Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 1969

Vol. 243 No. 3

Industrial Development Bill, 1969: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I wish to thank the Minister for his opening comments on what has been achieved in the industrial field by way of increased employment, further projects, our exports effort. It is all very heartening, certainly, and carries with it an air of optimism. Coming from a man like the Minister there must be a sound basis in substance for believing that at last, possibly, we see the light at the end of the tunnel and are achieving a breakthrough. We are coming to something like an 11,000 employment target figure, according to some of the periodical reports we get.

The Minister mentioned that the objective of the Bill is to update and integrate and clarify the various incentives given to attract industry here and, at the same time, it updates and clarifies and improves the structure of the Industrial Development Authority, which is rather important too, because we are moving into a somewhat different type of industrialisation from what we have had up to now. Jobs are very important, naturally. Every man can count progress in terms of employment. Every man employed at a bench, or with a slide rule means a family at the fireside so to speak. There is more to it than jobs.

Some of the industries that we are getting recently carry with them a high degree of technical and managerial skills. Increasingly, this will be the case. It is for that reason that it is important that AnCO at this time have got going with their training centres and that nine regional colleges have been formed. They will play a very important part, along with the older technological institutes like Bolton Street that we have, in equipping men for these new large-scale industries which demand a higher degree of skill and higher technical accomplishments.

Of course, the best prospect of meeting the changing demand and the higher skills is, no doubt, to have a better general education. I should like to quote for the benefit of the House from a book called The American Challenge. It is a book that got considerable publicity in Europe and that has been translated into several languages. It is by Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber. He speaks about the importance of education. He says here:

In the United States, 95 per cent of all the 13- and 14-year-olds are in school. But what is more important is that at age 18 we still have more than 45 per cent pursuing their education. We have more than 4 million students in college, and this represents some 40 per cent of our college age population. In Western Europe this percentage ranges between 65 and 15 per cent.

He is comparing the technological gap between Western Europe and the United States but it is relevant here. He says:

Technological advance has two bedrock requisites: broad general knowledge and modern managerial competence. It cannot come into being without improving the foundation of it all, which is education of the young, as well as adults. If Europe really wants to close the technological gap it has to improve its education both general and special, and both quantitatively and qualitatively. There is just no other way to get to the fundamental root of the problem.

Science and technology, and modern management, do not sum up the entire work of education. Developing our human capabilities to the fullest is what ultimately matters most. Call it humanism or call it whatever you like, but that is clearly what education in the final analysis is all about.

That is very important in the light of the breakthrough in our educational system. Education is vitally essential because of the greater degree of higher skills required in modern industry and it is most important that we should make the fullest use of all the opportunities available to us.

The Minister spoke about the resources of the authority being augmented. I presume that, when he comes to reply, he will indicate in what way these resources will be augmented. I rather imagine that there will be more economists, more technologists and more scientists. I take it he will make full use of the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards. In the November issue of Technology Ireland the institute are fully alive to the changing character of industry. At page 18 they say:

A recent issue of Export referred to the newly-established CTT/IIRS Product Development Service. This is a new venture for both organisations, still very much in an experimental stage, and therefore liable to further evolution and change. Committees have been set up in certain industrial sector areas to identify and select projects based on knowledge of changing marketing conditions and opportunities, technological change and innovation.

We have these agencies to assist the Industrial Development Authority to ensure that the industries that will be selected will be the most appropriate industries to link up with existing industries, moving finally towards a properly integrated industrial structure. We have the agencies. We have the ability. We should be able to get on with the job.

We fall very far behind in research. Research may not be germane to this particular measure, but I should like to point out that we are very far behind in research. The strengthening of the authority and the liaison with the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards and CTT, plus the National Science Council, should make for better progress.

One very important factor in all this is the role of the universities. I believe our universities could play a much bigger part in all this. In the United States the universities are the great strength behind the government, industry and so on. They are the strength behind America's amazing technological achievements.

I commend the policy of regionalisation. The Minister talked about a committee; in the midland region there would be five counties, five development officers and five committees. One joint committee might embrace as many as 40 people. Perhaps, the Minister will elaborate on this further when he comes to reply. As I see the position, these committees should examine the whole infrastructure to make sure that the region is properly equipped from the point of view of sewerage facilities, water, roads and so forth to cater for the type of industry best suited to the region. On these committees there will be the county manager, the county chairman and the CEO and people like them. As the Minister said, these regional bodies will have common guidelines. The Minister also said that this is an exciting time. That is so, but it is also a critical time. I am not so much concerned about our early entry into the EEC because the later we go in the more time we shall have to grow stronger and to complete the links about which the Minister talked, making full use of our research, scientific and educational institutions before we face the cold wind of the EEC.

The Minister spoke about the third stage—this is very important—in which we will be selective with regard to large projects, projects possibly involving millions. It will be magnificent if we get two or three of these because they have an inbuilt capacity for growth and they provide the resources for further industries. That is the great strength of these projects. If two or three of these are properly integrated into our industrial structure we can face the cold wind of the EEC with a certain amount of confidence.

The Minister referred to a project policy. This policy will be vitally important. To quote again from The American Challenge:

The famous economist Schumpeter predicted this even before the war when he wrote: "The really crucial competition will be in new goods and new techniques. This competition will exact a decisive advantage in cost and quality, and strike not only at the profit margins and production figures of corporations, but at their foundations and their very existence.”

