therefore, a limit to the number of very large-scale industries that we can attract. I think I am correctly interpreting the Minister. The reason for this, of course, is obvious. An accelerated industrial development programme will demand a concomitant accelerated housing development programme, communications development and infrastructural development.

I am wondering whether or not the structure of local government is adequate to meet these needs or whether, as has been recommended, a new type of development board might be necessary which would ensure the provision of adequate housing, adequate road services, power, lighting and communications. The Minister does not make any reference to this in the Bill but perhaps he has something in mind in relation to it.

There is another part of the Minister's speech with which I agree and there is a provision in the Bill which I think is very necessary. I refer to the establishment of an economic and statistical unit in the IDA. The Minister has mentioned that the function of this unit will be to keep an eye on newly emerging growth industries and industries whose prospects are likely to worsen. Within the past eight months when some aspect of industrial development was being debated the Minister stated that it was his intention when the new industrial development legislation would be going through to set up a special unit within the IDA whose function it would be to assist industries which were getting into difficulty. Either the Minister or somebody else referred to it as a flying squad.

An early warning system, I think.

Is this economic and statistical unit to which the Minister referred the unit that will be coming to the assistance, or even to the rescue, of an industry that might be getting into difficulty

No; that is a separate unit.

That would be an intensive care unit.

The Minister referred to an economic and statistical unit whose function it will be to keep an eye on newly emerging growth industries and industries whose prospects are likely to worsen. Is that within the context of the EEC?

That is in the context of the selection of industries to which grants should be given, taking a longer term view of the development of the economy and of technology.

What does the Minister mean by "industries whose prospects are likely to worsen"?

Where, as a result of technological developments, it can be foreseen that in, say, five years time, the prospects of a particular industry, which is doing well at the moment, are likely to worsen, if we get a proposal to establish an industry of that kind we should refuse it.

The Minister is talking about existing industries.

No, I am talking about proposals for new industries. The other unit to which the Deputy refers relates to existing industries—the rescue operation now?

Can we take it that the rescue unit is, in fact, in operation now?

I am very pleased to hear this. Deputy Keating referred to industries failing. I should like to say in relation to the rescue unit that the Minister is having set up, that it is inevitable that there will be a certain number of failures. From my experience of dealing with the IDA, whatever mistakes might have been made in the past, in recent times, certainly in the last couple of years, the IDA leaves no stone unturned and exercises extreme care in vetting proposals for industries. In fact, it is a fine comb operation and very often industrialists have become rather impatient with the vetting procedure.

I believe that once the industrial proposal is sanctioned by the IDA every precaution is taken and if the industry subsequently gets into difficulty the blame cannot be laid on the IDA. I say that in all sincerity. At the same time, there have been examples of industries having to close down, because of temporary difficulty, perhaps, where the industries could have been saved had some remedial action been taken in time. I cannot give any examples but it is accepted that, had some kind of rescue operation been carried out, some of these industries would have survived. It is for that reason I ask the Minister about the setting up of this particular type of unit. I should not like to call it a "rescue unit", but I hope some appropriate title will be found for it. I also hope that the number of rescue operations the unit may have to undertake will be very few in number.

The Minister gave us some very interesting figures, figures which have never been given before, as far as I know. They indicate the broad base of the activities of the Industrial Development Authority in the matter of attracting new industry to this country. The Minister said that of the industries established to date 25 per cent are British, 20 per cent Irish, 20 per cent United States of America and 15 per cent German. In addition, industries have been established by business people from Austria and various other countries. This means that of the new industries established 80 per cent are foreign and 20 per cent Irish.

The Minister referred to home industry—the Bill does likewise—and to the scale of grants and so forth for the promotion of home-sponsored industries, the development of existing Irish industries and so on. The Minister is very well aware that one of the criticisms levelled at our industrial development programme—perhaps there is some justification for it—was that the IDA, and all concerned with industrial development, were more favourably disposed towards proposals from foreign industrialists than they were towards proposals from Irish industrialists.

I have had experience of assisting Irish industrialists in submitting proposals to the IDA, both foreign and Irish. I have had a great deal of experience of dealing with the small industries section of the IDA and, because of that experience, I cannot lend my voice to the kind of criticism to which I have referred. My experience has been that the same care and attention was given to detail and the same facilities were forthcoming irrespective of the country of origin. However, it is well to bear in mind that this criticism has been made. I sincerely hope this new Bill will serve to reassure Irish industrialists that the full facilities of the IDA are always at their disposal.

I have already commented on the fact that the Minister did not spell out in any great detail the proposed changes in the board of the IDA. The Arthur D. Little Report has some very interesting observations to make about the promotional work abroad of the IDA, particularly the promotional work in the United States. The report makes the point—we must all agree with it, I think—that there is no use expecting the IDA to implement a certain programme when they have neither the men nor the money to implement the programme effectively. The report points out some of the weaknesses and deficiencies in the IDA's organisation in the United States. It points out the highly competitive nature of industrial promotion and the competition we have to face from places like Holland. Following reading the report I did some investigation and research into the methods employed by the Dutch government in its effort to attract American industrialists to Holland and I would urge on the Minister the importance of equipping the IDA's personnel in the United States with the material, the finances and all the other essentials necessary to sell Ireland successfully as a base for American industrialists. Having given the matter a considerable amount of thought, I am conscious of the magnitude of the operation—the long distances that have to be travelled, the high cost of living and so on—but it is vitally essential that the IDA's representatives in the United States, and this goes for those in Britain and on the continent as well, should be equipped.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd December, 1969.
Top
Share