Several studies deal with this new kind of industrial warfare. The development of new products has hit a momentum undreamed of before the war, or even ten years ago. The US chemical industry, for example, now considers it normal that half its business is based on products that did not exist ten years ago.

This goes to show how important it is to keep up to date, to be alive in inventiveness, to be diligent in examining our products and having a proper policy. The Minister uses certain criteria under a section of the Bill in determining what our product policy should be. He further promised that the IDA will continue to watch, together with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, all new products and all changes in technology. The face of industry has changed over the years. The weaving of cloth has changed completely. Cloth is now made from fibres that were never heard of 20 years ago.

I welcome the Bill. I welcome the good tidings the Minister has brought us.

I, too, welcome this measure and I commend the Minister's attitude towards the development of industry in our economy. I think the Bill should have been titled the Industrial Development Authority (Amendment) Bill because it was the first inter-Party Government which established the Industrial Development Authority. It is only fair to draw attention to that fact. The introduction of that first Bill in 1950, I think, heralded a whole new approach to the concept of industrial development here. It started us away from this dreadful protection policy idea, a policy which had permeated the world right through the 'Thirties and the 'Forties, and which, to some extent, continued into the early 1950s. The Fianna Fáil Party objected vehemently to the establishment of an industrial development authority. In the Second Stage debate on the Industrial Development Authority Bill, the then Deputy Lemass said on behalf of Fianna Fáil on 9th March, 1950 at column 1618 of the Official Report:

The Dáil is not being asked merely to approve of an Industrial Development Authority but it is being asked to approve of Dr. Beddy, Mr. Kevin McCourt, Mr. Luke J. Duffy and Mr. J.J. Walsh. Does any Deputy think that is reasonable? Does the Minister think that is a proper procedure to follow? Does he think that it is fair to put on the Members of the Dáil the onus of approving not merely his proposal to establish the authority but also to approve of the particular individuals whom he has picked to constitute it?

I am not opposed to the Bill merely because these individuals constitute the authority. I am opposed to the Bill in principle and, whatever views I may have about the individuals, I do not propose to express them. But, in fairness to them and to anyone else who may be now or who may in the future become associated with this Industrial Development Authority, I want them to understand that my opposition and the opposition of Deputies on this side of the House to the whole idea in this Bill is fundamental and that at the earliest possible occasion we will terminate it.

That was the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party to the establishment of the IDA. Deputy Lemass was followed by Deputy Lynch who spoke in somewhat the same vein. The whole Fianna Fáil Party was against the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority.

In its then form.

Nevertheless, I think it will be accepted that the establishment of the IDA was the first move towards the new approach of Government to the establishment of industry.

No, the Industrial Credit Company was the first step.

I shall not go into the history of the whole concept, through the grants Act and so on. I accept that the Industrial Credit Company helped as did the Agricultural Credit Company in its own way in rural areas.

The Minister was optimistic about the work being done by the IDA and I am not decrying it. They have done excellent work as also have An Foras Tionscal and Córas Tráchtála and the Industrial Credit Corporation, but I should like to place on record that according to the Central Bank report 1968-69 the number of registered unemployed in the State was 68,064. This is not successful industrialisation; it is not full employment and it would be well for the Minister to recognise this. We, on this side of the House, will do anything we can to co-operate with the Minister in any Bill introduced to promote the establishment of industry and lower the level of unemployment and emigration which I accept is reduced.

Before considering the actual contents of the Bill I should say that its success depends essentially on the establishment in the country of a satisfactory infrastructure by which I mean that it is essential to have sewerage, water supplies, proper roads, houses, technical education and all the amenities of a modern industrial State. In this context it is worthy of note that the Minister for Local Government is at present holding up a number of sewerage and housing schemes and I urge the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if at all possible, to ask the Minister for Local Government, who does not give this House much satisfaction, to speed up the sanctioning of such schemes.

Combating inflation is, I think, the most important task the Government must face. It is rampant in our economy at present and unless it is stopped, unless the Central Bank take measures to end this inflation it will hit industrialisation. There has been a rise of eight per cent in consumer prices between mid-August, 1968, and mid-August, 1969. The reference is the Economic Series for 1968-69, published on 26th November, 1969. The consumer price index at mid-August, 1968, was 160.3 and at mid-August, 1969, was 173.8, a rise of over eight per cent. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. If it does we shall price ourselves out of foreign markets and defeat the whole aim of industrialisation here. The Minister for Finance, on March 18th, in a speech over RTE, admitted there was a possibility of a crisis. The general election came along and that idea was shelved. I think that the figures for the balance of trade point to a crisis. I wonder if the Government will face up to it. The sooner they do so and take corrective measures in regard to inflation, the better.

The main reason for inflation has been the constant annual increases in Government spending. The Appropriation Bill of 1959 was for a sum of £119 million plus. The Appropriation Bill of 1969 was for a sum of £363 million plus, an increase of over 300 per cent in ten years. This far outpaces the increase in gross national production or in net national income, if that is the appropriate figure to use. It is essential that the Government should contain its expenditure which is one of the main causes of inflation.

I think the Deputy is contradicting what he said a minute ago when he was advocating greater expenditure.

Greater expenditure in what respect?

In improving the infrastructure.

I accept that there is a dilemma but I submit that because of the election this year the Government allowed politics to override a sound trade policy. Consequently, there has been a rise of over eight per cent in the consumer price index in the 12 months ended mid-August, 1969. That cannot be allowed to continue and anyone who disagrees with that statement should stand up and say so. I suggest that until you contain inflation you are doing the country a great disservice in regard to industrialisation. Nobody can deny that. I wonder if the Minister for Industry and Commerce accepts a bank rate of 9½ per cent as conducive to an expansion of business, either within the economy or in the export field? This is a crisis rate and it must be faced up to and seen as such. The highest rate ever was during the Napoleonic wars when it was ten per cent and we now have an overdraft rate of 9½ per cent. Does the Minister seriously think that this is good for business?

The Deputy is not seriously suggesting that the overdraft rate of 9½ per cent is solely attributable to Government management of our economy?

It is solely attributable to the fact that this Government are taking every bit of credit they can lay their hands on and some of which should be going to the private sector.

The Deputy is aware that there is a certain influence on our interest rates from outside the country and that interest rates outside the country are as high or higher than our rate?

I accept this. One of the main reasons why we are in such a position is because of our link with sterling. I am in favour of breaking the link with sterling.

The Deputy is getting away from the Bill.

I am discussing the essential atmosphere in which this Bill will be a success. It is really a preamble to what I am about to say.

An occasional reference to the Bill does not make the Deputy's contribution relevant.

I will be discussing the Bill in depth very soon. The Minister for Finance has promised legislation in the banking sphere and I hope he will isolate our economy as it should be isolated. As a developing economy, we should have a low bank overdraft interest rate. This is essential in order to attract business people. Would the Minister consider providing capital for small firms which are exporting to such countries as the EEC countries or even to America? The financial requirements of business people in those countries are rather awkward and they require over one month's credit in many cases. If we are to do business with them, I would recommend that either through the Industrial Development Authority or through the commercial banks the burden of financing European or American trade should be taken off some business firms. This would be a great help to small firms. Possibly a system of discounting bills could be considered.

In the Third Programme for Economic Expansion it has been admitted that there is a certain amount of trouble in this sphere, in the foreign export trade. I wonder if there is a case for remitting or reducing the corporation profits tax on repaying profits within a firm. This could be another way in which the expansion of industry could be helped. Indeed, I also wonder if it would be possible to reduce the burden of income tax on individuals or partners whose main business is in the export field. This could be very helpful, if the profit so earned were ploughed back into the business. Perhaps, the Minister for Finance could evolve such a scheme. I would also urge the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ask the British Government and the American Government to remove the restrictions which they have at present on private foreign investment.

That surely is not a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

If the Minister is interested in industrial development and these restrictions deter such investment the Minister would be interested in seeing the removal of these restrictions. An Foras Tionscal have done good work over the years and they will continue to do so under the aegis of the Industrial Development Authority. A new concept which must be welcomed by everyone is the concept of industrial regionalisation. It has worked in the Shannon industrial estate and it is working also in the industrial estates in Galway and Waterford. There is a future for specialised firms in these estates and I hope the Minister will continue to provide all capital necessary for the expansion of these estates. We may be coming to the stage when heavier types of industry may want to go into the industrial estates and if so will they be accommodated?

I am glad to note the flexible approach to the matter of grants, in so far as there is provision for giving grants for fixed assets leased, towards the reduction of interest rates and for the guaranteeing of loans by the authority. This is a welcome development and one which I think will be used widely. However, I can see no justification for a distinction between the rate of grants for new firms and the rate of grants for re-equipment. The first type of grants provide for a maximum of 60 per cent in designated areas and 45 per cent in other areas and the re-equipment grants are for 35 per cent in designated areas and 25 per cent in other areas. In Chapter VII of the Third Programme they refer to the fact that new firms are likely to account for less than one-third of the growth in output. It is important to note, therefore, that the growth in output will come from established firms and they should be given a higher level of grants than is proposed in the Bill. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong when I say that the grants proposed will reduce the present level of grants given by An Foras Tionscal to new firms. If that is so it is a disappointment for I do not think that the level should be reduced.

Paragraph 25 of the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development states:

Projects for the processing of agricultural materials, which are frequently capital intensive, deserve special consideration because of their impact on agriculture.

I wonder what the Minister can do in this very important sphere. Last Friday, Deputy Keating referred to its importance.

The grants towards research and training are, indeed, welcome and are very necessary. It is interesting to note that the authority will be empowered to purchase shares. Perhaps, it is a good idea. I should not like the authority to be a bully in this respect in demanding shares from firms wishing to establish themselves or wishing to expand within the economy.

Pension rights are an important consideration. I trust that people whom the Minister would want to attract into the authority will find it possible to come in. That can be helped by allowing a transfer of pension rights from any other firm. The authority will need experts in various fields and if it is to attract them, it is essential that there will be no disruption in existing pension rights.

The Second Schedule deals with the composition of the authority. It is to consist of not more than nine members. I trust that representatives of employers and trade union organisations will be on this authority. It is essential that an expert planner be a member of the authority. He could contribute much, under the Planning Act, to the reorganisation and development of the industrial estate. It is important that the Industrial Development Authority will co-operate fully with all local concerns—local councils, local trade unions and also with the regional technical colleges which have been established within the past year. I know they can recommend courses to be established within these colleges which can be of help in supplying a pool of labour for proposed industries.

The contribution last Friday by Deputy Keating was thoughtful but I detected a note of nationalisation through his speech. I detected a note of the Labour Party attitude to industries which it maintained before the last general election. I hope I am wrong. For instance, I hope the Labour Party is not advocating the nationalisation of the meat industry?

Our meat industry has progressed from a time towards the end of the second world war to its present position of exports of over £50 million. It has shown itself to be efficient and not missing any possible openings in the international sphere. I should not like to see it nationalised.

I do not think the question of nationalisation arises on the Bill.

I accept that. I am making a passing comment on the Labour Party stand in this matter. The State can contribute much in the field of marketing. It has contributed in some measure to the rationalisation of the bacon industry. A number of other marketing boards have been successful. Indeed, national marketing boards have been successfully used by countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the Argentine and others. The Minister should give serious thought to the establishment of marketing boards within industries if he thinks they could be of benefit: I should not like to see them compulsorily established. I should like to see them established with the co-operation of private enterprise.

We have a great opportunity to proceed with the industrialisation of this country if we can stabilise our economy. I urge the Minister to ensure that applications made to the Industrial Development Authority will be very flexibly considered and that a civil service attitude is not developed towards them. It is essential that a flexible attitude pervade the Authority's dealings with any private firm.

I welcome the Bill. I commend the Minister for his interest in industrial development and in problems attached thereto. If we can stabilise prices within our economy I look forward to seeing many more industries coming to Ireland. In particular, I hope we shall have many large, heavier-type industries. The Minister should go abroad if necessary to seek these heavy industries which are the backbone of any industrial economy.

The Department of Industry and Commerce is probably one of our most important Government Departments. It has a duty and responsibility to promote industry so as to provide the home consumer with essential goods and to provide goods for export so that our standard of living will improve and our social objectives will be achieved, the most important being the eradication of the unemployment problem and the solution of the depopulation problem in various parts of the country. Unfortunately, in this country, perhaps, to a greater extent than in any country I am aware of, the Department of Industry and Commerce has, since this State was founded, a social duty also which makes its activities and its administration more difficult. It has the social obligation of resolving our emigration difficulties and of dealing with the problem of depopulation in various parts of our country.

Others have dealt with the activities of the Department in its economic aspects and I propose to deal with this social obligation which the Department have. I appreciate that it is probably unfair because, in trying to achieve social objectives, the Department have to fight against economic compulsions of one kind or another, which brought about the situations which I hope the Department will continue to try to reverse.

It is not news to some Members of the House that, since I came in to this House, I have taken particular interest in the problems around me in the area in which I live. This is what I call the north-west. It is best delineated by two lines: one from Cavan to Bundoran and one from Cavan to Spiddal. This region deserves special consideration. For historical reasons it has been over-populated because of the fact that it had bad land. The landlords drove the people from the good land to the bad land.

For geological reasons the people must leave the area because there is not sufficient good land to support that number of people. For geographical reasons, due to the fact that people have found themselves living on the sides of mountains and in valleys, they are now inclined to move out from there. Nevertheless, some section of the Department should have, as a special duty the solution of this problem. Even though the people are leaving the valleys and the mountains, instead of having to go further afield, work should be found for them nearer home.

I understand there has been some success with this problem in Italy. Others are aware of this problem too. This much abused report, the Buchanan Report, a summary of which I have with me, states at paragraph 73:

Thirdly, there are areas, mainly in the west, where the inherent fertility of the land is so low that it is important to develop other kinds of employment. Fortunately, these latter areas often have considerable scope for development of forestry, fishing and tourism and of industries based on them. Gaeltarra Éireann has been having some considerable success in developing small-scale industries in the Gaeltacht, and there may be scope for similar projects in comparable areas outside the Gaeltacht.

A section should have been written into this Industrial Development Bill to deal with that problem. Paragraph 74 reads:

In social development the main problem is how to achieve a high standard of provision in country areas where the population is very scattered, particularly where towns are few and small. Here the best policy will often be to select a number of stronger villages as centres in which to concentrate as far as possible future development in new housing, schools, shops, community halls, post offices, repair services, etc. This would help to provide a basis for new services and employment opportunities which might otherwise not be available in the areas at all.

This paragraph summarises for me, and must for others, what the means and objectives to solve my problem should be.

I want to refer now to a statement made by the Minister on July 5th, 1968, in which he referred to a project research unit. He said:

This unit with a technically equipped staff will explore development possibilities in association with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards.... The field covered by this operation would include suggestions such as those contained in the Report on Science and Technology and would draw on the constantly renewed body of information assembled by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. Teams drawn from a variety of sources, the Institutes, Córas Tráchtála and Universities would examine particular possibilities. In appropriate cases representatives of particular industries would be included in the Teams. Where a promising prospect emerged the initial approach would be to interest an Irish or foreign firm in the potentialities or, failing this, consideration would be given to joint participation by industry and the State, or by the State alone, in the development of a project. The feasibility of extending the manufacturing operations of State-sponsored bodies will be borne in mind in relation to the achievement of full employment.

I also suggest that this problem should be handed over to this project research unit, or part thereof, for the area which I have delineated. In passing, I should mention what compels me to give attention to this area rather than any other. The fact is simply this: the fall of population in this area from the 1946 census to the 1966 census was over 30 per cent. For this reason I feel it deserves particular attention.

Section 12 of this Bill provides:

The Authority may in the exercise of its functions have regard to the extent to which an industrial undertaking will serve to promote national objectives for regional development.

The Minister said that he has decided to appoint regional officers. He said:

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.

The idea of regionalisation is a good one and I think it is accepted as the answer to many problems in underdeveloped areas. So far I am not aware what region we will be in. I understand we will be associated with Longford, Offaly and, perhaps, Laois. This is wrong. Our problems are not the common ones of those areas. South Roscommon could probably be associated with those areas. The line which I draw actually leaves South Roscommon outside my area of particular interest.

The other remark I should like to make is that it has been established that areas which find themselves associated with borders of one kind or another—whether they be international borders or county borders or county boundaries—lag behind the development which takes place in a more central area. I do not know how far this has been substantiated but, if it is a fact, then any regionalisation in the area I have delineated will feel the impact of this disability. Leitrim is associated with the border between north and south and then you have the area of the border between Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo and Mayo. I feel this should be inquired into.

It is very hard to have a definite opinion on the use of the regional officers. If the regional officers, together with the steering committee and the regional committee which have already been mentioned, are going to be three further steps in a ladder from the grassroots to the top, then they are not acceptable. On the other hand, if those regional officers are to be a means of expediting information and decisions in both directions, then they are welcome. A decision on whether you accept them wholeheartedly or not will depend on how their duties are defined.

The policy the Minister has pursued since he came to office has been a very welcome one in the west of Ireland. It is one of the bright hopes for that area, particularly the introduction of the small industries. However, there is great dissatisfaction with this innovation because so many efforts are excluded from the benefit of grants for one reason or another. There is also this complaint of delay in both directions. It is very hard to understand why this should be, because any time I troubled the people who are concerned with small industries and responsible for their administration, I found them most helpful. On one occasion they provided for me much more information on a certain project than I was capable of absorbing. Anyone who has dealt with them must be impressed by the way they dealt with people, and it is probably unfair to criticise them at all. However, this is an important Bill and when it is enacted it will be the basis for industrial development for quite a while throughout the country. I would ask the Minister when he is replying to define exactly what the functions of the regional officer will be, what the functions of the steering committee will be and what the functions of the regional committee will be.

On the Bill itself, I am slightly disappointed that the grant provisions do not give a greater bias in favour of the designated areas. I hope the administrative authority will keep this in mind; no doubt they are well aware of it.

I have noticed that some studies have been done in Sligo-Leitrim in relation to the Buchanan Report. Would the Minister have any information available to him which he could communicate to us? I should also like to refer to the question of transport to the West which again the Minister referred to in his statement of 5th July where he said a working party representing the relevant State and semi-State bodies was established to examine this issue and find a solution helpful to the West. Has he any idea when this will finally reach us?

Much more of what I should like to have said about the Department of Industry and Commerce on this Bill has been said. My main reason for speaking here is to emphasise how urgent I consider it to be that this region to which I have referred should get special consideration. I am deeply conscious of the fact that depopulation continues there to a greater extent than in any other part of the country. What I am worried about now is that, perhaps, soon we might reach the point of no return, in other words that the population will not be there to entice industries to the area. I know that big industries are in the pipeline for Sligo and for other parts around there, and it is hoped that those industries will have multiplied effects. I urge the Minister to enlarge the duties of the research unit so that new industries, whether they are small or large, will come into the smaller towns. There are a few of them in that area which have practically no industry at all: Manorhamilton, Mohill, Strokestown, Castlerea; some have no industry while others may have one that is just starting.

I know it is contrary to all that goes on in the IDA, but if there is any opening at all to direct industries to the west, this should be done. It is alleged that this does not happen. By this time a large amount of information should be available to the IDA as to why those industries do not go to the West. The IDA should publish a document indicating why this is so, whether it is a question of location, a question of population or lack of tradition in those areas.

I am informed that the Shannon area has a budget of its own to develop industries in those areas. If this is so and if it is helpful, a budget should be provided for the area I have mentioned. Furthermore, I understood at one time that these regional officers would have a budget whereby they would be in a position to sanction, without reference to the central authority, small grants up to £2,000 or £3,000. If this is so, the regional officers would be an excellent appointment.

One of the most important aspects of industrial development is that it should be properly co-ordinated, because if it is not there is a danger that the different authorities involved will move, if not in different directions, not in exactly the same direction. A large number of agencies have been set up to deal with different problems in industry. We have the Industrial Development Authority, which will now incorporate An Foras Tionscal; we have the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards; and we have An Comhairle Oiliúna, to name a few. Within the Department itself there is an industrial re-organisation branch. We also have the Irish Management Institute, which has a degree of State support, as well as the Irish National Productivity Committee, and the committees organising the Buy Irish Campaign, and the National Productivity Year. I do not think the Minister could be expected to be capable of co-ordinating all these bodies which are carrying out essentially complementary activities. This argument was put forward with considerable force by the Federation of Irish Industry in a study published last year in which they said:

... the drawing together of the various State services to industry into one industrial development service which could look at the over-all needs of particular sectors and individual firms against the background of the over-all development strategy. It obviously no longer makes sense to isolate different functions such as export marketing research and development training or design. These are all closely interrelated and the policy of an industry or a firm in regard to any one of them should not be considered except in relation to all the others. This close relationship between the various branches of industrial development should be recognised institutionally by the State. It will have to be if these services are in the future to be of value to industry in helping it to evolve and implement the kinds of policy which free trade will make necessary.

Similar statements were expressed by the Government at page 93, paragraph 11, of the Third Programme for Economic Development:

Particular attention is also being given to the co-ordination of State effort in the task of raising industrial efficiency. There are at present a number of State agencies which render adaptation assistance in one form or another. For example, Córas Tráchtála, The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, the Irish National Productivity Committee, An Comhairle Oiliúna, the IDA and the Industrial Credit Company. These perform separate and complementary functions for industry, but to the individual firm the profusion of such agencies can often appear bewildering. The Government are studying the possibilities for greater co-operation between these bodies. As a first step a co-ordinating advisory committee, representative of the various bodies concerned with industrial development, has been set up under the aegis of the industrial reorganisation branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

I do not think this Bill shows sufficient evidence that the Government are implementing their own policy, as expressed in the Third Programme, of co-ordinating these various bodies. This Bill should have incorporated more authorities than just the IDA and An Foras Tionscal. I am not qualified to suggest the precise form this co-ordination should take but I do think some form of authority could undertake the difficult task of co-ordinating the work of these bodies. I do not think the job should rest on the Minister's shoulders alone. This patchwork system has arisen from the general trend in Government policy of responding to fads and fashions and it occurs not only in industry but in many other fields as well. We do not have a clear picture of where we are going.

There is a danger that the IDA might pursue its policy of concentrating its activities on bringing in foreign industry. In the past it has not made great efforts in regard to the development of native industry. It has moved in this direction in the past year but I think if an overall co-ordinating body, such as that which I am suggesting, was implemented it would ensure the development of native owned industry as well as foreign owned industry.

It was fairly clear from the report Challenge published by the federation that in conditions of free trade in the EEC great reliance will be placed on our craft industries which will have a peculiarly Irish characteristic. For industry to acquire such a characteristic it is necessary that it should be native industry. I do not think there is any point in bringing in a German firm to try to produce something peculiarly Irish. I think this market for peculiarly Irish goods is a sound economic argument for a heavy concentration on development of native industry and I hope the IDA will expand its activities in this sphere.

There is also the danger in having excessive foreign industry that out people will be controlled to an excessive degree by foreign concerns, who will in turn be under the control of foreign Governments. I readily concede that in terms of communication the world is decreasing in size and the result is a certain interdependence between nations and Governments, but I do not think our people should be subject to control of Governments who do not have any great sympathy with them. If haphazard growth of cut native industry is to be avoided, we must have co-ordination of activities of the State agencies, which are encouraging foreign industry to come into this country. I am not saying that they should go against bringing in foreign industry but it should be brought in only where it would fill a vacuum. It should not be brought in to compete unnecessarily with an Irish concern in the same field.

The word "infrastructure" has become something of a vogue word in this debate. I heard it used repeatedly by various speakers. There is a danger that it may become something of a cliché. This should not be allowed to hide the fact that the provision of an infrastructure is of great importance. There is a certain danger that the Government may and may have used grants as a method of concealing the fact that their public administration policy was inadequate to set up a proper infrastructure of water, sewerage, housing, communications and so on, to provide a proper base for the development of industry If these facilities are not available in an area on a sufficiently strong basis, it is futile to offer grants to industry to set up in that area.

In particular, telecommunications must be considered. I understand that many industrialists who might have to make a critical decision arising out of an urgent telephone conversation which they might have to have with someone in London or Dublin, find it difficult, with the present state of our telephone service, if they are down the country, to get in touch as quickly as they would like with the person in question. There are pretty widespread complaints about our telephone service. Some people have suggested that the telephone service in this country is the worst in Europe. I do not know if that is true but, if it is, it is bound to have a very detrimental effect on industrial development.

There is another matter in relation to the Bill which ties in with this question of duplication which I mentioned earlier, and the lack of proper co-ordination. Under section 16, the authority may provide housing intended for occupation by employees in industry. There is also of course a section which says that it may co-operate with the National Building Agency in this field. But it still appears that under the Bill it is given authority to provide the housing itself. It is also given authority to use other methods apart from actually physically building the houses. There is a grave danger in giving the authority power to build the houses. The danger is that the authority would duplicate the activities of the National Building Agency. This may be a mistake of drafting. I do not know. It is something that should be looked into. We just cannot have a number of authorities supposedly doing the same job. It is not efficient in terms of management and it might lead to unnecessary clashes and divergence of policy.

The statement by the Minister for Lands recently in relation to part-time farming, which was widely welcomed on all sides, has very definite repercussions on industrial development. If this idea is to be implemented in the years ahead in the areas where it is most needed, we will have to adopt a certain type of industrial policy. It will involve the disposal of industries throughout rural areas. While we will definitely need growth centres where industry will be concentrated, there must be more of these centres and they must be widely dispersed. If this is not the case, farmers will not be able to go from their farm to the factory in the morning and return in the evening and have sufficient time left for farming. We definitely need to consider what is the maximum travelling time a farmer should be asked to spend in going to and from the factory so as to allow him sufficient time to engage in part-time farming when he is at home. This travelling time will be influenced by the physical distance from the factory to his home and also by the state of the arterial roads leading from his home to the factory. Industry must be sufficiently dispersed to ensure that people can get to the factory from their farms without spending excessive amounts of time on the road. The maximum time spent on the road should be three-quarters of an hour in the morning and three-quarters of an hour in the evening. If a farmer has to spend longer than that on the road he will be unable to do part-time farming in the time left to him. This is a matter which will have to be considered in greater detail than I am capable of doing. In fact, three-quarters of an hour may well be too much.

Also in relation to this suggestion about part-time farming——

The Chair does not want to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to be straying from the terms of the Bill to a statement made by another Minister. The Bill deals with industrial development.

I am endeavouring to relate the implications of the statement and its hoped-for acceptance by the Government to industrial development and the policy which the Industrial Development Authority should implement in relation to the siting of factories and the co-ordination and provision of services used by industries. I think that it is relevant. We do have to co-ordinate the policies of the various Departments of State. The policies of the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would have an enormous effect on industry, and vice versa.

There is another matter which must be considered. The Minister should try to encourage in factories where part-time farmers are employed some form of shift-work which would allow the farmer to have daylight time at home in the evening to carry out his farming activities. This might involve starting work earlier in the morning to enable him to get home earlier in the afternoon while there is still some daylight because many farming activities cannot be carried on in darkness. The Minister and the authority should consider the need to ensure that factories which employ a large number of part-time farmers have a shift work system to enable these farmers to work on their farms during daylight.

I have referred to travel. There is need for proper industrial arterial roads to enable farmers to travel from their homes to the industrial sites. The Minister should, in consultation with all others responsible, investigate this. If it is our intention to encourage people who farm to work on industrial sites we will have to assist them with their travelling expenses. This is something the Minister must consider in consultation with the Minister for Finance. Some form of assistance by way of income tax relief, will have to be given to encourage people to travel long distances to these centres. If we do not do that we are foolish if we expect people to work in these centres

I mentioned earlier the danger of excessive foreign control. However, we do need capital and expertise. Very often we cannot supply these ourselves. One way of ensuring that foreign capital investment here does not lead to a policy inimical to the interests of the Irish people is by introducing some form of worker participation in decision making. If the workers are given a say they will be able to safeguard both their own interests and the interests of the country. I have no very precise views as to how this could be brought about but it is something which should concern not alone the Minister and the Industrial Development Authority but a great many others as well. There will have to be some co-ordinated policy designed to bring about worker participation in decision making. Such participation could have many beneficial effects.

This Bill is, of course, very important from the point of view of the economy of the country. The Minister is doing a great deal to put industry on a good basis, but there are a number of points on which I should like information; I am sure he will be able to give me the information when he comes to reply.

Just before the election the Minister went to America and, on his return here, he said he had got four new industries. During the election campaign the figure mushroomed to 44.

They were not, of course, all got on that trip.

No, but the good tidings about them did not arrive until just in the middle of the election campaign. I admit it was a very good time to get information like that and get the headlines in the newspapers, but I should like to know how many of the 44 have materialised.

The number to be employed in a new industry is a matter upon which I have crossed swords with the Minister before this. Again and again the Minister refers to potential employment and the impression is given generally that that potential employment will be in the region of 1,000 to 1,500. The figures are rounded off. What is 500 here or there when it is a question of a new industry? Then we suddenly find that the actual number employed is 50 or 60. Some industries have gone slowly up to the 100 mark. Many have gone in the opposite direction. The Minister should give the actual number employed at a particular point. It is unfair that an unrealistic figure should be given of what the potential employment is. People who are trying to get grants will obviously do everything they possibly can to give the impression that the industry will provide very, very substantial employment.

Reference has been made on numerous occasions to the question of female employment versus male employment. We have, I think, now reached the stage in many areas where employment in certain areas is no longer of very much use. The available women and girls are absorbed in existing industry and the emphasis in the future must be on industries employing male labour; male labour is the labour which brings home the bacon. The Minister might have a chat with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, about this. For some time we have been trying to drive home—we do not seem to be getting very far—that employment is no longer attractive to married women. Because their husbands work these women are taxed at the rate of 5s 3d in the £ on every £ over £60. Not alone are women workers badly paid but the State takes 5s 3d off every £ thereby reducing their wages considerably. That is one of the reasons why married women are no longer keen on going to work.

I want to take issue now with the Minister on one particular matter. He and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, have again and again talked here about our pricing ourselves out of the export market. The idea has been spread abroad that wage rates have risen so much over production that Ireland is in danger of losing her place in the export market. Every time anyone talks about getting a few shillings extra for the workers hands are raised high in horror and the general impression is given that, if wages are increased, products will be noncompetitive. I have here something which I am quite sure the Minister has had brought to his attention; it is the October issue of Trade Union Information. It gives a number of very interesting tables.

One of the tables which it gives states that hourly earnings in manufacturing industries in the Republic have increased by 13 per cent over the last 12 monthly period for which figures are available, that is from June, 1968, to June, 1969. This was a higher rate of increase than for any other European country though it was less than the 19 per cent increase recorded for Japan. It goes on to the question of productivity and on page 2 it says that, while Ireland has had the highest rate of increase after Japan in hourly earnings in manufacturing industries over the last 12 months, figures compiled by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe indicate that output per man-hour in these industries rose faster in Ireland than in any country in Europe in 1968 and faster than any except the Netherlands in 1967.

It is extraordinary that we never heard the Minister, or any of his colleagues in the House paying that tribute to our workers. Do not those figures make nonsense of the suggestion that wage increases granted over the last couple of years are pricing the products of the Irish manufacturers out of the export markets? The figures for European countries taken from the ECE's The European Economy in 1968 are given in table 2 together with figures for Japan and the United States which have been taken from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research Economic Review: the countries have been listed in order of productivity increase over the two years 1967 and 1968. It will be seen that the output per man-hour rose by 9.4 per cent in Ireland in 1968, a bigger increase than in any of the other countries listed except Japan with its 16 per cent rise in productivity. The increase in the United Kingdom in 1968 was 7.2 per cent. Would you not think that this was information which the House would be entitled to get from Government sources?

Unfortunately, the figures are not so happy for 1969.

We are talking about what we have here. I do not want conjecture. I am speaking of the period up to June, 1969. The figures I am giving the Minister are up to June, 1969, and if he has figures between June, 1969, and now——

——I should like him to trot them out when he is replying to the debate.

I thought the Deputy was quoting figures for 1968.

I am giving figures up to June, 1969. I said the latest period for which figures of earnings are available is June-July last for most countries and earlier periods for others. The figures I am giving are up to June of this year. If the Minister has figures which counteract these, I should like to hear them because even though I am a trade union official and this document is my bible on these matters, if the Minister can prove that the bible is wrong I shall be the first to admit that he has something.

I did not hear anybody in 1968 or 1967 in this House making the comment that Irish workers were doing a good job in manufacturing industry and that they were not alone keeping abreast in wages but that their productivity was far higher and that they were absorbing the wage increases.

To return to the trade union information document, it says that the increase in the United Kingdom in 1968 was 7.2 per cent. In the previous year, 1967, only the Netherlands, in Europe, had a bigger increase than Ireland where output per man-hour rose by 8.8 per cent, more than double the United Kingdom increase of 4.2 per cent. These are matters which should have been brought to notice. On page 3 of the document under the heading "Unit Costs"——

The Bill before the House at present is a Bill providing for the setting up of this authority. I do not see how the matter of productivity is related to the provisions of the Bill.

I am amazed that the Chair should challenge me on this because the general trend of the debate so far has been on facts which I would consider far outside the scope of the Bill but here I am giving evidence that what the Minister proposes to do is necessary but that when he is doing it he must remember that the statement contained in his opening speech and the statement contained in the speech made by the Minister for Finance the other day—that there was a danger if unit costs rose of this having an effect on what the Bill proposes to do—is not so. With your permission, I think I should be allowed to give those figures. I am only paraphrasing. I am not giving the full details. I propose to make available the document I have to the Official Reporter in case he is not able to follow them.

Is the Deputy sure that reference was contained in my opening statement?

Would the Minister like me to read the opening statement?

From recollection I do not recall the reference.

Question Time will intervene very shortly and perhaps before I finish I may be able to give the Minister the reference to which I am taking exception. With the Chair's permission, I was referring to unit costs and the document says that if productivity rises as fast as hourly earnings, then unit labour costs will remain unchanged. Unit labour costs here mean wages cost per unit of output. But if hourly earnings rise faster than productivity unit labour costs will rise. If a country's labour costs rise faster than its competitors' then, other things being equal, the country's exports of industrial goods will become less competitive price-wise. That is the reason I say this is relevant to this debate. Table 3 shows the percentage change in unit labour costs in manufacturing industries over the last three years. The figures have been taken or derived from the ECE's The European Economy in 1968 and the NIESR's Economic Review, and the countries are listed in alphabetical order.

Unit labour costs in Ireland increased by 7.3 per cent in 1966 or more than any of the other countries listed. The next biggest increase was for the Netherlands where labour costs rose by six per cent. The figure for the United Kingdom was 4.8 per cent. In 1967, however, Ireland was among the three countries in which labour costs fell. This is something which the Minister did not refer to. The figures given are, for this country a drop of .6 per cent, for Western Germany, 1.4 per cent and for Japan 3.2 per cent. In the United Kingdom they rose by 2.4 per cent. Figures for 1968 are available for only ten of the countries. Again, Ireland was among the five countries, Austria, West Germany, Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands, which showed a drop in labour costs, the decline in this country being 1.2 per cent. In the United Kingdom labour costs rose in 1968 by 1.5 per cent. I am making this point because it is quite evident that in this country the industrial drive has not only been successful because of the amount of money and effort put into it but also because the people working in manufacturing industries are doing a very fine job and far too few people are prepared to give them credit for it.

Hear, hear.

Every time we open the newspaper we see headlines about strikes and man-hours lost and so on. We have reached the stage when manufacturers in many cases will sit on the fence after making a ridiculous wage offer and wait for weeks while people are on strike and will eventually concede what is being sought. Then they will blame the trade unions and workers. I have yet to find one of them saying: "These people deserve only the best because they are doing a fine job."

No matter what happens in regard to this Bill the money being spent attempting to establish industries here is money well spent particularly when we can prove that our workers are producing manufactured goods cheaper than in any other country in Europe.

In the interval, during Question Time, when the Deputy is looking at my statement, would he also look at what Deputy Keating had to say where he mentioned that if we were compared with other countries in Europe—"If I were to compare the figures the House would simply laugh ..." Deputy Tully is giving the answer which I was about to give to Deputy Keating.

Of course I am speaking as an individual member of the Labour Party, as I am entitled to do. We do not have to ask the boss before we make a statement. Other parties might benefit from our example.

Who is the boss?

I am surprised that the Deputy does not know the boss in his party.

We may soon be able to show you who is the boss there.

The trouble with the Fianna Fáil Party is that you are so anxious to prove that your boss is wrong that the poor man cannot come in to Question Time.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share